Dernières publications

By Irina Kvirikadze - Senior Manager Data Integrity

Competitive compensation packages play a pivotal role in attracting, retaining, and motivating top talent - essential for delivering value to clients and driving sustainable growth in the consulting industry.

Here, we take a look at expected global and regional salary increases, as well as factors influencing salary adjustment for the year ahead.

Expected Global Salary Growth Projections

Vencon Research’s own findings [i], backed up by other studies [ii], suggest that despite some economic concerns, companies all over the world are inclined to maintain a fairly aggressive approach towards compensation.

Among the primary factors for increasing salary budgets are inflation and cost of living adjustments. Inflationary pressures and rising costs of living have compelled consulting firms to review and adjust their compensation structures accordingly. Expected salary increases in 2024 are, partially a response to inflationary trends to maintain the purchasing power of their employees.

Salary increases and inflation rates exhibit significant variation across countries, yet this overarching trend is observable in many, though not all, countries. According to Vencon Research findings (see Figure 1), average global salary rises in 2024 is 5.2% and inflation rate 3.3%. It's important to highlight that in 2023, salary increases outpaced inflation [iii], and this trend is likely to persist into 2024.

Salary increases can vary depending on the geographic location of the consulting firm within a country and its employees. For example, consultants working in major metropolitan areas with higher costs of living may receive larger salary increases compared to those in smaller cities or rural areas. Consequently, each country [iv] and region should be assessed independently, given the significant disparities in economic conditions. The subsequent section will provide further exploration into expected salary increases at both regional and national levels.

Expected Regional and National Salary Growth Projections

Regional salary increases in 2024 vary from 5% to 5.4% and inflation rates from 2.8% to 3.8% (see Figure 2). In Europe, salary increases vary between 2% to 10.4% and inflation rates from 1.9% to 6.6% (see Figure 3). In Belgium, as the inflation rate stabilizes, salary increases for 2024 are projected to decrease to 4.9% compared to the previous year's increase of over 11%, which was influenced by wage indexation tied to inflation [v]. In Germany expected salary increase is 4.4%, in France 4.1%, in Spain 3.9% and in the United Kingdom 4.8%.

In countries with high inflation rates such as Türkiye, where the predicted inflation rate for 2024 exceeds 50%, the expected salary increase stands at 45.4%[vi]. Nevertheless, companies are implementing additional measures such as frequent salary adjustments and issuing payments in foreign currencies.

In the Americas, encompassing both North and South America, projected salary increases stand at 5.3%. Excluding Argentina, a country experiencing hyperinflation, the highest average salary increases in this region are anticipated in Brazil (6.3%) and Colombia (10.1%) (see Figure 4).

In Canada and the United States of America (USA) expected average salary growth rates are 4% and 4.3% respectively.

It is essential to acknowledge that the anticipated economic growth of individual countries is an also an influential factor. The United States of America holds a central position in this regard, owing to the size and resilience of its market. Furthermore, certain US companies boast sales figures that surpass the gross national product of entire countries. Increasingly, attention is shifting towards APAC (Asia Pacific) while diminishing emphasis on Europe. This transition is further accelerated by sluggish economic growth in Europe and notably in Germany [vii].

According to the Vencon Research study, it is anticipated that a majority of locations in the APAC region will either maintain or surpass their real salary growth rates from 2023 in the year 2024 (see Figure 5). China is anticipated to maintain one of the lowest inflation rates at 1.7% in 2024, trailing only behind Taiwan and Thailand in this region. Despite this, it is expected to experience a notable average salary increase of 5.6%. Conversely, India which is poised to lead the way in projected salary increases within the APAC region, with an impressive figure of 9.7%.

As seen in numerous other countries, the anticipated average salary increases in the Middle East and South Africa are poised to remain robust throughout 2024. Projections indicate that pay raises are expected to reach 6% in Saudi Arabia and South Africa, while in the United Arab Emirates, the figure is slightly lower at 4.2% (refer to Figure 6).

It is essential to note that beyond inflation and cost of living, there are additional pivotal factors that drive salary increases within this sector.

