Workplace

Pay equity cost this company $15 million. It was worth it.

Credit Karma’s chief people officer on how to achieve pay equity.

Illustration of payroll

Pay equity is a problem in nearly every industry, including tech.

Photo: Monstera/Pexels

This week marked 2020’s Equal Pay Day in the United States. What that means is that women in this country have to work until March 15 to make what men earned in the previous year. Historically, that date is even later in the year for Black and Latina women, who face an even greater gender pay gap.

Pay equity is a problem in nearly every industry, including tech. But there are things that HR leaders can do to get closer to parity. Chief among them is systematizing pay practices to root out areas where bias can occur, from hiring to promotions.

Protocol spoke with Credit Karma’s Chief People Officer Colleen McCreary about the company’s pay equity program, role-based compensation and the $15 million it spent three years ago to overhaul its compensation system, resulting in raises for 98% of Credit Karma employees.

We also chatted about inflation and what that means for worker wages in light of a new Credit Karma study released this week. The main finding? Perhaps unsurprisingly, two-thirds of American workers feel that their pay is not adequate to cover the rising cost of inflation.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

March 15 was National Equal Pay Day. When would Equal Pay Day be for Credit Karma’s female employees?

Since we have a very strict pay equity program, everybody in the same role makes exactly the same amount of money. Historically, certain functions tend to be primarily female, and they tend to pay lower. What we've done is we looked at the market for the skills and role that people have to have. So a director of Public Relations is going to be making something fairly similar to a director of Engineering because the management capacities are the same.

So you're saying that even unadjusted for role and experience, there is no gender pay gap at Credit Karma?

Correct. And every time we talk to another company, they're like, “You do what?”

So when you're talking about paying the heads of Public Relations and Engineering similarly, are you correcting for the effect of occupational sorting and women gravitating toward certain lower-paying jobs?

Right. There's usually this backlog in history of jobs that were traditionally female-based being paid lower. What you find in tech, actually, is that most companies are sophisticated enough at this point to recognize and appreciate what those positions are worth. I don't think you would say that broadly. I think if you had factory workers, for example, there's probably still a broad differential between those roles and how they're leveled and paid.

In marketing, HR, and sales to some extent — depending on if it's technical sales or non-technical sales — the competition for talent compensation is a supply and demand issue. And so the competition in tech for these roles is so high that it becomes an equalizer.

We talk a lot about the gender pay gap, but what about race? Have you looked at if there’s a racial pay gap within Credit Karma?

We actually take a pretty data-driven approach to everything. When we look at role-based pay, for example, we have around 1,500 employees, and we have people sorted into 300 different roles at this company. So we're not seeing a pay gap there either. I think the reason for that is we have a nice distribution of people across functions. It’s also about making sure that people are getting leveled appropriately, that they're hired into the right jobs and then that they're getting promoted at the same rates.

What are the main pillars of this pay equity program?

Many pay equity issues come from the fact that managers are generally making decisions around hiring, promotions and potentially bonuses. That’s not to say that managers are intentionally doing anything wrong. It's unconscious biases that you bring with you. And they start when employees are hired. Pay ranges are one of the things that contribute to that, where people are slotting somebody in, oftentimes, without any really good judgment, in my opinion, or definition of saying, “Why is this person being paid at the high end of the range versus why this person is being paid at the low end of the range?”

It also starts with the leveling, so we built out really clear job levels for each role. We also got rid of performance reviews and ratings. What we do is each role pays whatever it pays, and we do a market review for every single job twice a year. Every February, every August, we do a market review, and we tell the whole company. And if your pay has moved, your pay moves. If it hasn't moved, we have not ever needed to take anybody down. We just don't do that. We think that you should be making whatever is competitive in the market.

The other thing that we did is, for most jobs — except for the most senior jobs that have at-risk pay tied to the company's performance — we actually rolled the bonuses into base salary for people. So there's no more discretionary bonus that's given to folks. We also moved promotions to be quarterly. So we actually do a full promotion calibration four times a year, which means that if somebody is ready to be promoted, they're not waiting a year. And that means we also don't do any of these last-minute saves. We don't say, “Hey, someone's threatening to quit, so I'm just going to promote you.” Doing that goes against every form of pay equity philosophy that we have.

Why get rid of performance reviews and ratings?

That's something I had actually done at multiple companies. And the reason I had done that is that I personally never saw that they did anything but disincentive people. They were not necessarily reflective of an entire body of work, rather only the last couple of months of somebody's career. What I found is that the people who were top performers were usually annoyed by whatever was happening, and the people who were at the bottom never really got an honest answer from their manager as to why.

We’ve moved to weekly, real-time feedback systems. They're usually more honest, because it's like a micro feedback moment versus this huge dumping on someone.

And the other thing that you mentioned was market reviews twice a year. How does that work?

