Table of Contents
Introduction: The Architecture of Worth – A Blueprint for Value
A pay scale is not a mere list of numbers in a spreadsheet; it is the fundamental architectural blueprint of an organization.
It is the invisible structure that dictates flow, hierarchy, and connection within the corporate body.
Like the master plan of a city, it can be designed to create thriving, equitable communities where talent flourishes and commerce flows freely, or it can devolve into a confusing sprawl of disjointed, frustrating slums where progress stalls and resentment festers.1
This blueprint does not merely allocate financial resources; it communicates an organization’s deepest values, revealing with stark clarity what—and who—it truly deems worthy.3
It is the tangible expression of an organization’s philosophy on fairness, merit, and opportunity.
This report will deconstruct the architecture of compensation, moving from the foundational elements and the construction process to a comprehensive tour of modern stylistic models.
We will explore not only the technical schematics of how these structures are built but also the lived, human experience within their walls—the profound psychology of the paycheck, the visceral frustrations of inequity, and the quiet triumphs of fair recognition.
Ultimately, this analysis will argue that the future of compensation design is evolving beyond rigid, static blueprints.
The most forward-thinking organizations are cultivating living, adaptive ecosystems—more akin to a resilient natural network than a concrete edifice—that are designed not just for order, but for fostering resilience, growth, and enduring shared success.
This comprehensive exploration is divided into five parts.
Part I will lay the foundation, defining the core purpose and structural elements of a pay scale.
Part II will detail the architect’s process, outlining the meticulous steps required to design and construct a sound compensation system.
Part III will offer a tour of different architectural styles, from traditional models to more contemporary, flexible designs.
Part IV will shift focus to the human dimension, examining the psychological impact and personal stories that unfold within these structures.
Finally, Part V will address the critical challenges of structural integrity, particularly the modern imperative of pay transparency, before the conclusion points toward a more organic, ecosystem-based future for compensation design.
Part I: Laying the Foundation – The Blueprint of Compensation
Before any structure can be erected, its purpose must be defined and its core materials understood.
A compensation system is no different.
Its architecture begins with a clear strategic cornerstone and is built from a set of fundamental, interlocking components.
Understanding these elements is the first step toward appreciating how a simple set of numbers can shape the destiny of an entire organization.
Section 1.1: The Cornerstone – Defining the Pay Scale’s Strategic Purpose
At its most basic level, a pay scale is a formalized framework an organization uses to determine employee compensation, considering factors such as job role, level of responsibility, individual experience, and performance.5
It is the primary strategic tool designed to achieve the three foundational goals of any human capital strategy: to attract, retain, and motivate a qualified workforce.6
A well-conceived pay scale moves beyond reactive, ad-hoc salary negotiations, which quickly become unsustainable and inequitable as an organization grows.8
Instead, it establishes a proactive, consistent system for valuing work.
The strategic “why” behind this framework is multifaceted.
A pay scale is not merely an administrative convenience; it is a strategic partner in the business.1
Its purpose is to create a “willingness among qualified persons to join the organization and to perform the tasks required by the organization”.6
To do this, it must strike a delicate balance.
On one hand, it must operate within the organization’s financial constraints, ensuring affordability and sustainability.9
On the other, it must be robust enough to reward skill and experience, thereby fueling motivation and engagement.5
It is the organization’s definitive answer to the critical question, “How much is enough?” The answer must be sufficient to attract new talent away from competitors, retain existing high-performers so they don’t seek opportunities elsewhere, and engage the entire workforce to perform at their best.7
When designed effectively, it fosters a culture of fairness and transparency, which are essential for building trust and driving performance.5
Section 1.2: The Structural Elements – Deconstructing Grades, Ranges, and Steps
To understand how a pay scale functions, it is useful to employ an architectural analogy.
Imagine the entire compensation structure as a multi-story building, meticulously designed to provide order, clarity, and a clear path for upward progression.
This building is constructed from three primary elements: pay grades (the floors), salary ranges (the dimensions of the rooms), and steps (the progression within those rooms).
Pay Grades as Floors
Pay grades are the hierarchical levels of the building, serving as markers that delineate different tiers of job responsibility, complexity, and impact within the organization.9
Just as a building has multiple floors, an organization has multiple levels of work.
The higher you ascend, the more complex the role becomes, and correspondingly, the greater the compensation opportunities.9
For example, a junior analyst might be on a lower “floor” than a senior director.
The number of floors needed depends on the size and complexity of the organization; a small company with fewer than 100 jobs may only require between two and twelve distinct pay levels.6
A well-known example of a highly structured system is the U.S. Federal Government’s General Schedule (GS), which features 15 distinct grades, from the entry-level GS-1 to the senior-level GS-15.11
Assigning jobs to the correct floor requires a deep understanding of each role’s contribution to organizational success, coupled with external market data.9
Salary Ranges as Room Dimensions
If grades are the floors, then salary ranges are the dimensions of the rooms on each floor.
A salary range acts as a “guardrail,” establishing the minimum and maximum pay rate for any position assigned to that particular grade level.9
This component is critical for maintaining financial balance while simultaneously creating space to reward an employee’s individual experience, skills, and performance.9
An entry-level employee and a seasoned veteran might both occupy the same grade (floor), but their salaries will fall at different points within the established range (room).
The width of this range is a crucial design decision.
A traditional salary range often spans about 30% to 50% from its minimum to its maximum.13
For instance, a common model sets the minimum at 85% of the range’s midpoint and the maximum at 115%.6
This design is not arbitrary; a range of this width can allow a new employee to increase their earnings by as much as 35% over time through performance and tenure, without requiring a promotion to a higher grade.6
This provides powerful incentives for growth and mastery within a role.
Steps as Progress Within a Room
Steps, or increments, represent the pathway for movement across a room.
They are predefined, periodic pay increases within a single grade that reward an employee’s growth, performance, or tenure over time.9
This mechanism allows employees to see a clear, predictable path to higher earnings even if a promotion isn’t immediately available, sending a powerful message that loyalty and consistent performance are valued.9
In the GS system, for example, each of the 15 grades is subdivided into 10 steps.