Factors Influencing Salary Trends: Beyond Inflation and Cost of Living

Tight Labour Market and Competition

In 2024, the demand for consulting services continues to increase as businesses face complex challenges such as sustainability initiatives, post-pandemic recovery strategies and digital transformation. In this context, consulting firms are under high pressure to attract and retain top talent to meet client expectations. This heightened demand has translated into competitive salary packages and lucrative benefits for consultants.

Today, it's not only the leading consulting firms competing for talent, but also the MAANG [viii] companies, as well as ever multiplying start-ups. This resonates with the "Z" generation, which has its distinct priorities. They are willing to put in the effort, but seek fair and transparent compensation, alongside a work-life balance conducive to family life, within a communicative, team-oriented environment. This trend predominantly impacts consulting firms operating in mature markets, while emerging markets are not experiencing the same degree of impact at present.

Industry Specialization and Niche Demands

Diversity of client specialization and the rapid emergence of new topics with increasingly shorter life cycles have significantly altered the requirements for potential consultants. Specialized expertise and niche knowledge are now more sought after than ever before. Certain specialized areas within consulting, such as technology, healthcare, or sustainability, may experience higher demand and thus higher salaries. Consultants with expertise in these areas may see larger salary increases compared to those in more general consulting roles or general lines of businesses.

Emerging Industry Trends and Consolidation

Emerging trends and innovations in the consulting industry, such as the adoption of new technologies or methodologies, may influence salary increases. Consultants with skills and expertise in these areas may be in high demand and receive higher compensation as a result.

Apart from that, the consulting landscape has witnessed significant consolidation through mergers and acquisitions, with larger firms acquiring boutique consultancies to expand service offerings and market presence. Salary increases may reflect the impact of industry consolidation, as firms seek to integrate talent seamlessly and align compensation structures across merged entities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the dynamics of expected salary increases in 2024 within the consulting industry reflect a multifaceted interplay of global economic factors, regional trends, and industry-specific dynamics. Despite economic uncertainties and inflationary pressures, consulting firms are maintaining fairly aggressive compensation strategies to attract and retain top talent crucial for delivering value to clients and sustaining growth.

Across different regions, variations in salary increases and inflation rates underscore the importance of localized analysis and decision-making. Factors such as tight labour markets, industry specialization, and emerging trends significantly influence salary trends, with specialized expertise commanding higher compensation. Furthermore, the ongoing consolidation within the consulting landscape through mergers and acquisitions has implications for salary structures as firms integrate talent and align compensation strategies across entities.

It is interesting to observe how all the market conditions and factors will influence actual salary budget expenditure across all markets in 2024. However, as the consulting industry continues to evolve, a nuanced understanding of salary dynamics remains essential for sustainable growth and success.  To effectively navigate these complexities and ensure competitive compensation packages, it is imperative to base decisions on the most accurate, pertinent, and up-to-date market data available. Failure to do so will perpetuate the challenges currently faced by employers, ultimately eroding efforts in attraction, retention, and motivation, thereby resulting organizations failing to meet their anticipated outcomes.

For more information on this topic or on how you may successfully respond to the issues raised in this article, please contact Vencon Research – as always, we are happy to assist you.

[i] Vencon Research analysis encompassing more than 50 countries.

[ii] Various inflation forecasting and research firms, incl. Kienbaum, Korn Ferry and Willis Towers Watson

[iii] Bremen, John. "Will Pay Increases Exceed Inflation in 2024?" Forbes, 14 Dec. 2023

[iv] Each country and its profile will be thoroughly reviewed in upcoming briefings from Vencon Research.

[v] Vencon Research. "Belgium's Consulting Industry Braces for Government-Enforced Salary Adjustments" Vencon Research

[vi] Considering hyperinflation and data volatility

[vii] DW News. "Germany's Economy Set for Rough Ride in 2024" DW

[viii] Meta (Facebook); Amazon; Apple; Netflix; and Google (Alphabet)

‍

By Philip Thomas – Advisory

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) in the USA offer benefits for both employers and employees. They have the potential to reshape the traditional employment relationship and contribute to a more inclusive and participatory culture.

For some US consulting firms, ESOPs may be the best and most viable means of allowing employees to become shareholders in the company.

Here we offer an overview of the potential benefits of ESOPs for both the employer and employee.

