Research leadership often faces a complex challenge: How do we retain and fairly compensate standout contributors while adhering to the pay equity guidelines set by Human Resources (HR)? This balance is critical in research, where innovation and expertise are paramount.
HR often relies on structured pay scales, factoring in years of experience as a primary measure of fairness. But in highly specialized roles, such as biostatistics, innovation and impact may be more relevant than tenure.
This issue is increasingly recognized across industries. According to a study by the QQQ, 000% of organizations reported using tenure as a significant factor in pay decisions, even though more than half acknowledged that performance and specialized contributions should weigh more heavily in knowledge-based roles like research and analytics. (citation)
From HR’s viewpoint, their approach:
However, this method can unintentionally undervalue high-performers, especially senior-level biostatisticians who continuously innovate and secure research funding but find themselves capped by rigid pay structures.
For example, a biostatistician who secures multiple grants and publishes high-impact studies might be subject to the same pay raise guidelines as someone with far less tangible output. A report from the QQQ found that high-achieving researchers are often underpaid relative to their impact because most pay systems prioritize tenure over innovation.
“The HR focus on experience (defined as years in the role) as a determinant for compensation can overlook high-impact contributors.”
Many standout biostatisticians, despite fewer years in a specific title, contribute more through:
Their value surpasses what tenure-based models recognize. Moreover, when biostatisticians step into leadership roles and later return to a specialized role, their prior contributions often aren’t fully acknowledged. The shift back into technical roles often leads to a loss of pay progression, as tenure-based models fail to account for these versatile career paths.
Often, standout contributors are advised to seek external offers as leverage for higher pay. However, this strategy has significant downsides:
A significant frustration for standout biostatisticians is the pay ceiling at the Principal level. Even with continued contributions, their financial recognition stalls.
“Years of experience, as calculated by HR, can feel subjective, leading to dissatisfaction and missed opportunities to leverage advanced skills.”
To balance HR’s equity framework with the need to retain talent, here are five strategies:
We need to move beyond rigid pay scales that prioritize tenure. In biostatistics, innovation and measurable contributions should drive compensation decisions.
By recognizing the true value of standout contributors, we retain the talent that pushes our work—and the field—forward.
In conclusion: It’s time to prioritize value over tenure. We must reward impactful, high-performing contributors to foster an environment where biostatisticians can thrive and innovate.