Secrets to Better Pay at Work! | EP 104

Paul Leon (00:00)

Welcome back to The Manager’s Mic podcast. I have with me today Scott Trumpolt, a managing director and principal consultant at Trumpolt Compensation Design Solutions, with over 30 years in compensation planning and HR leadership across North America, Europe, and APAC.

He builds market-based pay structures, sales incentive plans, and career architecture systems that turn pay transparency into practical growth plans. A certified Global Remuneration Professional with an M.S. in HR, Scott has advised organizations across logistics, aerospace, healthcare, hospitality, and manufacturing.

He is known for translating “black box” compensation into manager-ready tools that improve engagement, retention, and performance.

Scott, welcome to The Manager’s Mic podcast. We’re going to talk about money—a very important factor. Is there anything you want to add to that before we get into the heart of these questions and what we’re going to deliver today?

Scott (01:13)

Thank you so much for having me on your show, and thank you for that introduction. I think that introduction sets us up well to talk about “black box” issues as they relate to compensation, pay transparency, and things of that nature. We should just get into it.

Paul Leon (01:32)

Let’s do it.

When I was studying your background—and you’re a very accomplished professional—I was watching some of your clips on other podcasts. For context, for someone who may not know what “black box compensation” is, would you break down that definition for a first-time people manager or someone who hears it and thinks, “I don’t know what that means”?

Would you simplify it? When I first heard it, I thought, “That sounds cool,” but I think it’s powerful for you, as the expert, to set the stage with that term.

Scott (02:11)

Sure.

Compensation—employee compensation planning and design—is part of the human resources function because you’re dealing with people’s lives and livelihoods. Like all areas of HR, you’re dealing with human beings.

When you join an organization, some parts of HR are very transparent. You go through recruiting, the new-hire process, onboarding, and performance discussions with managers. All of that is relatively visible.

Compensation, not so much.

For many years, when you joined an organization and read the employee handbook, it would explicitly say not to discuss your pay with other employees. Pay was treated as an individual, private matter. People are paid differently based on skills and experience, so pay becomes a hush-hush subject.

In more recent years, especially with younger generations, employees are demanding more transparency about pay. You see this in employee opinion surveys. Companies that want to become employers of choice have to take a hard look at pay transparency.

There are also laws in various states that require employers to provide pay ranges for job candidates. The question then becomes: how do you navigate these issues in a way that brings more transparency?

So that’s the black box concept: a lack of transparency around how pay decisions are made.

Paul Leon (03:50)

Understood.

Scott (03:51)

The challenge is how to bring compensation out into the open while still respecting the realities I mentioned—people are paid differently for different skills and abilities, and employees may be getting pay data from external sources that may or may not be accurate. Whoever said everything on the internet was accurate?

All of this creates tension. When you think of employee engagement, if employees are tense or anxious about something—pay or anything else—the likelihood of them being truly engaged drops.

Employee engagement is not just showing up for work. Engagement is being motivated to work toward company goals and understanding your place in the business.

Anything in the organization that feels nerve-racking or tense reduces the possibility of engagement. In my area of compensation, that’s why I became a consultant 13 years ago and left the corporate world. It wasn’t because I rejected corporate life; it was because I wanted to focus specifically on how my functional area could improve employee engagement.

Paul Leon (05:12)

That’s intriguing.

Why do you feel pay is so unclear, and why do growth plans quietly erode motivation and retention? Why has that become part of the culture, based on your 30 years of helping companies, Scott?

Scott (05:27)

Pay is unclear because companies simply don’t put out much information about it. Even when they’re required to share certain information, they often share only what is absolutely necessary.

That culture has existed for a long time, but it’s changing because up-and-coming generations want more pay transparency. However, I don’t think their primary concern is knowing what everyone else makes—although some may want that. The deeper concern is how pay is positioned to employees.

Employees want to know: “Why am I being paid what I’m being paid?”

That question quickly leads into career development. That’s the key. When an employee clearly understands how they fit in the organization and how they can grow, that’s what makes the difference.

They may still not fully understand why they are paid a specific dollar amount or why someone else is paid differently, but they can latch onto the idea that as they grow in their career—and understand how their contribution affects the business model—their pay will grow.