Advantages for the employer

The following are some of the key potential positives from an employer perspective:

• Increased employee retention and motivation - Employees with a stake in the firm are likely to be more committed and engaged.
• Increased productivity - Employees may well feel a stronger sense of responsibility and ownership in their work.
• Recruitment advantages - Potential employees may be attracted to the prospect of becoming owners and sharing in the company's success. In addition, ESOPs provide employees with an opportunity to accumulate wealth over time, especially as the value of the company increases, which can be an important part of an employee's overall compensation package.
• Tax advantages - In the United States, there are tax benefits for the employer as contributions to the ESOP trust are tax-deductible.
• Improved long-term company performance - ESOPs help to promote the goal of long-term success but not at the cost of short to mid-term success.
• Reinforcement of positive corporate culture and values - Employees are more likely to embrace a culture of teamwork and collaboration when they have a stake in the firm's performance.

Advantages for the employee

The following are some of the key potential positives from an employee perspective:

• Gaining an ownership stake - When employees become partial owners of their firm, it can create a sense of pride and loyalty, increase job satisfaction and strengthen connections to the organisation.
• Increased financial rewards - As the firm performs well, the value of the ESOP shares may increase, providing employees with financial rewards and the potential for wealth accumulation.
• An additional stream of retirement savings - ESOPs can serve as an additional and significant retirement savings vehicle. They allow employees to accumulate further wealth over their tenure with the company and help to offer a diversified set of incentives.
• Job Security - Employees may feel more secure in their jobs as the firm’s ultimate success will be more likely given the additional financial incentives for all individuals.
• More desirable culture - Employee-owned companies often foster a unique company culture based on shared ownership values, teamwork, and collaboration. Employees may find this culture more fulfilling and supportive.
• More transparency from the firm - ESOPs often promote transparency in financial matters and firm performance, as employees have a vested interest in understanding the factors affecting the value of their ESOP shares.

ESOPs for mutual growth and success

Through the alignment of individual and organisational interests, ESOPs pave the way for a future where shared ownership values fuel mutual growth and success.

While not all US consulting firms will be in the position to offer an ESOP, those that can’t would be well advised to consider covering many of the potential positives that ESOPs offer via mutually beneficial and well-balanced remuneration structures.

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how to optimally design your company’s compensation package and implement ESOPs or other compensation elements.

Contact us here.

‍

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

In this series of articles, we are highlighting an aspect of remuneration strategy that is often not given sufficient attention: The ratio of fixed and variable pay to total cash compensation (also known as "pay mix").

In Part 1 of this series, we explained why the pay mix can be the defining differentiator, particularly from the perspective of attracting and retaining employees.

In this Part 2 we will discuss how pay mix affects the financials of firms, especially with regards to personnel costs. In the upcoming Part 3 we will examines how pay mix should be adjusted in relation to the total cash compensation offered and how benchmarked market percentiles are the most effective indicator of competitive positioning. And, in the final Part 4 we will assess how pay mix may influence firms’ culture and performance, we will examine how pay mix may influence firms’ culture and performance.

Part 2: Bottom line up front:

The higher the total cash compensation, the higher the variable pay as a proportion of total cash compensation (or in other words, the pay mix is "riskier" because a larger proportion of pay is performance related). In companies with a well-designed performance appraisal system, underperformers may "finance" the additional variable pay needed to reward overperformers. But the cost effect is only one consideration: companies will achieve significantly better overall results if more employees over-achieve their targets, which will also have a positive impact on the bottom line.

Introduction

For professional services firms in particular, hiring the right people, motivating them to perform at their best and retaining top talent are critical to success.

In an ideal world, the solution would be very simple: companies pay their employees the highest salary relative to all other “competitors for talent” (which could be market participants within the same industry, but also in other sectors) in the hope of attracting and retaining the best performing employees in the market.

In the real world, however, the interests of stakeholders other than employees, such as the owners of the company, stand in the way: owners are interested in sustainable profits and above-average growth rates, and are therefore generally only prepared to pay above-average salaries to employees if they also perform exceptionally well.

Pay mix as a means of offering higher total cash compensation

For this reason, higher pay - in certain jobs - is usually strongly or directly linked to the achievement of results and performance. In professional services firms, especially for client-facing or sales staff, this is often achieved through variable pay components such as bonuses.

