The optics of transparency seduce. Legislators mandate disclosure laws. Companies comply by posting salary bands. Reform appears underway. But Scott Trumpolt cautions: visibility doesn’t necessarily equal truth.
He labels modern pay transparency initiatives as performative. Salary bands like $70,000–$105,000 impress on the surface, but unravel under scrutiny. Candidates want clarity, but instead encounter ambiguity. Companies showcase ranges without context. Candidates ask, where do I fall? What defines that position? What if two people in the same role earn different numbers? There are no answers — just assumptions.
Trumpolt calls this a mirage. “Pay is not a moment,” he says. “It’s a process. A number without a framework tells nothing about value, growth, or alignment.” He dismantles the illusion of fairness and reveals what lies beneath: a lack of structure.
His preferred solution, Career Architecture, upends the status quo. This model doesn’t start with salary — it begins with trajectory. It outlines roles as part of a larger journey. Candidates view a map, not a figure. That map shows where they begin, what they’ll contribute, how they advance, and where compensation follows.
Career Infrastructure defines capability mapping, succession planning, and role alignment. It doesn’t sell the job; it shows the future. It rewards performance. It tracks value over time. Employees don’t guess what success looks like — they see it.
This approach speaks to the agency. It assumes that talent wants context. That ambition thrives on structure. That people choose growth over gimmicks. “Compensation isn’t an act of generosity,” Trumpolt says. “It’s a function of impact. It should reflect not where someone fits today, but where they aim to go.”
He frames the issue as ethical. Misused transparency can manipulate expectations. Candidates enter organizations optimistic and can leave disillusioned. Employees compare without understanding the basis. Mistrust builds. Trust erodes. The damage compounds.
By contrast, Career architecture respects the intelligence of workers. It answers questions before they’re asked. It shows a company has done the hard work of defining roles, building accountability, and tracking development. It removes the guesswork from engagement.
Trumpolt’s message travels. Executives in policy forums, boardrooms, and consulting calls hear the same line: “Pay doesn’t live in a spreadsheet. It lives in a system.” That system must be visible. Not just the outcome — the logic behind it.
He warns against symbolic compliance. Transparency laws were designed to fix inequity. But when companies respond with optics instead of substance, the gap between perception and reality widens.
His critique refuses simplicity. He demands that compensation act as more than currency. He positions it as a vehicle for trust, structure, and continuity. That mindset changes how companies hire, promote, and retain.
Scott Trumpolt doesn’t reject transparency. He expands it. He redefines it. He reclaims it from the realm of marketing and puts it back in the hands of strategy.
Transparency without infrastructure misleads. But transparency grounded in purpose — that holds.
And in Trumpolt’s view, that’s the only kind that earns loyalty.
Scott Trumpolt doesn’t reject transparency. He expands it. He redefines it. He redefines it He reclaims it
Source: The Transparency Mirage: Scott Trumpolt and the Illusion of Progress