That’s the connection. That’s the link.

If we want more pay transparency, we have to link pay directly to career development options.

Paul Leon (07:15)

I like that. I’m going to challenge you a little, if I may.

Is there a single example that comes to mind that really captures this? A case where there was a clear challenge and you helped create a solution that bridged some of these gaps in the pay conversation?

Scott (07:33)

One example I always come back to is from my time in the corporate world. And this is not just about employees; it’s about their managers as well. That relationship is key, and we can talk more about that later.

A manager came up to me and said, “I’ve lost three internal auditors in the past few months, and I’ve lost them over pay. Our pay structures must be out of date or not working.”

I started asking the manager some questions.

“How long had these employees been with you?”

“Four or five years.”

So they were well entrenched in the organization.

“Were they good performers?”

“Yes, absolutely. That’s why I’m here talking to you. I’ve lost some really good performers.”

I asked, “Do you know, maybe from the exit interviews, why they left?”

“They mentioned it was about pay.”

“OK. What were they making when they left?”

He said, “Around the low 80s—$81,000 or $82,000.”

I looked up the employees, reviewed their experience, and confirmed they were strong performers. Then I asked, “What did they leave for?”

He said, “Around $90,000 a year.”

So they left for roughly $9,000 more. That $90,000 figure was our midpoint. That was our competitive market midpoint for that role.

The message here was that nothing was wrong with our ranges. Our ranges were current and competitive at $90,000.

The real question for the manager was:

“If these employees have been here four or five years and are good performers, why are they still being paid near the low end of the scale instead of closer to the midpoint?”

So the issue was not the pay structure. It was the lack of proactive pay management.

Managers need to take a more proactive role. When strong performance shows up year after year, you don’t just give a standard merit increase. You grow their pay toward market to retain them.

That alone won’t necessarily engage them, but it helps retain them by paying them near the market level for their contributions.

It’s not entirely the managers’ fault. HR has to play a proactive role as well. HR is often concerned about not being viewed as a true business partner or profit center. One way to change that perception is to strengthen the partnership with management.

HR can provide guidance and support so managers understand when pay issues are emerging. For example, HR can proactively flag: “You have top performers who’ve been here a while and are still being paid below market.”

If HR and management work together like that, many of these problems can be solved.

From the outside, the manager thought it was a pay structure issue. It wasn’t a structure issue. It was a pay management issue.

That’s one of my favorite examples.

Paul Leon (11:04)

You’re touching on something important here, and I want to go deeper.

You’ve talked about how managers need to have more open and confident pay conversations that build credibility instead of tension. How do you coach a manager to handle these conversations more effectively?

I’ll give you a concrete example. I once saw a manager text a GIF—a moving image—of someone throwing money in the air. I thought that was extremely unprofessional.

In your 30 years of experience, how can managers have better pay conversations instead of making them tense, defensive exchanges with their staff and team members?

Scott (11:58)

Managers need to do two things in these conversations.

First, they have to address what is happening right now with the employee. Let me give you an example.

In many organizations, the only time a manager has a direct, structured conversation about pay is during the annual performance review. They may meet with employees often, but those meetings are usually about work tasks, not compensation.

So during the review, the manager discusses the employee’s performance and then assigns a merit increase. The manager usually has a range of options within the merit budget.

Let’s say the merit budget is 3%, and the manager gives the employee a 2% increase. Technically, that’s allowed. But the employee walks away thinking, “Why am I getting less than the standard 3% increase?”

That alone can disengage the employee.

When the employee asks, “Why am I only getting 2%? You just rated me as a really good performer,” the manager often responds with something like, “Yes, you’re a strong performer, but I’ve been advised that you’re already paid above market for your role. Since you’re paid above market, we expect you to be a top performer.”

The employee leaves with a mixed message:

“Why should I keep working this hard if I’m only going to get 2%? I understand I’m well paid, but where is the motivation?”

A more effective message would be:

“Yes, you received a 2% increase, and yes, you are paid above market. You’re also an excellent performer. That combination means you’re ready for the next step in your career.”

Then the manager pivots:

“Let’s talk about what skills you need to develop so you can continue to grow your pay.”

If this person is, for example, an intermediate-level accountant, the question becomes:

“How do we get you to a senior-level accountant role?”

