Reviewing internal pay equity
Identifies pay differences across workforce groups and places them alongside market pay levels. Distinguishes observed gaps from possible explanations supported by the available evidence.
— Organisation & Workforce
Assesses pay equity and workforce representation using anonymised, grouped data and sourced market benchmarks, identifying priority gaps, evidence-supported causes and practical actions.
1–2 weeks → ~15 minutes
Including the external research pass
No coding required
— USE CASES
Identifies pay differences across workforce groups and places them alongside market pay levels. Distinguishes observed gaps from possible explanations supported by the available evidence.
Compares workforce composition with relevant sector and country benchmarks. Highlights where representation differs from the market and which gaps merit closer attention.
Provides a prioritised view of pay and representation gaps, with practical actions and sourced benchmarks. Gives leadership a clear basis for deciding where to focus further investigation and improvement.
Produces a diagnostic report that connects internal workforce evidence with external market context. Keeps conclusions grounded in grouped figures rather than assessments of individual employees.
— HOW IT BEHAVES
The mechanics behind this specific template — what it reads, what it calculates, and where a human stays in the loop.
Current external sources on the organisation in scope are researched during the run rather than recalled from training data, and every source travels with the output.
Findings on the organisation in scope are written up as a document that reads like professional output, with each claim tied back to a role.
The roles land as a clean table you can sort, filter or drop straight into the deliverable.
Pay and representation figures can reveal differences without explaining whether they reflect internal inequity, wider market patterns or gaps in the evidence. Reviewing internal pay equity is the typical trigger — identifies pay differences across workforce groups and places them alongside market pay levels. Distinguishes observed gaps from possible explanations supported by the available evidence. Get it right and the conclusion holds up in the room; get it rushed and it gets picked apart. Either way it costs roughly 1–2 weeks of experienced attention.
Skillsize turns that work into a Skill: you supply the material, and what comes back is pay equity and workforce representation diagnostic report, with internal pay gap and representation analysis. What sits between input and output is the codified method: thresholds, sequencing and the points where a human confirms a call — all of it visible and editable in the Skill. The practical effect: 1–2 weeks of manual work becomes a ~15 minutes run, held to an identical standard on the tenth engagement as on the first.
Talent Equity exports as a structured SKILL.md file and is MCP-ready, so the same method runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or your own AI products. Adapt it to your methodology, and the intelligence stays yours — not locked to one vendor.
Builds a transformation strategy grounded in organisational plans and market evidence, with a phased roadmap, capability priorities and measures of progress.
Maps where AI can automate or support work, assesses workflow readiness and shows how roles may change, giving advisory teams an evidence-based view of adoption priorities and workforce implications.
Connects strategic priorities to workforce objectives, measures and accountable roles, producing a strategy-to-workforce map that exposes ownership gaps, concentrated responsibility and capability needs.
Assesses operating model readiness across stages, ownership and handovers, producing a stage map, governance gap assessment and clear stage-gate definitions ready to adopt.
Develops two or three organisation redesign options grounded in strategy, with clear reporting lines, structural trade-offs and a recommended option to test.
Assesses spans of control, organisational layers and managerial load to produce an evidence-backed diagnostic of reporting structures and their likely effects on decision speed and cost.