When it comes to pay transparency, the company Shine is something of a model. A major asset, given that European standards are moving towards tighter regulation. In April 2023, a directive on pay transparency was adopted by the European Council. Member states now have three years to transpose the directive by adjusting their national legislation.
While most HR departments have their work cut out, Shine can approach the deadline far more calmly. To find out more and highlight a few good practices you can apply in your own organisation, we met Mathilde Callède, Chief People Officer at Shine, who agreed to answer our questions.
Who was behind pay transparency at Shine?
We launched the product in January 2018, but the first employees joined in June 2017. I was the second employee to “come aboard” and knew the founders Nicolas Reboud and Raphaël Simon very well. These two shared something important: neither had had “amazing” professional experiences, particularly on HR matters. For my part - even before I worked in HR - that field didn't inspire much confidence in me either. I saw the big clichés of a very opaque world, with people setting up processes off in their own corner.
When Nicolas and Raphaël set up Shine, their idea was to build a practical, useful, innovative product, but also to build a fantastic company. Essentially, they told themselves: “If our product is a hit, if we become a unicorn, but our employees feel they're working in a company that isn't a good place to be, then we'll have missed the point entirely.”
Had they had to choose, they would have preferred to go more slowly, perhaps even to “succeed” less with the product - in the loosest sense - so as to take the time to build a company model where people would be proud to be employees. The question of pay and its transparency came up straight away, with pay equity firmly in view. It's one of the pillars for building trust and wellbeing at work. So it was obvious that 2 people at the same level should have the same salary. And from there, why not publish a salary scale?
At the start, it was easy. The company had only about fifteen people, with just 2 employees in the same role. The people in question were the developers, both of whom had left education at the same time, so they were on the same salary level.”
What were the reactions at the time, particularly to salaries not being negotiable?
Personally, it was a lovely surprise! When I joined, I of course assumed I had to negotiate. Nicolas made me an offer at 45K. In my previous role, I was already on 45K including bonuses. What could be more natural than to negotiate? So I countered at 50K. Nicolas called me back: “45K is a good salary that seems very fair to us in light of the benchmarks. What do you think?”
They were open to discussion while explaining that, at Shine, negotiation didn't exist. It shouldn't be someone's talent as a negotiator that determines the right salary level for them. I remember laughing and completely agreeing with that way of seeing things. I was even relieved to find myself in that environment.
There were several changes along the way. When you start out as a start-up, you mostly hire junior profiles. Once Shine could afford to hire more senior profiles, we had to rework the scales to accommodate people coming from larger companies.
How was pay transparency put in place?
In our early days, while the scale was still being built, salaries were adjusted, but how it worked and how the tiers fitted together weren't clear to everyone. After a great deal of refining, we then unveiled the finalised scale, along with an explanation of all the associated levels.
Transparency became a tangible reality for all employees. To keep employees informed and communicate this scale clearly, Nicolas and Raphaël met team members one by one to explain their respective levels and where they stood, to justify each person's progression. Discussions followed.
For some team members, levels had to be reassessed where it was warranted. Nicolas was able to adjust the scale and the level of some people who had been placed too low. As for those placed too high, we took the view of not cutting their salary - that seemed obvious to us. However, we had to explain to the team members concerned that being too high would have an impact on their next moves: their progression curve would be slower, so as not to build up a gap with other employees.
Later on, as we grew and recruited continuously, we enriched our scale so that it would remain fair and representative of every role, and of how Shine is organised.
At what point do you tell yourself:
“That's it, my scale is fine, there are enough levels. Any more and it becomes an unworkable mess”?
In the first year, we had only implemented 4 or 5 levels in the scale. We thought - Nicolas, Raphaël and I - that we had “captured” someone's career across 5 levels. Gradually, we realised how naive that was and how poorly our scale reflected reality. So we added several levels. Today, each role has between 6 and 9 levels, depending on the prospects the position offers and Shine's needs. With hindsight, in a company of 200-300 employees, that's a format that seems appropriate to us.
I should point out that not everyone will move through every level. The path can vary depending on the sector, the role, the technical level. There are some roles you can enter directly at level B or C - for certain management tracks, for example. Conversely, you can have roles that won't go beyond D.
