Rethinking Pay Through Unconventional Careers
Why an older study still nudges us to value work differently
I wanted to include this topic in my book about successful career paths—but I exceeded my page limit, so I’m sharing it here. It’s an older piece of research, but still a sharp lens for 2025: the New Economics Foundation’s 2009 analysis (Lawlor/Kersley/Clift) on the social value of work. Their question was simple and radical:
What if we measured jobs not just by salary or status, but by their net value to society?
The gap between pay and real value
NEF used a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach to estimate how much broader social, ecological, and economic value different roles create—per £1 of salary.
Low-paid, high-value roles (per £1 of pay):
Childcare workers: +£7 to +£9.50
Hospital cleaners: +£10
Recycling workers: +£12
High-paid, net-negative roles (per £1 of pay):
Investment bankers: –£7
Advertising executives: –£11
Tax avoidance specialists: –£47
The headline is uncomfortable: pay often tracks market power—not contribution. Many essential, care-adjacent jobs (disproportionately done by women) are undervalued. Meanwhile, parts of the top end are rewarded despite creating negative externalities.
Why this matters for non-linear careers
Unconventional career paths often bundle transferable skills (systems thinking, crisis handling, service orientation, ethical judgment) that show up strongly in roles with high social value—but weak wage signals. When organisations filter mainly by linear CVs and conventional pay bands, they miss people whose experience could deliver measurable outcomes where it counts: safety, wellbeing, learning, trust, patient outcomes, customer resilience.
If we’re serious about making non-linear talent visible and productive, we need to price and reward outcomes—not proxies like job title seniority or pedigree.
10 myths about pay
I’d like to share ten persistent myths that keep pay misaligned:
“Higher pay = bigger societal contribution.” Often false; some top earners create net harm.
“Low-pay roles are just stepping stones.” Social mobility is frequently blocked.
“Only poverty matters, not inequality.” Large gaps corrode cohesion and trust.
“We must overpay to keep talent.” People stay for meaning, growth, fairness, and autonomy.
“High earners work harder.” Many low-paid workers juggle multiple jobs and care duties.
“Private = more efficient.” Underpriced labour can degrade quality and outcomes.
“The rich shoulder the tax load.” Effective rates are often lowered by loopholes.
“If a job is fun, low pay is fine.” Autonomy, security, and fair pay rise together.
“Pay perfectly tracks performance.” Evidence at the top is weak and noisy.
“To get performance, just pay more.” We often overlook the real value creators.
What leaders can do
Integrate social value into pay systems.
Pilot SROI-informed benchmarks for roles that drive health, safety, learning, or cohesion. Tie a portion of variable pay to validated outcome metrics (e.g., readmission rates, infection control, learner progression, customer recovery time).Cap the spread
Adopt internal pay-ratio guidelines (for example 1:8–1:12) to maintain coherence between senior and median pay. It focuses investment where outcomes move.Make externalities visible.
Publish an impact ledger alongside financials: show where functions create positive spillovers—or risks that others must absorb.Invest in care infrastructure.
Fund childcare and predictable scheduling. These raise participation, productivity, and retention—especially for non-linear talent.Reframe employer branding
Celebrate the outcomes your “invisible” roles create (safety, cleanliness, continuity, inclusion). When you name and measure value, you can reward it.
A note on time and relevance
Yes, the NEF report dates back to 2009—and that’s exactly why it’s interesting. In a world with AI productivity curves, this framing still asks the right question: Are we rewarding what actually makes society—and organisations—work?
Don’t get me wrong—I love AI, and it meaningfully boosts efficiency and quality. That’s precisely why we should pair it with pay systems that reward the human outcomes that matter most: safety, learning, trust, and wellbeing.
If you’re experimenting with SROI benchmarks, internal pay ratios, or outcome-linked progression, I’d love to feature your case. Add a comment or reach out—let’s turn these ideas into practical, open examples others can adopt.