Each step increase is worth approximately 3% of the employee’s salary, and progression through the steps is based on a combination of acceptable performance and longevity, with waiting periods increasing at higher steps.11
It takes a total of 18 years to advance from step 1 to step 10 within a single grade, demonstrating a strong emphasis on rewarding seniority.11
For other organizations, progression through steps may be tied more directly to annual performance evaluations, ensuring merit-based movement.9
The interplay of these three components is far more than a technical exercise; it is a profound statement of organizational culture.
A structure with many narrow grades and slow, tenure-based step progression—like a skyscraper with countless small, identical floors—communicates that the primary path to significant reward is vertical promotion.
It fosters a classic “up-or-out” mentality, where hierarchical advancement is paramount.
In contrast, a structure with fewer, much wider grades (a model known as broadbanding) and performance-based movement within those expansive ranges de-emphasizes job titles and instead rewards the development of skills and the demonstration of impact in one’s current role.
This is akin to a loft-style building with large, open floors, encouraging horizontal mastery over vertical climbing.
Therefore, the seemingly dry, technical choice of how to combine grades, ranges, and steps is, in fact, a deliberate act of cultural design that shapes career paths, defines success, and dictates the very nature of motivation within the organization.16
Part II: The Architect’s Process – From Concept to Construction
Building a sound and equitable pay structure is a disciplined, multi-stage process, much like an architect designing and overseeing the construction of a major building.
It requires careful surveying of the internal landscape, a keen understanding of the external environment, the drawing of precise plans, and a thoughtful process for implementation and maintenance.
Rushing or skipping steps can lead to a structure that is unstable, unfair, and ultimately unfit for its purpose.
Section 2.1: Surveying the Land – Job Analysis and Internal Evaluation
The entire process begins with a foundational, inward-looking step: understanding and evaluating every role within the organization.
This is the architect’s initial site survey, a critical phase of mapping the terrain before any plans can be drawn.
The first principle is to define the positions with clarity and detail.6
This involves creating comprehensive job descriptions that go beyond a simple title.
Each description should act as a miniature blueprint, specifying the reporting relationship, primary responsibilities, key specifications, and the necessary job requirements such as education, training, and experience.6
This is not a task to be taken lightly.
It is often a tedious but essential process that requires HR leaders to work closely with managers and employees, conducting surveys or interviews to discover what people
really do on a day-to-day basis, rather than relying on outdated or generic descriptions.13
Some organizations formalize this with a “job content tool” that supervisors must complete to initiate an evaluation.17
Once jobs are clearly defined, they must be evaluated to determine their relative worth to the organization.13
This is where the architect begins to establish the building’s hierarchy, deciding the relative importance and complexity of each space.
Several methods exist for this internal evaluation:
- Qualitative Methods: These are simpler but more subjective. The Ranking Method involves comparing all jobs and ranking them in a single hierarchy from most to least important based on overall difficulty and responsibility. This approach is straightforward and often sufficient for smaller firms with 100 or fewer employees.6 The
Classification Method is slightly more structured, involving the creation of predefined grade classifications (e.g., Coordinator, Manager, Director, Vice President) into which jobs are sorted based on their scope and skill level.18 - Quantitative Methods: These methods aim for greater objectivity. The Point-Factor Method is the most common and complex quantitative approach. It uses a predetermined scale to assign points to key job elements or “compensable factors” like skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The total point score for a job determines its placement in the hierarchy.13 The
Factor Comparison Method is a sophisticated hybrid that combines ranking and point-factor principles. It uses key “benchmark jobs”—roles for which pay is known to be appropriate—to assign monetary values directly to the compensable factors, which are then used to price other jobs.18
To ensure this evaluation is conducted fairly, many organizations establish a job evaluation committee.
This group, often comprising HR professionals and managers, reviews the job descriptions, organizational charts, and other supporting documents to formally assign each position to its appropriate pay grade.17
Section 2.2: Zoning the Neighborhood – Market Analysis and External Benchmarking
No organization exists in a vacuum.
After mapping the internal landscape, the architect must look outward to understand the surrounding neighborhood.
A pay structure must be externally competitive to attract and retain the necessary talent.6
This phase begins with defining a compensation philosophy, a formal statement that explains the “why” behind an organization’s approach to pay.3
A critical component of this philosophy is deciding on a market position: does the company want to
lead, lag, or match the market?.13
A market leader deliberately pays above the average to attract top talent and is often viewed as a premier employer.
Matching the market means paying on par with competitors, a common and defensible strategy.
Lagging the market is rarely an intentional choice and puts a company at a significant disadvantage in recruiting and retention.13
This philosophy can be nuanced; a tech startup, for instance, might decide to lead the market for its crucial software developer roles (e.g., paying at the 75th percentile) while matching the market for administrative positions (e.g., paying at the 50th percentile).3
With a philosophy in place, the organization can conduct a competitive market analysis, also known as salary benchmarking.18
This involves gathering external data to see what other companies are paying for similar roles.
It is vital to use multiple, reliable data sources to get a well-rounded and accurate picture.19
These sources include:
- Government Databases: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) offers reliable data through resources like the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics program.13
- Crowdsourced Data Platforms: Websites like Glassdoor, Indeed, and Payscale provide real-time insights, though they must be used with caution. It is a certainty that job applicants are consulting these sites, so it is imperative for employers to be aware of the data presented there.13
- Professional Salary Surveys: Consulting firms and professional associations (e.g., Robert Half, Willis Towers Watson) publish detailed industry-specific salary guides that offer tailored benchmarks.19
During this process, it is absolutely critical to compare jobs based on their detailed descriptions, not just their titles.
Different organizations define roles differently, and an “apples-to-apples” comparison is essential for accuracy.6
A key tool used in this analysis is the compa-ratio.
Calculated as (Actual Salary / Midpoint of Pay Range) x 100, this simple formula reveals where an employee’s salary stands in relation to the established market midpoint for their role.13
A compa-ratio of 100% indicates the employee is paid exactly at the market rate.
A ratio below 100% means they are paid below the midpoint, while a ratio above 100% means they are paid above it.
This metric is indispensable for identifying potential pay inequities and managing an employee’s progression through a salary range.
Section 2.3: Drawing the Plans – Designing and Implementing the Structure
With both internal and external analyses complete, the architect can finally draw the detailed blueprints for the pay structure.