That role pays more and is more critical to the business. The conversation shifts from a short-term transactional pay decision to a longer-term career path conversation tied to the needs of the business.

It’s the same meeting, but a completely different dynamic.

The ineffective message is: “You’re already well paid, so you should be happy with 2%,” even if the manager never says those exact words. That’s the impression.

The effective message is:

“You’re paid above market because you’re a high performer, and that positions you for the next step. Even if we don’t have an immediate opening, let’s map the skills and opportunities you’ll need to move into that next role so your pay can continue to grow.”

Managers may not be compensation or career development experts, but they do understand their department’s business needs. When they frame pay in terms of future roles, skill growth, and business value, they turn a tense, transactional conversation into a strategic, forward-looking one.

Paul Leon (16:13)

That’s a strong frame.

Unfortunately, I’ve never had that type of conversation. I’ve always had to figure it out myself.

Before we go deeper into the tactical side, was there a moment when you personally felt called to resolve this pain for companies—to make these conversations easier, reduce turnover, and help people get better compensation outcomes?

Did you see this pattern so often that you felt uniquely effective at addressing it? I’d like to highlight why you felt called to do this work.

Scott (16:49)

In my own career, I was a people leader at one point. I had several compensation analysts reporting to me.

When merit review time came around, my team members had access to each other’s salaries on a need-to-know basis. They were compensation professionals managing pay data across the organization, so they had full visibility into the numbers.

That forced me to be very fair and very careful. I had to evaluate each employee not only on what they were doing, but also where they were in their growth and development, what their potential was, and how to assign increases properly within a limited budget.

Because of that transparency, I had no choice but to become very intentional and disciplined about how I managed pay and performance.

The second part came later. I became increasingly interested, as an analyst, in companies that were consistently recognized as “best places to work.”

I wanted to know:

“What is it about these companies that makes them top workplaces?”

What I found was that they scored high in employee opinion surveys, particularly in the area of employee engagement.

I started connecting the dots between my “black box” functional area—compensation—and employee engagement.

My question became:

“How can I make compensation more transparent and more of an engagement driver, rather than something hidden, while still doing it properly and responsibly?”

That became the catalyst for becoming an independent consultant. I wanted to apply what I’d learned in the corporate world—managing pay fairly and transparently—and then take it a step further:

How do I help companies not just design pay structures and career architectures, but also equip managers with tools to use those systems to drive engagement?

Not just tools for HR, but tools for managers.

Because when we talk about employee engagement, managers have the greatest impact. Employees are much more likely to have meaningful one-on-one conversations with their manager than with HR, which they may see as “the police” or a threat in some situations.

HR absolutely has a role. I spent my career in HR. But HR’s role is best served by supporting managers in areas like compensation and career development—not trying to own every conversation.

HR already spends a lot of time coaching managers on performance reviews and compliance-related issues.

They spend far less time coaching managers on the things that truly drive engagement: career development, pay, and total rewards.

That gap was my motivation to become an independent consultant: to develop solutions that strategically link compensation and career development to the business mission.

When you increase engagement, you typically see better business results.

Since HR isn’t always seen as a business partner, this is a way for HR—and for people like me in compensation—to get in the door and demonstrate direct impact on the business.

Paul Leon (20:39)

I’m curious about your book.

Is there a particular chapter or section you’d recommend a reader start with if they want to build a playbook to get better in this area?

Scott (20:52)

The book has a broader scope. It’s not specifically about compensation. It’s about becoming an independent consultant.

It’s about taking your past experiences, refining them, and bringing them forward in a way that allows you to benefit from what you’ve already learned so you’re not starting from zero.

You have to go through a kind of defragmentation process—pulling out what is truly valuable and leaving the rest—because as an independent consultant, you’re often a team of one.

You have to work faster and more efficiently in all aspects, not just client work but also back-office activities, marketing, and self-promotion. To make that sustainable, you need a streamlined, effective approach.

That theme runs throughout the book.

If I had to pick one chapter, I’d choose the chapter about 12 specific questions you should ask yourself before you start down the independent consulting path.

How you answer those questions can help determine not only whether you should become an independent consultant, but also whether you’re likely to succeed long-term.