Generally, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of total cash compensation and the ratio of fixed to variable and total cash compensation (hence, the pay mix): The higher the total cash compensation, the higher the variable pay relative to base salary and total cash compensation (or in other words, the “riskier” the pay mix).

The following example (Table 1 and Exhibit 1) illustrates this: Assume that the following three offers relate to comparable positions with comparable future prospects and development opportunities, etc., offered by three comparable companies with similar brand, status, market and growth prospects, etc.:

In the example above, Firm 1 offers the highest total cash compensation (100) with the lowest base salary (60) and the highest ratios of variable pay to base salary (67%) and variable pay to total cash compensation (40%). On the contrary, Firm 3 offers the lowest total cash compensation (90) with highest base salary (70) and the lowest ratios of variable pay to base salary (29%) and variable pay to total cash compensation (22%). Firm 2’s offer is in between the other two offers. In essence, the higher the total cash compensation offered, the more money is “at risk” (due to performance-related variable pay).

Performance appraisal and pay mix

Now, we will take a closer look at how pay mix also affects the financials of companies, especially with regards to personnel costs. The following example (Table 2) uses the same three offers as above:

As illustrated in the example above, when analysing variable pay (which in most cases is “pay for performance”), it is also important to address the issue of performance appraisal. In our practice, we often see that companies are more inclined to use a more sophisticated system to assess individual performance when variable pay is more relevant, i.e. higher in relation to base salary and/or total cash compensation. On the other hand, companies tend to spend less time assessing individual performance when variable pay is relatively low (or some companies do not offer variable pay based on individual performance at all, but rather, for example, a bonus based on company results or performance).

The amount of effort put into individual performance appraisals has an impact on the outcomes for both the employee and the organisation: A more detailed performance appraisal may also lead to more diverse performance outcomes, i.e. performance outcomes may look rather “bell-curve” shaped, i.e. some high performers, many on target performers and some low performers. Less sophisticated performance appraisal systems on the other hand will often lead to more heterogeneous performance results (i.e. a narrower but steeper bell-curve with fewer high and low performers). And, in companies where individual performance is not assessed, there will be no differentiation at all. Accordingly, the expectation is that all employees will have the same level of variable pay (or bonus).

In the example above, assuming that all employees perform at 100% of their targets, Firm 1 is expected to have the highest total personnel costs, Firm 3 the lowest and Firm 2 in between. On the other hand, the more sophisticated the performance appraisal, the greater the potential to differentiate between employees and thus “optimise” personnel costs, while still paying good and exceptional performers according to their contribution.

More diverse distribution of performers in performance appraisal

On the other hand, from the company’s point of view, a more differentiated assessment of individual performance usually results in a potentially wider range of variable pay costs, i.e. if more employees over-achieve their targets, the company will have to pay out more variable pay. Conversely, if more employees do not achieve their targets or under-achieve, the company will have to pay out less variable pay. Compared to the example above where all employees meet their targets, there may be a “cost optimisation” effect, i.e. part of the variable pay may be “saved” as a result of some employees’ underperformance, which can be paid (in part) to the overperformers. Based on the same three offers from the previous example, the following example (Table 3) examines three scenarios in which the distribution of achievers is changed:

In the example above, Firm 1 uses a more detailed performance appraisal, which is likely to result in more diverse performance outcomes: more high performers, less on target performers and more underperformers compared to Firm 2. In the case of Firm 3, where individual performance is not assessed, there will be no differentiation at all.

Obviously, Firm 1 has the highest variance in its total cost of variable pay (from 360 to 440 in the three scenarios). Company 2's variance in terms of total variable pay costs is lower than Firm 1's (from 270 to 330) and Firm 3 will not see any change in its budget if the performance of individuals changes. This also means that Firm 1 and Firm 2 can “save” up to 10% of their variable pay budget if more people underperform (which is by no means a target, but if it happens, it also saves money).

Personal performance and pay mix affect personnel costs

Since base salary is a “fixed” component of personnel cost, variable pay is the only component which may fluctuate according to distribution of performers, and thus, so will the total personnel cost (Table 4):

In this example, Firm 1’s total budget for personnel costs will vary the most (between 960 and 1,040), Firm 2’s will vary a little less (between 920 and 980) and Firm 3’s will not vary at all.