We're very clear with our employees that we use [compensation benchmarking database] Radford as our compensation tool for them. It's all posted internally twice a year. We think education for employees is important. I think the easiest thing for companies to do is just to get transparent about where these numbers come from. It helps us stay competitive, especially in fast-moving markets like the Bay Area, New York, Seattle.

The other thing that we did around market pay is that we decided that we were going to make sure that every role at Credit Karma made at least the living wage for a family of four in each of our geographies. That really only affects people at the lowest-paying roles, but it was important to us.

Tell me about how much this program cost. It must have been an investment.

It cost us $15 million. We were about 700 people then, so it was a huge investment. As for getting our board over the line as well as the entire management team, the hardest thing wasn't even so much the $15 million, it was the mindset around meritocracy, or the idea that, “Well, I should be able to distinguish between my two employees based on pay.”

Everyone loved that 98% of our employees got a raise in their base salary. For some of those people, it might have been like $100. For other people, it was substantially more, especially for those people who were in some of the legacy functions that weren't necessarily always valued, like marketing, communications, HR, finance, as well as many member support functions. Some of those roles saw lifestyle changes for those folks.

Credit Karma has two offices in California. And there was a bill recently introduced that would require employees in California to disclose salary ranges in their job postings, which is already required in many other states. Advocates view it as a step toward pay equity. What do you think?

I think people are throwing ideas at the wall and hoping that they solve for these pay equity problems. And the reality is, that's not going to change. I mean, you can post a range and where somebody lands in the range isn't necessarily going to change how people pay. This is why I really liked role-based pay: You're in this job, and everybody else who's in this job in Los Angeles is going to make the exact same amount of money, end of story.

We don't [post the exact salary in our job postings] and there are a couple of reasons. One is, in many cases, there are multiple levels for each job. And when people are applying, they don't know what sort of role that they should be coming into: “Do I come in as a senior software engineer or a principal software engineer or a software engineer?” I think it's just from a competitive standpoint. I don't have people coming to Credit Karma because they're going to make the most money if they come here. I’m just honest about that. Even in the Bay Area, I'll just say I think you're going to make more money maybe at Facebook, Google or Amazon. I'm not afraid to say it. I think that those people have a reason that they pay very aggressively. That's not why you should come to work at Credit Karma. And for the most part, for the people who come work here, that's not the only thing that they care about. But I'm also not going to lay it on a table for Facebook to be like, “Oh, well, they pay this.”

For companies like Credit Karma, that know that they can't compete with the Metas of the world on pay, what's the selling point?

People join because they're excited about our mission. We are a free product that helps people make financial progress. At the end of the day, the people who want to come here stay here because they are proud of the work that we do and the people that we serve.

I always say that there are three things that matter to employees, and you get a trade-off of those three, especially in technology. No. 1 is ownership, No. 2 is compensation and No. 3 is, “Are you proud of where you work?” I think at best, if you can get two out of three, you're usually feeling pretty good.

Credit Karma just conducted a survey which found that American workers are really concerned about how their pay is lining up with inflation, which is, as you know, around record highs. Have you raised pay across the board at Credit Karma to account for inflation?

So inflation and compensation are actually not connected. I think that’s the fallacy. It's hard for people because they're obviously paying out more dollars than they'd like to on their basic needs, but pay is all about supply and demand: that is, the supply and demand of workers. And that's why you're seeing such big increases for hourly workers who sadly have had to drop out due to COVID child care concerns, certainly safety concerns, all these kinds of things. That is why you're seeing hourly pay go up so much versus these more professional, white-collar jobs. The other side of it is that, when inflation is low, you haven't seen people take pay away. So I don't think you want to be in this zone where it just optimizes for one side of the equation.

Do you have any advice for other chief people officers on how best to root out bias in their pay practices?

I think No. 1 is just being honest and transparent with your employees about how they are paid. I think the light of day will often bring out some of the challenges or things about the systems that might not necessarily be working. A lot of HR people are just living in the fact that they understand and know the data, when the reality is the rest of their workers don't understand. It really helps when you have to explain any kind of concept to the broader audience. You start by explaining to employees how they're paid.

$15 million is a lot for a lot of companies. So if it's not something that they can take on, they can take on small steps by at least looking at: Do we do some of these things that lead to pay inequity? Do we make deals with employees to try [to] get them to stay? Do we do a full calibration when we're looking at promotions? There are actually some pretty easy things that are not that expensive that you could do that at least start to bring an opportunity to make some changes to the forefront.

So do you show employees what the pay would be for the level above them?

We don't do any of that. And I feel very strongly that pay transparency isn't about showing people what other people make. Now, if people want to do that, I strongly encourage it. I always tell people, “Hey, by law, you can talk about what you're paid.” But whether or not people want other people to know what they're paid is very private. And it's very different from employee to employee. And I'd rather them make that decision than me doing that. I always say: You can't unsee pay data. I'm not going to put somebody in that awkward position, personally.

Fintech

Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep Reading Show less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep Reading Show less
FTA
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.
Enterprise

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep Reading Show less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.

Enterprise

Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins