The UK gender pay gap is not distributed evenly across the earnings scale. ONS data for 2025 shows a clear pattern: the gap is 1.8% at the 10th percentile of full-time hourly earnings, 6.9% at the median and 15.2% at the 90th percentile. In other words, the difference is much larger among higher-paid workers than among lower-paid workers. That matters for employers because a headline national figure can conceal where inequality is most concentrated. It also matters for recruiters because senior hiring, promotion and reward systems often determine who reaches the top end of the pay distribution. The data does not prove why the gap is wider at higher earnings, but it strongly suggests that any serious pay-equity analysis must examine representation and progression as well as starting salaries.
The pay distribution shows where the gap becomes largest
The ONS percentile breakdown provides a useful way to see how the gender pay gap changes across the earnings distribution. At the 10th percentile, the full-time gap is 1.8%. At the median, it is 6.9%. At the 90th percentile, it rises to 15.2%.
The difference between the bottom and top of the distribution is substantial. The gap at the 90th percentile is more than eight times the gap at the 10th percentile. That tells employers that the national median figure is not the whole story.
The advantage of percentile analysis is that it highlights concentration. It helps identify whether differences are mainly occurring among lower-paid, middle-paid or higher-paid workers. The disadvantage is that it still does not reveal the exact occupations, employers or causes behind the pattern.
For recruitment teams, the practical implication is straightforward: senior and high-paying roles deserve particular scrutiny. If the largest gap appears near the top of the pay distribution, employers should examine who reaches those roles, how pay is set and how promotions are decided.
That does not mean every high-paying employer has a large internal gap. The ONS figure is a national aggregate. It is a benchmark, not a diagnosis of one organisation.
Senior representation can shape the top-end pay gap
Higher-paid roles are often concentrated in senior management, specialist professions, finance, technology, law and other occupations where experience and responsibility command large salary premiums. If men and women are represented differently in those roles, the aggregate pay gap at the top can widen even when people in the same job are paid equally.
ONS occupational data provides context. Skilled trades had a full-time gender pay gap of 13.9%, associate professional and technical occupations 12.5%, and process, plant and machine operatives 12.3% in the cited 2025 data. These figures show that occupational structure matters.
The advantage of looking at representation is that it directs attention to hiring and progression pathways. Employers can examine who enters senior pipelines, who is promoted, who leaves before reaching higher grades and whether development opportunities are distributed fairly.
The drawback is that occupational averages can still be broad. Two people in the same occupation may have different seniority, responsibilities or specialisms. A responsible employer therefore needs internal grade-level analysis rather than relying only on national occupation categories.
For recruiters, this is a reason to challenge narrow candidate specifications that unnecessarily shrink the pool. If a senior role is defined through an overly rigid career path, employers may exclude experienced candidates whose progression was less conventional.
Pay-setting practices matter more at the top
Higher-paid roles often involve greater discretion in salary negotiation, bonuses, commission, long-term incentives and individual packages. That flexibility can be commercially useful, but it can also widen differences if pay decisions are not governed consistently.
At lower salary levels, employers are more likely to use fixed pay bands or standardised rates. That can reduce variation. At senior levels, compensation may depend more heavily on negotiation, previous salary, perceived market value or bespoke arrangements.
The benefit of flexible pay is that it allows employers to compete for scarce skills and reward exceptional responsibility. The disadvantage is that discretion can introduce inconsistency. If two candidates with similar value negotiate differently, pay gaps can emerge even without deliberate discrimination.
Recruiters can help by encouraging clear salary ranges, documenting offer decisions and focusing on the value of the role rather than simply adding a percentage to a candidate’s previous salary.
Employers should also examine bonus and variable-pay structures. A headline base-salary comparison can miss important differences if higher-paid groups receive large performance-related awards.
Why the top-end gap is not the same as unequal pay
As with the wider gender pay-gap debate, the percentile figures should not be confused with an equal-pay assessment. The national gap compares group earnings. Equal pay concerns whether people doing equal work or work of equal value are paid fairly under the law.
A large 90th-percentile gap can arise because men are overrepresented in very high-paying roles, because career paths differ, because working patterns vary, or because of other structural factors. It does not by itself prove that women and men in the same senior role are paid differently.
The advantage of the percentile measure is that it identifies where the aggregate difference is largest. The limitation is that it cannot explain the mechanism.
Employers should therefore avoid two opposite mistakes. The first is treating a high national gap as proof of unlawful unequal pay. The second is assuming that equal pay within individual roles means there is no gender-related issue in progression or representation.
A strong analysis examines both. It asks whether comparable roles are paid consistently and whether different groups have similar access to the roles that carry the highest rewards.
What employers should do with the high-pay gap
The most useful response is to treat senior pay and progression as measurable systems. Employers can monitor promotion rates, time to promotion, representation by grade, starting salaries for senior hires, bonus allocation and retention among high-performing staff.
Recruiters can support this by using transparent ranges, widening sourcing pools, questioning unnecessary experience requirements and reducing reliance on informal negotiation. Executive-search teams can also track the diversity of longlists and shortlists rather than waiting until the final appointment stage.
The benefit of this approach is that it focuses on process rather than headline optics. The drawback is that meaningful change can take time, especially where senior pipelines develop over many years.
The ONS data does not tell employers which intervention will work best. It does show where the national gap is largest. A 15.2% gap at the 90th percentile compared with 1.8% at the 10th percentile is a strong signal that senior pay and representation deserve special attention.
The practical conclusion is not that high earners are inherently treated unfairly. It is that the largest aggregate gender differences occur near the top of the distribution, so employers that care about pay equity should examine the systems that determine who reaches high-paying roles and how those roles are rewarded.
Source: ONS, Gender pay gap in the UK: 2025.