The cost effect is only one aspect: Firm 1 will achieve significantly better results in the first scenario if more employees over-achieve their targets, which will also have a positive effect on the company’s results, growth and so on.

Conversely, Firm 3 has no impact on its personnel costs, regardless of whether or not its employees perform. On the other hand, Firms 1 and 2 may save some personnel costs when employees do not perform.

Finally, all the above concepts are less relevant (or even counterproductive) for “creative” jobs or for jobs where meaningful and measurable metrics cannot be defined (such as some administrative jobs).

In summary, the pay mix can also have significant implications for both the employee (in terms of “money at risk”) and the company (e.g. higher personnel costs if more employees overperform and vice versa). In companies where there are clear performance appraisal systems in place, underperformers may “finance” the additional variable pay needed to reward overperformers. But the cost effect is only one consideration: Companies will achieve significantly better overall results if more employees over-achieve their targets, which will also have a positive impact on the bottom line. On the other hand, no differentiation at all in terms of personal performance can have a negative impact on the “motivation” of high performers (which will be discussed in more detail in Part 3).

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how you optimally design the pay mix (and/or remuneration systems) for your company.

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the firm’s consulting unit.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

‍

This article, Part 1 of 4 of an InSights series, demonstrates why the pay mix is often the key differentiator when it comes to recruitment and retention from the applicants’ perspective. The upcoming Part 2 analyses the effect pay mix may have on the firm’s financials, especially with regards to personnel costs.  In Part 3 we will examines how pay mix should be adjusted in relation to the total cash compensation offered and how benchmarked market percentiles are the most effective indicator of competitive positioning. And, in the final Part 4 we will assess how pay mix may influence firms’ culture and performance, we will examine how pay mix may influence firms’ culture and performance.

‍Pay Mix as the Key Differentiator

Synopsis: One aspect of remuneration strategy is the ratio of variable to fixed pay (also called “pay mix”). Together they often make up the total pay of consultants. Unfortunately, the importance of pay mix is often underestimated or even overlooked.

When pay packages of competing firms are considered to be largely similar, the pay mix can become the key differentiator when comparing compensation, especially from the applicants’ perspective. Thus, when reviewing remuneration, firms should not focus on a single component of compensation (e.g. fixed or variable pay) as these alone will often not be the deciding factors. Firms should instead focus on the pay mix, i.e. the ratio of variable to fixed pay, as this ratio strongly influences an applicants’ choice. Depending on the risk-profile of the applicant, a lower level of total pay with a higher absolute level of fixed pay may be the better offer for many risk-averse applicants; conversely a higher level of total pay with a significantly higher variable component in the pay mix may be more attractive to risk-friendly applicants.

For professional services firms in particular, employee compensation is crucial to both successful recruitment and retention, i.e. hiring the right employees, continually motivating them to perform at their best, and retaining employees. Thus, together with firm culture, the importance of offering a competitive compensation package cannot be overstated.

In this InSights article we will take an in-depth look at the pay mix (i.e. the ratio of variable to fixed pay) within total pay, an aspect of compensation package design often underestimated. However, we will demonstrate that it can be as relevant as or even more relevant than the absolute amount of total pay (e.g. total cash compensation), especially from the perspective of new applicants.

To illustrate our arguments, the following Base-Case example will be applied:

An applicant for an entry and/or more junior-level consulting position receives offers from two comparable companies with similar status in the market. The two firms also offer comparable future development prospects to the applicant. For simplicity, the offers of employment made by the two firms are essentially the same to all applicants with the only differentiating factor being the pay mix of the compensation package offered (Exhibit 1):

Exhibit 1: Original offers of two competing firms with different pay mix

Both of the competing compensation packages offered total to USD 100k and from an economic point of view the upside potential of the two firms’ offering is the same (at USD 100k). However, while Firm 2’s offer provides the same total pay, it also offers the higher fixed pay component, which guarantees greater annualised financial security (65k vs 60k). Since Firm 2’s offer also provides the higher intra-year fixed pay (+8%) it would be considered “safer”. It would thus seem reasonable to assume that applicants will prefer Firm 2’s offer.