First, jobs with similar internal value (from the job evaluation) and external market value (from benchmarking) are grouped together into pay grades.13
For each of these grades, a
salary range with a defined minimum, midpoint, and maximum is created.13
The
midpoint of the range is typically anchored to the market data, aligned with the company’s compensation philosophy (e.g., set at the 60th percentile of the market if the strategy is to lead slightly).2
The minimum and maximum are then established around this midpoint.
For example, the minimum might be 85% of the midpoint and the maximum 115%, creating a functional range for pay decisions.6
A critical design feature is ensuring that the salary ranges of adjacent grades overlap.
This overlap provides more cost-effective career progression, as it allows an employee to receive a meaningful raise upon promotion without creating an untenably large jump in salary that could strain the budget.6
Once the structure is designed, it must be installed.
This is the “move-in” day, and it cannot succeed without a robust and transparent communication strategy.6
Employees must understand the new system and how it affects them.
Best practice involves in-person conversations with managers, followed by official letters or memos that clearly explain how the pay scale works and what data sources were used to determine the figures.6
A crucial part of installation is making adjustments for existing employees.
Any employee whose current salary falls below the new minimum for their grade must be brought up to scale; this is often called a “progression to minimum” increase.6
For employees whose pay is
above the new maximum for their grade (a situation known as “red-circling”), the organization has a few options.
One is to freeze the employee’s base salary and offer future increases in the form of one-time bonuses, which do not compound the issue.
Another is to consider promoting the employee to the next pay grade if their skills and responsibilities warrant it.13
Finally, the structure must be maintained.
A pay plan is not a static document to be filed away; it is a living system that requires regular upkeep to remain sound.
The grades and levels must be reviewed at least once a year to account for market shifts, inflation, and changes in business strategy.6
During this annual review, leaders must ask critical questions: Is the plan working? Are we attracting the right talent? Are they performing well? What is our turnover rate? The ultimate measure of success is whether the compensation plan is helping the organization achieve its core business objectives.6
The very process of creating a pay scale contains a profound lesson.
While the research outlines a logical, step-by-step procedure, a deeper examination reveals that the way the plan is built is as important as the final numbers.
A technically perfect pay structure that is developed in secret and imposed from on high will almost certainly be met with suspicion, distrust, and resistance.26
The numbers may be fair, but if the process feels unfair, the entire initiative can fail.
Conversely, when organizations involve employees in the process—soliciting their input on job descriptions, forming focus groups to discuss benefits, or creating joint working groups to oversee implementation—they build understanding, credibility, and buy-in.6
This transforms the exercise from a top-down mandate into a collaborative effort.
The process itself becomes a powerful communication tool, demonstrating respect and fostering a sense of procedural justice.
In this light, the final “product” is not just the pay scale document; it is the trust and confidence that the transparent and inclusive process has created.
Part III: A Tour of Architectural Styles – Models for the Modern Workforce
Just as buildings can be designed in a multitude of architectural styles, from classical temples to modernist glass houses, pay structures can be built according to different philosophies.
Each model reflects a distinct set of values and is suited to a different type of organization and workforce.
Understanding these “styles” is crucial for any leader aiming to design a compensation system that is not only functional but also aligned with their company’s unique culture and strategy.
Section 3.1: The Classical Order – The Traditional Pay Structure and Its Modern Critique
The traditional pay structure, also known as a graded or hierarchical structure, is the most established and historically common model.
It is the architectural equivalent of a classical building, defined by its rigid columns, clear order, and unyielding sense of hierarchy.21
This style organizes compensation into a series of many, relatively narrow pay grades, each corresponding to a specific job level.8
The salary ranges within these grades are typically tight, and significant pay progression is achieved primarily through promotion from one grade to the next.16
The primary strengths of this classical order are its predictability and simplicity.
It provides a clear, systematic, and easily understood framework where pay increases are consistently based on tenure or performance within a defined system.15
This stability and perceived fairness make it particularly well-suited to large, bureaucratic organizations with a traditional pyramid structure, such as government agencies or unionized workplaces, where consistency and equity are paramount.12
However, the very qualities that make the traditional model strong also expose its greatest weaknesses in the context of the modern, dynamic workforce.
The facade of this classical edifice has begun to show significant cracks.
Its chief critique is its rigidity.32
In fast-changing job markets, these inflexible structures struggle to keep pace with the demand for competitive salaries for high-demand skills.32
Employees often feel restricted by the fixed salary bands and the slow, lock-step progression, especially when they reach the top of their grade and feel there is nowhere left to grow without a promotion.8
This “one-size-fits-all” approach lacks individualization; it often fails to adequately reward unique skills or top-performing employees, whose earnings become limited by the system’s ceiling.32
As a result, talented individuals may be drawn to organizations offering more flexible and responsive compensation packages, making the traditional model a liability in the war for talent.32
Section 3.2: The Modernist Loft – Broadbanding and the Pursuit of Flexibility
As a direct response to the perceived constraints of the classical order, the broadbanding model emerged.
This is the architectural equivalent of a modernist, open-plan loft apartment—a style that dismantles internal walls to create wide, flexible spaces.
Broadbanding collapses the many narrow grades of a traditional structure into a few, much wider “bands”.15
For example, instead of having separate grades and ranges for a Sales Associate, a Senior Sales Associate, and a Lead Sales Associate, a broadbanded structure might group all three into a single “Sales” band with a vast salary range, perhaps from $60,000 to $120,000.31
The primary advantage of this model is its immense flexibility.
It empowers managers to reward significant skill growth, increased responsibility, and outstanding performance with substantial pay increases, all without the need for a formal promotion or title change.31
This makes it an ideal fit for flatter, more agile organizations like startups, where roles are fluid and responsibilities can change rapidly.31
By de-emphasizing hierarchical titles, broadbanding better aligns compensation with an individual’s actual performance and contribution to business needs.15
Yet, the greatest strength of broadbanding—its flexibility—is also its greatest potential weakness.
Without the clear guardrails of a traditional graded system, broadbanding can create perceptions of pay inequity and favoritism if not managed with extreme care and transparency.30
With such wide salary bands, it may become unclear to employees how their compensation aligns with their skills and performance, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction.32
Furthermore, the lack of defined hierarchical levels can make career progression feel ambiguous.
