A client made a point to me recently that stuck. He had paid for reward data, but what he really needed was help making sense of it and taking a convincing recommendation to the board. Without a reward specialist in-house, that was the bit he was struggling with.
I think that’s an important distinction when buying support. You can have a perfectly good benchmark and still be left wondering what to recommend. The board needs to understand why the comparison matters and what you want it to approve.
That is the work I would do before the paper reaches the board.
Establish the decision you are asking for
Are you trying to set a package for a new appointment? Retain an executive? Correct an inconsistency between roles? Price an internal promotion?
The purpose affects the evidence. A recruitment recommendation needs to consider whether the package can attract suitable people. A retention decision needs to consider the person’s contribution, the alternatives and the consequences of departure. Neither should rely solely on the fact that someone currently sits below a market median.
Write the requested decision in a sentence. If you cannot do that, the paper probably needs more work.
Explain the comparison before presenting the numbers
Show why the benchmark organisations and roles are relevant. Consider scale, accountability, business complexity and the markets from which you can realistically recruit.
A shared job title is not enough. Two finance directors may have very different ownership structures, teams and exposure to financing decisions. A people role in a decentralised group may differ substantially from one in a centralised business of similar headcount.
Use survey data where it helps, alongside other credible evidence where available. Public disclosures, recent appointments and properly gathered market conversations can add context. Each has limitations. Explain the dates, sample and gaps rather than combining everything into a number that looks more precise than it is.
Compare the full package consistently. Bonus opportunity differs from bonus actually earned. Long-term awards may have conditions and uncertain value. Pension, flexibility and notice arrangements can also affect how a candidate evaluates an offer.
Put the choices in front of the board
Here is a simplified illustrative example. It uses invented figures to show the structure of a decision, rather than a market benchmark.
Assume a business has a £130,000 base salary budget for a new senior role. Relevant evidence suggests suitable candidates may expect £145,000 to £155,000, subject to the wider package and remit.
| Option | Immediate consequence | Main uncertainty | What the board needs to accept |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keep the £130,000 budget | Maintains the current salary cost | Whether enough suitable candidates will engage | A potentially narrower pool or a revised remit |
| Increase the budget to £150,000 | Adds £20,000 to annual base salary cost | Whether the overall opportunity is competitive | The recurring cost and any internal reward implications |
| Reduce the scope of the role | May make the original budget more realistic | Where the remaining work will sit | A change to accountabilities and delivery expectations |
The figures exclude employer on-costs and other package elements. A real paper should include those costs and the effect on existing colleagues.
There may be other choices, including a staged appointment or a different mix of reward. Present the ones that are credible for the business. Do not add options you know cannot work just to make the recommendation look balanced.
Make your judgement visible
State your recommendation and explain the assumptions behind it. “Approve a £150,000 base salary because…” should lead to the role requirement, the market evidence and the business consequence.
Show what could change the recommendation. Perhaps the role could be narrowed. Perhaps location flexibility would broaden the pool. Perhaps the benchmark is weak in a particular sector and needs further testing.
Where the evidence is incomplete, say so. A range supported by good context is more useful than a precise figure built on poor comparators.
For an existing executive, consider internal consistency and the wider reward philosophy. Retention concerns should be investigated rather than treated as proof that a pay increase is necessary. Where formal governance or specialist requirements apply, involve the appropriate reward and governance advisers.
A short board paper can follow this order: the decision requested, the business reason, the evidence and its limits, the viable options, then the recommendation and review point.
Ask a colleague who has not been involved to read it. If they can repeat the recommendation but cannot explain why it makes sense, you still have a communication problem. Fix that before asking the board to make the decision.