Assuming furthermore that the compensation packages being offered are transparent to all applicants, the result of this example would likely be that Firm 2 is able to hire all of the applicants it requires. Only when all of Firm 2’s vacancies have been filled, would the remaining applicants be forced to take the offer from Firm 1. Thus, Firm 1 would only be able to hire the applicants not needed by Firm 2 and would lose the competition for talent.

How could Firm 1 adapt their compensation model in order to be more attractive to potential applicants and be in a position to compete with or better Firm 2’s offer in the war for talent? Three alternative options stand out for Firm 1:

·        Alternative 1: Changing the pay mix;

·        Alternative 2: Increasing total pay (with the same pay mix);

·        Alternative 3: Both of the above.

‍

Alternative 1 – Changing the pay mix

Increasing the fixed component of pay at the expense of variable pay will provide applicants an even safer offer without the need to change the total pay of USD 100k (Exhibit 2). In our example, Alternative 1 increases Firm 1’s fixed pay from USD 60k to 66k at the expense of the variable pay (reduced to USD 34k from 40k). From the applicant’s perspective, changing the pay mix as suggested in Alternative 1 now makes Firm 1’s offer even safer and thus more attractive than Firm 2’s offer. Thus, following the arguments used in the Base-Case, Firm 2 would now only be able to hire the applicants not needed by Firm 1 and would lose the competition for talent. 

Exhibit 2: Alternative 1 - Changing Firm 1’s Pay Mix

It is important to keep in mind, however, that this alternative also changes the financials for Firm 1: Firm 1 would now incur higher fixed costs due to the change in Firm 1’s pay mix, i.e. they now offer a higher fixed pay component in their total pay. The implications of such a change will be examined in Part 2 of this series.

‍

‍Alternative 2 – Increasing total pay (with the same pay mix)

The result of an increase in total pay by increasing the fixed pay component with the same pay mix is shown in Alternative 2. In this alternative Firm 1’s total pay is increased to 105k, while the pay mix remains the same with variable pay equal to 67% of fixed pay (Exhibit 3):

Exhibit 3: Alternative 2 – Increasing the Total Pay Offered by Firm 1 with same Pay Mix

Increasing Firm 1’s total pay offering to USD 105k whilst maintaining the ratio between variable and fixed pay may make Firm 1’s “Alternative 2” offer more attractive than Firm 2’s offer of USD 100k. However, whether applicants prefer this offer over that made by Firm 2 will depend in part on the risk profile of the applicant: The more risk-taking or self-confident applicants will probably prefer this alternative offer since they can potentially earn more although a greater portion of pay is at risk. Conversely, the more risk-averse applicants may still prefer Firm 2’s safer offer with a fixed pay of USD 65k versus the alternative of USD 63k offered by Firm 1.

Alternative 2 again has implications on the financials for Firm 1: Firm 1 would now have to manage both higher fixed costs due to the increase in fixed pay (USD 63k versus 60k), as well as potentially higher variable costs due to the increase in variable pay (USD 43k versus 40k).

Alternative 3 – Increasing total pay and changing the pay mix

When considering the possibility of changing both the pay mix and at the same time increasing total pay, a number of alternatives are possible. A representative sample of these are examined in Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4: Alternatives 3a to 3b for Firm 1 by increasing Total Pay and adjusting Pay Mix

From the applicants’ perspective, Alternatives 3a to 3b are both better than Firm 1’s original offer in that they offer a higher total pay (USD 105k versus 100k). Alternatives 3a and 3b may also be better than the offer being made by Firm 2. However, here the situation should be further examined by considering the differentiated pay mix:

·        Although at USD 105k Firm 1’s Alternative 3a offers a higher total pay it remains riskier than Firm 2’s offer because at USD 60k the fixed pay portion is still lower than Firm 2’s offer of USD 65k. Hence, whether applicants prefer Firm 1’s Alternative 3a over that made by Firm 2 will again depend in part on the risk profile of the applicant. Some more risk-averse candidates may not be inclined to go for the higher total pay being offered by Firm 1’s Alternative 3a since in case of under or non-performance, the higher fixed pay offered by Firm 2 continues to be the safer harbour.

·        Firm 1’s Alternative 3b again offers a higher total pay (USD 105k) but also offers the higher fixed pay at USD 69k versus Firm’s USD 65k. It is thus per definition the safer offer. Alternative 3b furthermore offers the higher variable pay at USD 36k versus the USD 35k of Firm 2. In essence, this is a win-win situation for the applicant: Less risk, as well as higher upside potential. Independent of any applicant’s risk profile, it is the more attractive offer.