Employees accustomed to the clear motivational milestones of promotions may feel that their long-term growth path is uncertain, potentially limiting internal mobility and retention.8
Section 3.3: The Glass House – Market-Based and Transparent Models
The market-based structure represents another shift in philosophy, akin to an architectural “glass house” that prioritizes a direct, transparent connection to the outside world.
In this model, pay levels are set primarily based on external market data—what competitors are paying for similar jobs.15
Internal job evaluations and hierarchies, while still a factor, become secondary to the realities of the talent market.
The organization effectively lets the market dictate its pay scales to ensure it remains competitive.
The undeniable advantage of this approach is its ability to attract and retain top talent.
In a labor market where, according to one 2024 survey, nearly two-thirds of professionals seeking new opportunities are doing so for higher pay, basing compensation on market norms is a powerful recruiting tool.31
It ensures an organization’s offers are competitive and can help retain key employees who might otherwise be lured away by higher salaries elsewhere.31
This model, however, is not without its risks.
An over-reliance on external data can lead to a neglect of internal equity.
This frequently results in pay compression, a pernicious issue where the salaries of new hires, set at current high market rates, begin to approach or even exceed the pay of more tenured, experienced employees in the same roles.8
This can be devastating to morale and create a sense of unfairness among loyal staff.
Additionally, reliable market data can be expensive to acquire and maintain, and it may be incomplete or inaccurate, especially for niche or unique roles that do not have clear market equivalents.31
A modern evolution of this approach can be seen in the transparent compensation models of companies like GitLab and Checkly.
These organizations take the “glass house” concept to its logical conclusion by using public compensation calculators.
These tools transparently link an employee’s pay to their role, seniority, and geographic location, all based on clearly defined market data, effectively eliminating salary negotiation and making the entire structure visible to all.35
Section 3.4: The Custom Build – Competency and Skill-Based Pay
The most personalized architectural style is the competency-based (or skill-based) pay structure.
This is the “custom build,” a home designed not around a generic floor plan but around the specific needs and capabilities of its inhabitant.
This model compensates employees based on their demonstrated skills, knowledge, and competencies, rather than their formal job title or tenure.36
It is a system that rewards individuals for what they
can do and what they have learned, not just the organizational box they occupy.
The motivational power of this model is its greatest strength.
It creates a direct incentive for employees to engage in continuous learning and professional development, as they can see a clear path to higher earnings through the acquisition of new, valuable skills.36
This fosters a culture of self-improvement that can drive company-wide innovation and success.
By making the criteria for advancement explicit, it also increases transparency and can improve retention by making employees feel that their personal growth is genuinely valued.37
Case studies have demonstrated the potential of this model: one rigorous study of an auto component plant found that implementing a skill-based plan led to 58% greater productivity, 16% lower labor costs, and an 82% reduction in scrap.40
Another company successfully tied manager pay increases to the development of specific leadership competencies, such as “leading for results” and “building workforce effectiveness”.40
The primary challenge of this custom-built approach is its inherent subjectivity.
It can be difficult to define and accurately measure which skills and competencies are most valuable to the organization’s bottom line.36
If the evaluation process is not perceived as objective and fair, it can quickly lead to accusations of favoritism and undermine the entire system’s credibility.36
Furthermore, it requires robust and sophisticated systems to track skill acquisition, certify competency levels, and manage the corresponding pay adjustments, which can be a significant administrative burden.8
To provide a clear, strategic overview of these distinct models, the following table offers a comparative analysis.
| Structure Type | Core Principle (Architectural Metaphor) | Pros | Cons | Best Fit For |
| Traditional (Graded) | Hierarchy & Order (Classical Building) | Predictable, simple, clear progression via promotion, promotes internal equity. 15 | Rigid, slow to adapt to market changes, can demotivate top performers, risk of stagnation. 8 | Large, stable, hierarchical organizations (e.g., government, unions) with a focus on tenure and consistency. 12 |
| Broadbanding | Flexibility & Openness (Modernist Loft) | Highly flexible, rewards skill growth without promotion, empowers managers, good for fluid roles. 15 | Potential for perceived inequity/favoritism, unclear career paths, can be difficult to manage without strong oversight. 8 | Flat, agile organizations, startups, and companies where roles and responsibilities change frequently. 31 |
| Market-Based | External Competitiveness (Glass House) | Attracts and retains top talent, ensures pay is competitive with the industry, straightforward for common roles. 31 | Can lead to pay compression, neglects internal equity, data can be costly/inaccurate, difficult for unique roles. 8 | Companies in highly competitive talent markets with industry-typical roles that can be easily benchmarked. 8 |
| Competency/Skill-Based | Individual Capability (Custom Build) | Motivates continuous learning, transparent path to growth, rewards mastery, can reduce turnover and boost productivity. 36 | Subjective, hard to measure value of skills, risk of perceived favoritism, requires complex administration and tracking. 8 | Industries where technical growth adds clear value (e.g., IT, manufacturing, skilled trades) and a culture of learning is prized. 8 |
Part IV: The Lived Experience – The Human Stories Within the Walls
The architectural plans and structural models of compensation are essential, but they only tell half the story.
To truly understand a pay scale, one must move beyond the blueprints and explore the lived experience of the people inside.
Compensation is a deeply psychological and emotional affair.
The numbers on a paycheck are interpreted through a lens of fairness, status, and self-worth, and the design of the pay structure has profound consequences for the individuals who must navigate its corridors every day.
Section 4.1: The Psychology of the Paycheck – Fairness, Status, and the Salary Mirror
Compensation is rarely just about money.
For most professionals, a paycheck is far more than a means to an end; it is a powerful and deeply personal symbol of social status, recognition, and value.41
The salary acts as a “salary mirror,” reflecting back to an employee the organization’s assessment of their worth.41
This reflection has a significant impact on motivation, engagement, and self-esteem.
Crucially, research shows that the absolute value of a salary is often less important than its perceived fairness.
Beyond a certain income threshold, more money does not reliably lead to greater happiness or job satisfaction.41
What matters more is an employee’s belief that their compensation is equitable and just.