I didn’t ask myself all of those questions upfront. I simply made the leap. But in hindsight, I believe I’ve been successful over the past 13 years because, subconsciously, I aligned with the answers to those questions.

It took about five years of running the business for me to clarify what worked and what didn’t, and then boil those lessons down into 12 concrete questions that are specific—not vague.

They apply to any domain where someone wants to become an independent consultant, especially people coming from corporate environments who want the confidence to make that leap.

If readers honestly answer those 12 questions, it will help them decide whether to pursue independent consulting and what their longevity might look like.

Many people see independent consulting as something they want to do for the rest of their careers. They don’t want to go back to corporate.

If that’s the case, they need the right tools, mindset, and value proposition to make it work over the long term. That’s what that chapter is designed to support.

Paul Leon (24:40)

That makes sense.

I see a divide in many workplaces between managers and HR.

What small structural changes can turn performance reviews into something more meaningful? Is it more HR’s responsibility to coach managers on how clarity, consistency, and pay systems free them up to focus on development instead of being defensive?

Or is it more on the people manager to take ownership of this as a developmental skill?

There’s probably some middle ground, but based on your experience, where does the pendulum swing most?

Scott (25:25)

The onus sits with three parties, in this order: HR, the employee, and then the manager.

First, HR.

For HR to truly become a strategic partner to management, they need to step into this space. Compensation is not transparent for employees or managers. HR needs to be proactive and arm managers with tools and frameworks.

Without those tools, managers cannot have the kind of conversations I’ve outlined.

Second, the employee.

The employee cannot passively sit back and assume the manager is solely responsible for their career development. That mindset contributes to the disconnect.

Employees need to meet managers halfway—asking questions, expressing aspirations, and seeking clarity on what it takes to move forward.

Employees want to know where they fit in the bigger picture. They need to ask, “Where can I go from here, and what does that path look like?”

Third, the manager.

Yes, managers are key, but they are number three in the sequence because they are reacting to and working within the systems and expectations set by HR and the initiative shown by the employee.

HR needs to be proactive, not reactive. They need to provide tools that shift pay conversations from cold, transactional interactions into broader, strategic discussions that integrate compensation and career development.

The problem today is that many pay conversations are very icy and transactional—strictly about numbers. That’s where the disconnect between managers and employees shows up most on pay.

By layering career development on top of compensation—not to disguise pay, but to give pay meaning—you explain why things are done the way they are:

“It’s based on the value of your job today and the value it could have in the future.”

That forward-looking approach changes the dynamic. HR must lead in building that structure. Employees must engage with it. Managers then become much more effective because they have a system and language to work with.

Paul Leon (28:15)

I like that.

From the manager’s perspective, is there a framework or a few questions that should be on the employee before they even start a pay conversation?

In other words, what should an employee be clear on so that when they finally approach their manager, it’s a focused, “rifle” conversation instead of a scattered, “shotgun” one?

Scott (29:06)

In defense of managers, there is one big responsibility on the employee’s side.

Employees sit in department meetings where their manager talks about goals, objectives, day-to-day work, updates, and progress. Those meetings are a free education.

The employee needs to use those meetings to be an active listener and understand the mission of their department.

They should ask themselves:

“What is the core function of my department in this organization?”

Then they need to look at their own skills and observe what others in the department do, especially those at higher levels.

From there, they should reflect:

“Here’s what I do today. Here are the roles and tasks I see around me. Where could I potentially add more value?”

When they go to their manager, they should already have a basic, self-generated framework of:

• What the department does
• What higher-level or adjacent roles do
• What they are interested in learning or taking on next

If they’re not interested in any of those roles or paths, they may never truly engage and might need to consider a different job or department where their interests and skills align better.

Companies also have many departments where skills can transfer. An employee might see a completely different area that interests them.

The key is to go into the manager’s office with a grounded view of the current landscape:

“Here’s what our department does. Here’s what I see others doing. Here’s where I’d like to go next. What skills do I need, and how can I prepare for that step?”

That gives the manager something concrete to work with. The manager knows what everyone in the department does. The employee sees pieces of it; the manager can then fill in gaps, refine expectations, and outline milestones.

I’ve seen this work.