In practice we often observe that some applicants are not attracted by the marginally higher total pay packages that come with a riskier pay mix (i.e. higher percentage of variable pay). In addition, in some countries and with some firms, the targeted variable pay may not be considered realistically achievable. Thus, the only value that counts, especially from the perspective of the applicant, is fixed pay (i.e. the “bird in the hand” argument).

In this respect, the solution in an ideal world would be very simple: Companies offer applicants the highest fixed pay compared to all other “competitors for talent” (which can be market participants within the same industry, but also in other sectors) hoping to attract and to retain the best performing employees in the market. In the real world, however, the interests of other stakeholders, such as the firm’s owners often stand in the way: Owners (or stockholders) are interested in sustainable profits and above-average growth rates and are therefore generally only prepared to accept above-average pay for employees if these also perform exceptionally well. Or to put it another way: “In the world of consulting, there is no free lunch”.

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how you may optimise the design of your pay mix (and/or remuneration systems) at your company.

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and leads the firm’s advisory service. Erwin Harbauer is Vencon Research International’s Managing Partner.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research, as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service companies, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services companies. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 70 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services companies as its clients.

‍

Between April and June 2020 Vencon Research conducted the first Pulse Survey in the light of the unseen and unknown economic, financial, and personal impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

This Update to the Pulse Survey is a result of many requests from our clients over the past months wanting to find out how other professional services firms have adjusted to the crisis. Not just questions about the near and long-term future but also about the measures taken to react to COVID-19 and which may be sustainable and/or change the future of work and business in the consulting industry.

Most participating firms operated in strategy consulting, followed by IT consulting/services and operations consulting. 51% of responses came from firms located in Western Europe, followed by North America (20%) and AsiaPac (13%); ROW responses were 16%. Responses were well distributed with regards to firm size; slightly more responses came from firms employing 50-249 consultants (27%).

Here are some of the “highlights” from the key findings of the survey:

Business Situation and Prospects

The outlook for the coming year was fairly positive: More than half of the firms (54%) expected COVID-19 to positively impact their business. Generally, the consulting industry was surprisingly optimistic: A total of 82% of the firms expected better business prospects, despite COVID-19.

Effects on Workforce

During the previous 12 months more than half of respondents (52%) stated they reduced hiring; Interestingly, 31% reported increasing hiring. More than half of firms (56%) expected to increase hiring in the coming 12 months based on largely positive expectations regarding their business situation. Most firms (78%) expected either no adjustment or a slight increase in their existing workforce after COVID-19; only 17% of firms expected a significant increase. The problems mentioned resulted from staff working too long, a lack of “down time” and/or “switching off”; “virtual” onboarding/training was also difficult.

Promotion, Compensation & Place of Work

Most firms (82%) provided the necessary support to allow employees to work remotely and/or work from home, including for example computer/laptop, high-speed broad-band internet access, headphones, video camera equipment, etc., as well as other benefits.

The mental health of employees was considered a major challenge during the COVID-19 crisis. Hence, almost all firms provided additional training (93%) and self-management assistance (88%) to ensure employees are not over-worked and do not face “burnout” or the like. However, only 34% actually tracked home office working time.

Firms reacted differently regarding compensation adjustments: “merit” based pay increases continued to be offered; however, bonuses were reduced or suspended.

The majority of firms (75%) expected office usage to be reduced in the future and expected “work from home” to be continued (to a degree). In particular firms implemented “work from home”, which has become a standard way of operating for many firms; at least partly.

Long-term Changes and Challenges

Flexibility of place of work is expected to increase as most respondents (89%) expected “work from home” to be permanently implemented, but at lower than current levels (min. 1 to max. 3 days p/w). With regards to the difficulties arising from the increased usage of “work from home” or “remote work” and other permanent changes in business operations most firms mentioned the “soft” factors (e.g. self-management, continued health and well-being, culture) that were and will be challenges faced by “work from home” policies.

Many firms (59% of respondents) expected Business Development (i.e. sales) to become more “virtualised”.