This sense of fairness is highly subjective and is heavily influenced by
peer comparisons.41
A professional may be objectively well-paid, but if they discover a peer with similar responsibilities and experience is earning significantly more, their satisfaction can plummet.
A high salary can feel entirely unfulfilling if it is perceived as the result of an unfair system or if it comes at the cost of extreme burnout or ethical conflict.41
Emotional responses like pride, envy, and insecurity are deeply intertwined with one’s income, meaning that pay satisfaction is dictated as much by its social and psychological context as by its numerical value.41
This dynamic creates a powerful psychological feedback loop.
When compensation is perceived as fair and reflective of one’s contributions, it can boost self-worth, confidence, and motivation.
Conversely, when an employee feels undervalued, it can trigger self-doubt, insecurity, and disengagement, even if the work itself is meaningful.41
In some cases, feeling undercompensated can trigger a psychological defense mechanism known as “compensation,” where an individual strives for perfection or overachievement in an unconscious effort to make up for their perceived inadequacy or failure.42
This highlights how a poorly designed pay structure can have tangible and detrimental effects on an employee’s mental health and well-being.
Section 4.2: Voices from the Blueprint – Narratives of Pay (In)Equity
The most potent way to understand the human impact of compensation architecture is to listen to the stories of those who have lived within its walls.
The following vignettes, drawn from real-world accounts, illustrate the profound emotional and professional consequences of the structural choices organizations make.
Vignette 1: The Shock of Discovery
One female executive, a member of her company’s senior management team, accidentally discovered a devastating truth.
An errant email revealed the pay bands for her level, and she noticed there was one fewer person in the highest band than there were people on her team.
She was the odd one O.T.43
After cautiously confirming with trusted male colleagues, her worst fears were realized: they were being paid between 50% and 100% more than she was—a difference of tens of thousands of dollars.
The emotional impact was immediate and visceral.
She described feeling “livid, stunned, and devastated.” It was a profound sense of “betrayal,” a realization that for years, while she sat at the same table and tackled the same challenges, her contributions were officially valued at “a fraction of theirs”.43
This story is a stark testament to the destructive power of inconsistent and opaque pay practices, which can allow gross inequities to fester for years, hidden from view.26
Vignette 2: The Insult of Inaction
Another story comes from a female software engineer who, through diligent research, created a spreadsheet proving she was paid $25,000 less in base salary than a male peer doing identical work.44
She presented this clear, data-driven evidence to her manager.
Her complaint was kicked up the chain to HR, which launched an internal investigation.
The result? The company determined she was entitled to a “$0 adjustment”.44
The initial discovery was “incredibly insulting,” but the company’s dismissive response compounded the injury.
It transformed a feeling of disappointment into a declaration that her claim had no merit, shattering her trust in the organization and ultimately leading to her resignation.
This highlights a critical point: a flawed or unresponsive process for addressing pay concerns can be even more damaging than the initial inequity itself.
Vignette 3: The “Golden Handcuffs”
Pay structure design can have unintended consequences that are not overtly discriminatory but are nonetheless damaging.
One employee recounted how their company decided to eliminate a 15% annual bonus and instead roll that amount into employees’ monthly base pay.45
While this seemed like a positive change, it had a pernicious long-term effect.
A large number of employees were suddenly being paid significantly above the market rate for their roles.
This created “golden handcuffs”: they were unhappy and disengaged in their jobs but could not find a comparable role at another company without taking a substantial pay cut.
The company ended up with a cohort of overpaid, unmotivated employees who stayed far longer than they should have, stagnating both their own careers and the organization’s vitality.45
This serves as a cautionary tale about the systemic effects of pay decisions and the importance of considering long-term market alignment.
Vignette 4: The Frustration of Nepotism
Trust in a pay system can be instantly eroded when decisions appear to be based on factors other than merit.
One employee on Reddit shared their frustration after accidentally seeing the pay rate of a coworker—the owner’s mother.46
The mother was paid more, despite being less competent, requiring constant correction of her work, and not taking on any extra responsibilities.
The employee, who consistently went above and beyond, felt “suddenly devalued” and “foolish” for believing their extra effort mattered.
The discovery made them question the integrity of the entire system and the sincerity of the owner’s praise.
This narrative demonstrates how easily a sense of fairness can be shattered by even a single instance of perceived nepotism or arbitrary decision-making.46
These personal stories are more than just isolated incidents of bad luck or individual unfairness.
They are the human symptoms of systemic, architectural flaws.
When an organization has inconsistent pay practices, relies on ad-hoc decisions by individual managers, lacks transparency, or fails to regularly benchmark its salaries against the market, these are the predictable and inevitable outcomes.26
The anger, betrayal, and frustration expressed in these stories are the emotional cost of a poorly designed or negligently maintained compensation structure.
This recognition transforms the narrative from one of “bad things happening to good people” to a more incisive understanding that “bad systems create bad outcomes,” linking the human drama directly to the need for sound architectural principles.
Part V: Structural Integrity – Challenges, Cracks, and Renovations
Like any physical structure, a pay system is subject to stress, wear, and the need for ongoing maintenance.
Without vigilant oversight, cracks can appear in the foundation, leading to instability and a loss of confidence.
This section examines the most common structural failures that plague compensation systems and explores the complex, necessary renovation project that has come to define the modern era of pay: the move toward transparency.
Section 5.1: When the Walls Move In – The Problem of Pay Compression and Inequity
Two of the most dangerous structural flaws that can develop in a pay system are pay compression and pay inequity.
While related, they are distinct issues that can severely undermine the integrity of the entire framework.
Pay Compression is the systematic narrowing of the pay gap between new hires and more experienced, tenured employees.21
This phenomenon typically occurs when the external market rate for talent rises faster than an organization’s internal salary adjustments.
To attract new employees, a company may be forced to offer starting salaries that are close to, or in some cases even higher than, what they are paying their long-serving staff in similar roles.8
This creates a deeply demoralizing situation for veteran employees, who see their loyalty and experience effectively devalued.