I'm only talking here about the “role” scales. But at Shine, fixed salaries are also set with regard to seniority (very important in the case of a career change) and the number of dependants (which includes both children and close relatives who have lost their independence, as long as they are attached to the tax household).
One of our convictions is also not to confine employees' progression to management. Not everyone is cut out for it. If you spend 15 years in the same company (or another) and you're not a manager, that shouldn't hold back your progression. The company also needs technical skills.
Quite a few scales stop you going beyond a certain level if you're not a manager. For our part, we believe the scale must separate “individual contributor” from “manager”. So you have to consider an expertise track (in your role) and a management track.
“Which profiles made transparency tricky to broach?”
There are 2 types of profile that sparked very interesting discussions: people changing careers and those coming from big companies. Our conversations helped feed our thinking and refine the scale.
☞ Career-change profiles:
This unusual profile led us to change our algorithm. Take the example of a 35-year-old changing careers. Given their length of working life and their dependants, they were due to start at a very high level of pay, particularly compared with the market average for that role. Yet they were going to be trained by people who were paid less - because they had less experience and no dependants.
Faced with this gap, we changed the way we award the bonus for length of working life, making it a percentage of pay rather than a fixed bonus regardless of the role and the person's level of seniority/impact within the scale.
This felt important to us, because we value people enriched by other experiences, coming from different companies and roles. They bring a great deal of value, and we're convinced that every experience brings skills that can be put to use in the company.
☞ The “big company” profiles:
To recruit a member of one of our teams, we needed to find a senior manager profile, capable of leading a large part of our workforce. After several interviews with different people, we thought we had found THE ideal profile.
However, their salary was out of step with our scales, yet in line with the market... So we raised the top levels of the scale, at the same time giving a rise to the people who were on those same levels.
How much time do you devote to your pay policy? What advice would you give other companies?
The answer is complicated and won't be one-size-fits-all. At Shine, we have the luxury of being very well funded, and that changes quite a lot. That said, plenty of levers can be pulled with limited means.
Some tools can help you set pay levels in particular. The Figures platform offers very well-sourced indicators for tracking market scales and keeping up with changes.
At Shine, we have a part-time person in charge of the scale and everyone's package: profit-sharing, health cover, and so on. Everyone is free to find their own formula. An external consultant can also be an option. But that person has to be genuinely involved, because a scale is a reflection of your values, your philosophy.
Our “pay” project lead - Manu Wagner - is there to smooth the wheels and make sure everything is clear. He works on revising the scales hand in hand with the managers, who are themselves in touch with the members of the executive committee responsible for their area.
There are always 4 or 5 reviews of every figure, by HR as well as managers. You have to be able to justify any figure. For Shine, it's less about “covering” ourselves before a European authority than about being able to explain it to anyone on the team. Nothing should be done approximately, because being transparent means giving context and being able to explain our decisions.
What will the medium- and long-term impact of the European standard be for “star” profiles?
The idea put forward by Virgile Raingeard (Figures) that “star” profiles will go freelance doesn't strike me as unrealistic (read the article: “In 2026, pay will come out of its black box”).
I see it clearly in some interviews - it gets stuck because they're “off-scale”. But it seems reasonable to me not to be able to push the salary scale up to sky-high annual pay. At Shine, the aim is not to exceed a “5x” ratio between the lowest and the highest salary.
What impact does this pay policy have on your employer brand?
Clearly, it's very, very significant. When I ask in interviews, “Why Shine?”, at least 75% of people dwell on our employer brand, of which pay transparency is part.
Honestly, I've been here since the start, and we never did all of this for the sake of employer branding. It's a benefit that has fallen into our lap, and I think that's wonderful, because we had first and foremost conceived of it purely as a way to promote equity and reduce pay gaps.
And honestly, if tomorrow we become less attractive because everyone has started doing this, that will be even better. It will mean that people are respected as employees. In the end, that's all I aspire to: becoming less attractive if everyone joins in!
Our team is available to assist you.
.png)
.jpg)