Reviewing and completing the pay equity exercise, I gained a much deeper understanding of how salary structures affect both employees and the organization. The traditional salary structure with many levels often provides clear distinctions between roles and seniority$,$ which can make it easier for employees to see how promotions lead to higher pay. However, this approach can also create limit flexibility in rewarding performance, and sometimes unintentionally contribute to inequities if the criteria for movement between levels are not transparent.

Further, simplified pay bands allow for greater flexibility. They can promote pay equity by deducting unnecessary distinctions and ensuring that people in similar roles with comparable responsibilities are paid within the similar range. This can also help managers make fairer decisions when hiring or promoting, since the focus is on skills, performance, and market value rather than navigating an overly complicated system. Broad pay bands can sometimes feel vague to employees, leaving them uncertain about their growth opportunities if there are fewer $$steps$$ to move through.

After the review of the exercise, I see more value in simplified pay bands. They can minimize inequities and administrative burden, while still allowing room to recognize strong performance. The main challenge lies in ensuring transparency$$employees need to understand how movement within a band occurs and what actions will help them grow. More importantly, a balance of fairness, clarity, and flexibility is definitely key.