It is a common consequence of market-based pay structures that are not coupled with a rigorous internal equity review process.32
Pay Inequity, on the other hand, refers to unjustified pay disparities between employees performing similar work, often correlated with demographic factors like gender or race.47
This is not merely a morale issue; it is a “compensation time bomb” that erodes trust, poisons culture, and creates massive legal and reputational risk.47
Research continues to show persistent pay gaps; for example, one in three employers admits to having no pay equity strategy at all, and in female-dominated fields like nursing, women still earn significantly less than men in identical roles.47
The root causes of these structural failures are often systemic.
They flourish in environments that rely on scattered, error-prone spreadsheets for compensation management, where a single formula error can have cascading consequences.47
They are exacerbated when individual managers are left to make pay decisions based on gut feelings or assumptions rather than hard data and clear guidelines.47
And they are almost inevitable in organizations that lack a coherent, documented compensation philosophy to guide their decisions, leading to the “random salary numbers” that breed inconsistency and distrust.3
Section 5.2: The Transparency Paradox – The Promise and Peril of Open Salaries
The single most significant force reshaping compensation architecture today is the demand for pay transparency.
This is no longer a niche concept but a growing legal and cultural imperative.25
With the rise of salary-sharing websites and a wave of new legislation requiring pay range disclosure in job postings, the era of total compensation secrecy is over.
The “digitization and democratization of compensation information” means that a story about an organization’s pay practices will emerge, whether the organization chooses to control that narrative or not.4
This shift presents a paradox, offering both immense promise and significant peril.
The Promise (The “Pros”): Transparency is a powerful force for good.
It builds trust, demonstrates integrity, and holds organizations accountable for their decisions.27
It is a potent tool for talent attraction; one study found that 82% of U.S. workers are more likely to consider applying for a job if the pay range is included in the listing.27
Most importantly, transparency forces companies to confront and correct hidden pay gaps.
When pay practices are brought into the light, it becomes much harder for inequities based on gender, race, or other biases to persist.27
The Peril (The “Cons”): The transition to transparency is fraught with challenges.
It can create significant workplace tension and demotivation if employees perceive disparities, even if those differences are justified by performance or experience.27
Some employees view the sharing of salary information as a fundamental invasion of privacy.50
There is also a risk that transparency can lead to
salary flattening, where pay converges toward a median, diminishing the organization’s ability to reward top performers and potentially reducing motivation.25
It can also shift bargaining dynamics, giving employers an easy out (“I can’t pay you more because then I’d have to give everyone a raise”) and reducing negotiation power for both sides.25
Finally, publicizing salary ranges gives competitors a clear view of your compensation strategy, making it easier for them to poach top talent with slightly better offers.25
Deep Dive Case Study: Buffer’s Radical Transparency
No company embodies the principles and challenges of pay transparency more than Buffer, a social media management company that has been publicly sharing all employee salaries since 2013.52
Buffer’s journey began with a simple formula and a core value to “Default to Transparency”.53
Over the years, their system has evolved into a more nuanced 2024 “salary system” designed to be transparent, simple, fair, and generous.52
Their current formula is essentially
(Buffer Benchmark × Cost of Living Multiplier) + Salary Choice.52
The benchmark is based on the 70th-90th percentile of market data for a mid-career role, which is then extrapolated across all seniority levels.
A cost-of-living multiplier adjusts this figure for employees in different geographic bands, and a legacy “salary choice” option adds $10,000 for some employees who opted for less equity.52
To ensure fairness, the company maintains a strict “no negotiation” policy for all roles.54
The impact has been profound.
In the month after first publishing their salaries, job applications to Buffer more than doubled.54
The policy has become a cornerstone of their employer brand, building immense trust and contributing to high employee retention, with nearly half the team having been with the company for over five years.52
However, the company is also open about the downsides.
Maintaining this system requires a significant amount of work and scrutiny.
It slows down decision-making, as any change must be carefully considered for its system-wide impact.
It also entails higher payroll costs, as the company is publicly committed to paying generously, and it must respect the wishes of some employees who are uncomfortable having their salaries shared publicly.52
The debate around transparency is often framed as a binary choice between total secrecy and radical openness.
This is a false dichotomy.
Transparency is a journey, not a destination, and it exists on a spectrum.4
The following table outlines a practical framework for this journey, allowing an organization to choose the level of transparency that aligns with its culture and readiness.
| Level | Description | What is Shared | Pros | Cons |
| Level 1: Opaque | Traditional secrecy. Pay is a “black box.” | Nothing is shared publicly or internally. Pay is determined through private negotiation. | Maximum flexibility for employer in negotiation; protects employee privacy. 27 | Breeds distrust and suspicion; high risk of inequity and legal challenges; poor for talent attraction. 26 |
| Level 2: Process Transparency | The “how” is shared, but not the “what.” | The company’s compensation philosophy, job evaluation process, and criteria for raises/bonuses are shared internally. 49 | Builds some trust by explaining the logic; helps managers have more consistent pay conversations. 50 | Employees still lack context for their own pay; does not address the “am I paid fairly?” question directly. |
| Level 3: Range Transparency (Internal) | Employees can see their own position’s context. | Employees are told the salary range for their own specific job grade. 4 | Empowers employees to understand their growth potential within their role; provides a clear basis for career conversations. 4 | Can create dissatisfaction if an employee is at the low end of the range; may lead to questions about ranges for other roles. |
| Level 4: Range Transparency (External) | Compliance and competitive positioning. | Salary ranges are included in all external job postings, as required by law in many jurisdictions. 25 | Improves quality and quantity of applicants; filters out candidates with misaligned expectations; ensures legal compliance. 51 | Competitors can see your pay strategy; requires a well-defined and defensible structure. 25 |
| Level 5: Radical Transparency | All numbers are public. | All individual salaries or a detailed formula/calculator are published, often both internally and externally. (e.g., Buffer, GitLab) 35 | Maximum trust and accountability; powerful employer branding; virtually eliminates pay gaps based on negotiation or bias. 53 | Potential for employee discomfort/privacy concerns; can flatten salaries; reduces negotiation flexibility; requires immense administrative effort. 27 |
Section 5.3: Maintaining the Edifice – The Ongoing Work of Compensation Management
A pay structure, once built, is not a monument to be admired from afar.
It is a functional building that requires constant maintenance to ensure its structural integrity.
This ongoing work of compensation management is critical for the long-term success of the system.