For example, I had an employee who started in benefits, not compensation. She was very detail-oriented and wanted to learn compensation. I brought her onto my team.

She grew significantly—not just because of my development efforts, but because she was a quick learner with strong interest. She became a compensation professional.

Fast-forward about 15 years: she is now head of HR at that same company.

That’s an example of someone who:

• Started in one department
• Moved into another
• Built skills across multiple HR domains
• Ultimately stepped into a senior leadership role

It started with interest, active listening, and a willingness to move toward areas where she could create more value.

Paul Leon (33:22)

How did you spot her potential?

When you work with people—either as direct reports or as clients—do you treat everyone as having “A” potential, or did you see something specific in her that signaled she was a future leader?

Scott (33:43)

I didn’t initially see her as a leader because, at that time, she had only held individual contributor roles.

What I did see was that she was highly successful in her benefits role.

Benefits and compensation are different disciplines, but both require strong attention to detail. Her manager—the head of benefits, whom I respected and worked closely with—spoke very highly of her.

That combination of:

• Strong performance in a related area
• A trusted manager’s endorsement
• Her interest in learning compensation

made it an easy decision for me.

She didn’t know the compensation terminology at first, but I knew she would pick it up based on her track record. I was willing to give her that opportunity because she had already demonstrated success in a related, high-accountability role.

Paul Leon (34:37)

I like that.

Where can people find you?

Scott (34:41)

My website is www.hrcompensationconsulting.com.

It has a lot of information about the work I do, the clients I’ve served, client testimonials, videos, articles, and a link to my book. People can contact me directly through the site; those messages come straight to my email.

I also have a strong presence on LinkedIn. I’m a member of the Better Business Bureau of Southeast U.S. in Florida.

There are several ways to reach me, but the website is the best starting point.

Paul Leon (35:20)

I saw that you have an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau. That’s impressive. I mentally gave you an extra plus.

Scott (35:27)

Yes, it’s an A+ rating. Thank you.

It reflects that I’ve been with them for quite some time and haven’t had negative client feedback reported through that channel. It may also reflect online reviews of my work.

To me, that’s the best measure. I often say:

“The reward for doing a good job is the opportunity to keep doing it.”

I love what I do. If I do good work, that increases the chances that clients will bring me back or refer me to others.

When you become an independent consultant, your work life and personal life blend more. I’m not saying all I do is work, but you do become your brand.

Paul Leon (36:17)

Are there any clients—without naming names—where you’ve done a significant turnaround in the past few years that illustrates what’s possible when people work with you?

Scott (36:37)

I had one client whose employee opinion survey scores in the area of compensation were quite low.

After a few years of working together on a series of projects, we moved the needle significantly.

That type of measurable movement is like gold to me. It’s better than a trophy or a bonus, because it reflects real change in how employees perceive pay and fairness.

You don’t always get that level of feedback. Sometimes you complete a project, the client is happy, they implement your recommendations, and you never see the long-term data.

Clients are much more likely to reach out if something goes wrong than if everything is working smoothly. So you often have to wait for the full lifecycle of changes—design, implementation, adoption, and then survey cycles—to see the true impact.

Sometimes clients also have very different philosophies about compensation than I do. You have to work through those differences and find common ground.

But that example—where survey scores on compensation improved—is a clear success story.

I also look at things cumulatively:

• How many clients I’ve served
• The types of projects I’ve delivered
• The feedback I’ve received over time

After 13 years of doing this independently, I feel confident I can continue delivering value for years to come.

Paul Leon (38:44)

I wish you had been my boss earlier in my career. The way you talked about money and transparency was very clear and powerful. I would have benefited from a conversation like that. You’re definitely a professional I recommend.

Scott (38:56)

Thank you. I was very fortunate early in my career.

I had two mentors with 25–30 years of experience—about where I am now—who worked in corporate roles. Working with them for four years felt like getting eight or nine years of experience because they constantly exposed me to new situations.

People talk about the importance of having a mentor. I had two, every day, who were genuinely invested in me.

I went to a small college for my undergraduate degree because I wanted that individual attention and small-group environment. That’s where I function best.

Having mentors like that created a personalized learning environment for me, which helped me grow into the work I’m still doing today.