How to Create a Competitive Compensation Package

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗖 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗮𝗽: 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝘁) “We offered 75th percentile comp and still lost three GC candidates. What are we missing?” I hear this from CEOs and comp committees more often than you’d think. The answer? Everything. Here’s the disconnect: most comp committees benchmark GC pay against other GCs. Logical on paper. Misleading in practice. The GCs you want aren’t comparing themselves to other lawyers. They’re looking at your CFO, CRO, and other executives with a seat at the strategy table. That’s how they see themselves, and how the best-performing companies see them too. The market data reveals the pattern: 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 • Base: 60–70% of package • Bonus: 20–30% (often discretionary) • Equity: 10–20% (if any) 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗼𝗽 𝗚𝗖𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 • Base: 40–50% of package • Bonus: 20–30% (tied to business metrics) • Equity: 30–40% (meaningful upside) I’ve seen candidates turn down higher guaranteed packages in favor of lower base salaries with real equity potential. They’re thinking like owners. And they expect to be treated like one. Here’s how smart companies structure GC compensation: 𝟭. 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 Look at your CFO and CHRO packages, not just legal surveys. 𝟮. 𝗧𝗶𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 • Revenue growth • Deal velocity • Exit readiness milestones • Not just departmental KPIs 𝟯. 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗳𝘂𝗹 If your GC doesn’t have real upside in an exit, why would they drive toward one? 𝟰. 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀 Packages should scale with company success. I’ve seen this model work repeatedly. PE-backed companies offering below-market base with aggressive equity consistently win top candidates. These GCs see themselves as value creators, growing both the business and their stake in it. How you structure GC compensation says a lot about how you view the role. Pay for legal support, and that’s what you’ll get. Invest in a business leader, and you unlock real transformation. Share your compensation philosophy below. #ExecutiveCompensation #ChiefLegalOfficer #TalentStrategy --- 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘎𝘊 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘔𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬.

What's missing from a lot of comp plans is an actual comp narrative. Most comp plans fail before the ink dries, but not because they’re unfair or confusing, but because they’re just uninspiring. Reps don’t lose motivation because the math is wrong, rather they lose it because the story is. You need to think about your comp plan as your most powerful communication tool, rather than how most folks treat it, which is some type of legal document. - Front loaded with fine print. - Delivered by Finance, not Sales. - Explained once at SKO, then buried in a PDF. And when performance dips? We blame the reps...not the absence of narrative. A gangster comp plan is built to rally the team, Bill Pullman in Independence Day style! It tells reps: - Here’s what matters. - Here’s how to win. - Here’s why this year will be different. Without that? You’re just dangling numbers in front of people who already feel underwater. So, what do you do? Well...start thinking like a storyteller, not just a planner. Here’s the 3-part structure every comp narrative needs: 1. The mission: What are we chasing this year, and why does it matter? Tie comp to strategy. Are we going upmarket? New logos? Expansion? Market share? Make the plan feel like a weapon - not just a spreadsheet. 2. The path: How can each rep win...not just survive? Show them the ladder. Tiered thresholds. Kicker zones. Trackable momentum. Most reps don’t need new math. They need visible progress. 3. The stakes: What’s in it for them beyond the W-2? President’s Club is fine. But I'd recommend you talk career mobility. Promotion access. Leadership exposure. Make performance personal rather than just financial. And here’s the part you can't forget: comp is a LIVING story. That means you can retell the narrative all year long: - In pipeline reviews (“You’re 30% to your accelerator zone...keep going.”) - In standups (“This is the kind of expansion that moves you into tier 3.”) - In 1:1s (“Your close rate here unlocks priority for promo slate.”) The story gets sharper with each rep, because belief compounds if you keep feeding it. A comp plan without a narrative is just math, and math is kinda boring. But a comp plan with narrative? That’s fuel. It doesn’t just pay reps. It moves them. And in a year where budgets are tight, buyers are cautious, and reps are tired, narrative might be the only incentive you can’t afford to get wrong.

Are You Using the Right Market Data to Set Pay? Here's Where Many Go Wrong One of the most critical steps in building a competitive and equitable compensation strategy is choosing the right salary survey data. But here’s the reality: even well-intentioned organizations often get this wrong, which leads to misaligned pay, turnover risk, and inconsistent pay decisions. It all starts with defining your labor market correctly. Your external labor market is not simply "tech industry" or "based in Chicago." It should reflect where you actually compete for talent, which may not be where you operate or even the industry you're in. Consider two examples: Example 1: You have a manufacturing facility in Fort Collins, Colorado. Your competitors for talent may not be other manufacturers. They could be logistics, food processing, or construction employers in the same region drawing from the same labor pool. Example 2: You're building a $1B+ mine in Peru and need a Senior Project Manager to lead it. You won’t just recruit locally. You'll look globally for someone with deep mining industry and megaproject experience. That’s your labor market. Most organizations define their market using three core factors: 1. Industry: Are you hiring from within your industry or pulling talent from others (e.g., tech roles in finance)? 2. Geography: Is the talent pool local, regional, national, global, or remote? Are you pricing for job location or employee residence? 3. Company Size: For many roles, pay correlates with company size which is based on revenue, headcount, or assets under management. Common Mistakes That Skew Market Comparisons: ·       Assuming your business competitors are your labor market competitors ·       Using HQ location instead of actual work location ·       Applying a one-size-fits-all market scope across all jobs or levels ·       Relying on a single survey source without validation across other pay data sources To Get It Right: 1 - Define your talent market by job family or critical role 2 - Map each to relevant salary survey scopes based on industry, size, and geography 3 - Use two to three surveys to cross-check and validate the pay data 4 - Document your methodology for repeatability and defensibility Defining your market correctly isn’t just a data decision. It is a strategic one. In a world of growing pay transparency and increased regulatory focus, poor market alignment leads to pay equity gaps, reputation risk, and talent loss. How confident are you that your pay comparisons reflect your true labor market? #Compensation #PayEquity #TotalRewards #SalarySurveys #HR #HumanResources #CompensationConsultant #FutureOfWork #PayTransparency #MarketPricing #FairPay