First and foremost, the structure must be treated as a living document.
It requires regular, systematic reviews—at least annually—to ensure it remains both externally competitive and internally equitable.6
Market rates fluctuate, inflation impacts purchasing power, and the strategic needs of the business evolve.
A pay plan that was competitive three years ago may be lagging today, putting the organization at risk of losing talent.
Second, the human element cannot be neglected.
A compensation plan is only as good as the managers who administer it.
It is essential to provide robust training for managers on how to have clear, consistent, and sometimes difficult conversations about pay.25
They must understand the company’s compensation philosophy, be able to explain how an individual’s pay was determined, and guide employees through their potential career and earnings progression.
Without this training, even the best-designed system can be undermined by inconsistent application and poor communication.
Finally, organizations must equip themselves with modern tools.
The complexity of modern compensation—managing multiple job families, benchmarking across different markets, analyzing for pay equity, and modeling the impact of changes—has far outstripped the capabilities of spreadsheets.47
Relying on manual processes is not only inefficient but also dangerously prone to errors that can lead to significant financial and legal consequences.
Dedicated compensation management software is no longer a luxury but a necessity for ensuring data integrity, providing real-time insights for strategic decision-making, and managing the intricate architecture of worth in a scalable and defensible Way.20
Conclusion: Designing the Future – From Static Blueprints to Living Networks
The architectural metaphor, with its focus on blueprints, structures, and foundations, has provided a powerful framework for understanding the orderly and systematic nature of compensation design.
It has allowed us to deconstruct the components, analyze the construction process, and tour the various stylistic models that organizations use to bring order to the complex world of pay.
However, the most innovative and resilient organizations are beginning to sense the limitations of this metaphor.
A building, however well-designed, is ultimately a static, rigid object.
The future of work demands something more dynamic, more adaptive, and more alive.
The future of compensation, therefore, is less like a building and more like a mycelial network—the vast, interconnected web of fungal threads that underpins a forest ecosystem.55
This shift in metaphor signals a profound shift in philosophy.
First, a mycelial network is defined by its interconnectedness.
It breaks down the idea of isolated, individual entities and reveals a system where everything is connected, sharing resources and information.56
A modern organization functions in the same way, with success depending on cross-functional collaboration, not siloed performance.
A compensation system modeled on this principle would move beyond rewarding only individual, vertical achievement and find new ways to recognize and incentivize the collaborative, connective work that strengthens the entire organization.
Second, mycelial networks are masters of resource and information flow.
They are the “internet of the forest,” transporting vital nutrients and chemical signals to where they are needed most, ensuring the health of the entire ecosystem.57
A forward-thinking pay system must do the same.
It must transparently and efficiently distribute rewards (the “nutrients”) and communicate strategic priorities and values (the “information”) across the entire organization, nourishing growth and fostering a collective sense of purpose.
Finally, and most importantly, mycelium is a model of adaptability and resilience.
When one pathway is blocked or a resource is depleted, the network does not collapse; it reroutes, finds new connections, and adapts to the changing environment.56
This is the ultimate aspiration for the future of compensation.
Instead of rigid structures that crack under the pressure of rapid market shifts or evolving skill requirements, the goal is to design systems that are inherently flexible and resilient—systems that can adapt in real-time to support both the organization’s needs and the workforce’s growth.
This new model is not just about base salary.
It is a total rewards ecosystem that integrates all forms of value—salary, variable pay, equity, benefits, professional development opportunities, recognition, and flexibility—into a holistic and interconnected whole.59
Like a healthy ecosystem, it provides diverse forms of nourishment to help all its members thrive, recognizing that what motivates one employee may not motivate another.
The ultimate goal of compensation design is thus evolving.
It is no longer simply to build a fair and orderly structure that can be periodically maintained.
It is to cultivate a living, thriving organizational ecosystem—one that is deeply connected, remarkably adaptive, and capable of sustaining long-term, shared success for the organization and everyone within it.
This is the new, more dynamic architecture of worth.
Works cited
- HR Compensation – City of Houston, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.houstontx.gov/hr/compensation.html
- Employee Compensation System, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/DocumentCenter/View/3593/Employee-Compensation-Program-Document-2013-08-06?bidId=
- A Complete Guide to Establishing a Salary Range in 2024 – Leapsome, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.leapsome.com/blog/salary-structure
- The new reality of pay transparency – Mercer, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/total-rewards/total-rewards-strategy/the-new-reality-of-pay-transparency/
- www.pnihcm.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.pnihcm.com/blog/pay-scales#:~:text=Pay%20scales%20serve%20as%20a,by%20rewarding%20those%20who%20excel.
