Having the same job title and having the same job performance are two very different things. If one person is grossly outperforming another do you have to write them a new job title to compensate them for it?
Yes, that would be preferred, I think. Write a new job title with defined expectations, so that other people in the organization would know and understand why this person is paid more, and what it is that they should strive for if they want to reach the same level.
How does this work exactly? People have different skill levels. It's not a step function either, it's a pretty smooth distribution in terms of ability to create systems that are robust.
I'd need 20 different names for an engineer. That's silly.
I guarantee you that if you look at the job title "Vice President" at, say, JP Morgan's Corporate and Investment Bank you're going to see total compensation that ranges over an order of magnitude.
Isn’t the reason for this regulation? My understanding is that there are some actions that a bank employee can only take if they hold a “Vice President” title, leading to the title structure being organized in a way such that many people end up with that title.
If someone outperforms another person, you have to be able to prove that with numbers. Being upfront about pay does mean that you are upfront about pay differences. For example: Alex has a higher degree or more experience, Robin tends to be finished before the last minute.
Things like job performance are harder to measure unless folks are put in very similar situations. For example, if you measure a cashier's performance by the number of customers they serve, the overnight cashier is almost always going to perform badly simply because there are fewer customers at night.
How do you measure better soft skills which are crucial at any kind of a leadership role? Almost no jobs are easily measurable by output, we are not working assembly lines.
Otherwise it just reeks of favoritism.