The Long-term Outlook

Interestingly, almost half of the firms (49%) expected things to get back to “normal” within a given time, i.e. to the conditions before COVID-19. On the other hand, 39% of the respondents stated that there will be no return to a “before”.

Should you have any further questions or would like to receive more detailed information on this topic, please reach out to us at info@venconresearch.com.

‍

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the firm’s consulting unit.

Erwin Harbauer is a Partner at and co-founder of Vencon Research International.

Vencon Research International is a leading provider of compensation benchmarking and research as well as of compensation and performance-related consulting services for professional service firms, especially for audit and tax, management consulting, and IT services firms. Vencon Research International provides services to a full range of clients in more than 75 countries worldwide and is proud to name more than 85% of the world’s major consulting and/or professional services firm its clients.

‍

By Mik Bodnar - Business Development

As AI has matured from isolated pilots to enterprise-wide deployment, it has become a central pillar of business change. Consulting firms including Accenture, Deloitte, McKinsey, Bain, EY, KPMG, PwC, IBM, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, and Oliver Wyman have expanded AI-related offerings in response to sustained client demand.

Across firms, these services tend to fall into two broad categories: Insight & Transformation and Implementation & Managed Services. Together, they reflect the strategic and operational sides of AI adoption—defining both what AI should deliver and how it is embedded at scale.

AI Consulting: Insight & Transformation

Definition This segment focuses on setting direction. It covers strategy, governance, ethics, industry perspectives, and workforce change.

Core question What should AI mean for our business?

Strategic AI Consulting

Strategic AI Consulting helps organizations identify where AI can create material value and how it fits into broader operating and growth models. McKinsey’s QuantumBlack unit, for example, supports clients in prioritising high-impact use cases and building adoption roadmaps that extend beyond pilots.

AI Governance, Risk & Ethics

Governance and risk services establish guardrails for responsible AI use, addressing compliance, transparency, and ethical considerations. Deloitte’s Trustworthy AI framework illustrates how firms help clients balance innovation with regulatory scrutiny and reputational risk.

Industry-Specific AI Strategy

AI strategies are increasingly tailored by sector. EY, for instance, advises financial institutions on AI-driven fraud detection while ensuring alignment with regulatory requirements and model risk standards.

Workforce Transformation

Workforce-focused services prepare organisations for AI-enabled ways of working. This includes role redesign, reskilling, and change management. Bain’s work with retailers on AI-supported inventory and demand planning highlights the emphasis on human–AI collaboration rather than automation alone.

AI Consulting: Implementation & Managed Services

Definition This segment focuses on execution—deploying, operating, and scaling AI in day-to-day environments.

Core question How do we make AI work consistently in practice?

AI Implementation & Integration

Implementation services cover the deployment of AI platforms, models, and automation into existing processes. Accenture’s AI Studio, for example, supports the integration of generative AI into customer service functions to improve responsiveness and personalisation.

AI Product & Solution Development

Here, consultants design and build bespoke AI applications, such as predictive analytics tools or domain-specific generative AI solutions. IBM’s work with healthcare providers on clinical data analysis illustrates this product-oriented approach.

Managed AI Services

Managed services focus on ongoing performance, monitoring, and optimisation. Infosys provides managed AI operations for manufacturing clients, ensuring predictive maintenance models remain accurate as conditions and data change.

Data & Cloud Enablement for AI

AI at scale depends on modern data and cloud foundations. TCS supports organisations in migrating legacy systems to cloud environments, enabling more advanced analytics and model deployment.

Why AI Consulting Matters for Firms and Talent Leaders

AI consulting has become a core practice area, combining strategic advisory work with deep technical execution. Yet growth in this space is constrained by talent availability. Demand for consultants who can bridge business context and advanced analytics continues to exceed supply.

For HR and compensation leaders, access to reliable market data on AI consulting roles is therefore critical. Salary benchmarks support competitive pay structures, internal equity, and retention—particularly as firms compete not only with peers but also with technology companies and startups. Without clear market reference points, consulting firms risk losing scarce AI talent just as these capabilities become central to client value delivery.

AI transformation places new demands on roles, skills, and pay structures. Vencon Research provides HR advisory services alongside compensation benchmarking to help consulting firms make data-backed workforce and pay decisions.

‍