- Setting up a pay scale – SK Startup Institute, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://skstartup.ca/guides/human-resources/setting-up-a-pay-scale/
- Compensation 101 – Chapter 2 – How Much to Pay – Talent and Rewards – Aon, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://rewards.aon.com/en-us/insights/compensation-101/how-much-to-pay-rewards-program-design
- 8 Types of Pay Structures To Consider for Your Workforce – Criterion HCM, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.criterionhcm.com/blog/pay-structures
- Crafting Fair Pay Scales: A Guide for Modern Workplaces – PNI HCM, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.pnihcm.com/blog/pay-scales
- Understanding Pay Structures: A Guide to Compensation Types – OMNI HR, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://omnihrm.com/blog/understanding-pay-structures-a-guide-to-compensation-types/
- General Schedule – OPM, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/
- Salary grades and step rates – Sage HRMS Help, accessed on August 8, 2025, http://help-hrms.na.sage.com/en-us/2017/web/Content/CodeTables/SalaryGradesSteps.htm
- How to Establish Salary Ranges for Key Roles – Paycor, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/how-to-establish-salary-ranges/
- Pay Structures Matter | TASB, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.tasb.org/news-insights/pay-structures-matter
- Pay Structures Types | Which One is Right for Your … – FutureSense, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.futuresense.com/blog/types-of-pay-structures-which-one-is-right-for-your-organization
- Types of Pay Structure: Essential Guide – DavidsonMorris, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.davidsonmorris.com/pay-structure/
- Staff Compensation System: Job Evaluation Process – Western Michigan University, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://wmich.edu/hr/jobevaluationprocess
- Job Evaluation: Definition & 5 Popular Methods – Eddy, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://eddy.com/hr-encyclopedia/job-evaluation/
- How to Perform a Competitive Salary Analysis | CO- by US Chamber of Commerce, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/human-resources/salary-competitive-analysis
- A Step-by-Step Guide to Compensation Analysis | ClearCompany, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://blog.clearcompany.com/guide-to-compensation-analysis
- Pay structures: what they are and how to use them – Brightmine, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.brightmine.com/us/resources/total-rewards/benchmarking/pay-structures/
- A Guide to Compensation Analysis – AIHR, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.aihr.com/blog/compensation-analysis/
- Glossary of Terms – UNM Human Resources, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://hr.unm.edu/compensation-glossary-terms
- Compensation Glossary of Terms – UNT System Human Resources, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://hr.untsystem.edu/supervisor-resources/compensation/compensation-glossary-of-terms.php
- What is Pay Transparency? Laws, Pros, and Cons | Paylocity, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.paylocity.com/resources/learn/articles/pay-transparency/
- 5 Barriers to Pay Transparency (And How to Overcome Them) – Figures.hr, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://figures.hr/post/5-barriers-to-pay-transparency-and-how-to-overcome-them
- The Pros and Cons of Pay Transparency – The Connors Group, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://theconnorsgroup.com/2024/08/06/pros-and-cons-of-pay-transparency/
- Case Study: Salary, Pay Scale and Benefits Benchmarking – Gravitate HR, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://gravitatehr.co.uk/salary-pay-scales-and-benefits-benchmarking-case-study/
- Case Studies on Pay Progression – GOV.UK, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ba2eae5274a7318b8ff1f/RAG_-_Case_studies_on_pay_progression__1_.doc
- Types of pay structures – which is best for my organization? – iMercer.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.imercer.com/articleinsights/types-of-pay-structures
- What is a salary structure? Types, pros, and cons – OnPay, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://onpay.com/insights/salary-structure/
- Types of Salary Structures Explained | Pros and Cons, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://exudehc.com/blog/types-of-salary-structure/
- The Advantages and Disadvantages of using Salary Bands – SalaryCube, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.salarycube.com/compensation/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-salary-bands/
- Understanding the basics of pay compression – iMercer.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.imercer.com/articleinsights/pay-compression-canada
- 6 Compensation Strategy Examples from Leading Companies – Deel, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.deel.com/blog/compensation-strategy-examples/
- What is Competency-Based Pay? | BambooHR, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.bamboohr.com/resources/hr-glossary/competency-based-pay
- What is Competency-Based Pay? | Definition and Meaning – OnPay, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://onpay.com/glossary/competency-based-pay-definition/
- What is competency-based pay? Meaning & Elements – peopleHum, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.peoplehum.com/glossary/competency-based-pay
- “COMPETENCY BASED COMPENSATION SYSTEM” – Journal of Management and Science, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://jmseleyon.com/index.php/jms/article/download/535/480/
- Skill-Base Pay: HR’s role – SIOP.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://siop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Skill-Based-Pay-HRs-Role.pdf
- Salary and Motivation: The Psychology Behind Pay Satisfaction …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://us.experteer.com/magazine/salary-and-motivation-the-psychology-behind-pay-satisfaction/
- The Psychological Cost Of Compensation As A Coping Method | BetterHelp, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/defense-mechanisms/the-psychological-cost-of-compensation-as-a-coping-method/
- I Had to Fight for Equal Pay — and I Won’t Be Silenced – HerMoney, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://hermoney.com/earn/salaries/i-had-to-fight-for-equal-pay-and-i-wont-be-silenced/
- 4 Women Who Went Public With Pay Gap Stories – The Muse, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.themuse.com/advice/going-public-with-pay-gaps-stories
- Stories about salary and growth – Alex Ewerlöf (moved to substack) – Medium, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://alexewerlof.medium.com/stories-of-salary-and-growth-1b81d4e407dc
- I accidently saw a co-workers pay rate & I’m pissed, ashamed and feel foolish. I would like some advice please. : r/AskWomenOver30 – Reddit, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomenOver30/comments/flunpr/i_accidently_saw_a_coworkers_pay_rate_im_pissed/
- What are the Top Challenges in Global Compensation Managemen, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.compport.com/blog/challenges-in-compensation-management-and-how-to-overcome-them
- Attitudes on pay transparency and equity in the workplace – Brightmine, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.brightmine.com/us/resources/hr-compliance/pay-transparency/attitudes-on-pay-transparency-and-equity-in-the-workplace/
- Pay Transparency: What it is and the Opportunity for Companies – Catalyst, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.catalyst.org/insights/2024/pay-transparency-is-necessary
- Pay Transparency in the Workplace: A Comprehensive Guide – Korn Ferry, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.kornferry.com/insights/featured-topics/leadership/pay-transparency-in-the-workplace
- The Pros and Cons of Pay Transparency | WorkTango, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.worktango.com/resources/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-pay-transparency
- Compensation stories: Buffer’s radically transparent salary system, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://ravio.com/blog/compensation-examples-buffer
- Introducing our Open Salary System: Reflecting on a Decade of Transparent Salaries at Buffer, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://buffer.com/resources/salary-system/
- After disclosing employee salaries, Buffer was inundated with resumes – Quartz, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://qz.com/169147/applications-have-doubled-to-the-company-that-discloses-its-salaries
- The Mycelium as a Network | Microbiology Spectrum – ASM Journals, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/microbiolspec.funk-0033-2017
- Teams and Organizations as living networks: the mycelium metaphor – TransitionStudio, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://transitionstudio.global/en/teams-and-organizations-as-living-networks-the-mycelium-metaphor/
- The Common Mycelial Network (CMN) of Forests – College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://clas.ucdenver.edu/ges/common-mycelial-network-cmn-forests
- The Mycelium Model for capacity builders, professional associations, funders, and other support organizations – Nonprofit AF, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://nonprofitaf.com/2019/05/the-mycelium-model-for-capacity-builders-professional-associations-funders-and-other-support-organizations/
- What Are Compensation and Benefits? (Definition, Examples) | Built In, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://builtin.com/articles/compensation-and-benefits
