Dernières publications

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

This article explores the complexities and challenges associated with benchmarking and aligning C-Suite compensation with market practices, addressing issues of data variability, company size influence, and discrepancies between public and private entities. It proposes a multi-step solution leveraging standardized data, market comparisons, and pay ratio definitions to create fair, balanced, and market-aligned C-Suite compensation structures.

Navigating the Complexity of C-Suite Compensation

The landscape of C-Suite compensation transcends a simplistic evaluation of roles and responsibilities. It’s a labyrinthine domain shaped by diverse metrics. Major factors, among others, are:

• legal structure
• revenue
• profitability
• operational scale

While no universal blueprint exists, patterns among similar-sized firms offer invaluable insights into shaping tailored compensation practices aligned with strategic goals and organizational cultures.

Challenges in Compensation Evaluation

Compiling compensation data for C-Suite roles or executive leadership positions, specifically within the consulting industry, poses challenges due to the scarcity of publicly available information. The complexity of this task is magnified by the varying compensation across different roles and companies.

Company size emerges as a critical factor, however, the correlations between different size criteria, such as:

• revenue
• employee count
• EBITDA
• Total Cash Compensation

exhibit significant variability. For instance, a corporation employing approximately 40,000 employees and generating a revenue of approximately $10 billion pays a total of $12 million to its CEO. Meanwhile, another corporation with around 120,000 employees and around $4 billion in revenue compensates its CEO with $4 million.

Addressing Variances and Inadequacies

1. Benchmarking exercises using a broad comparison range often yield flawed results due to the diverse sizes and operations of compared entities. The exercise should be as specific and targeted to relevant competitors as possible.
2. Variance among C-Suite positions and discrepancies between public and private entities further complicate fair evaluations. Make sure you are benchmarking either public or private, and only include entities from the other group with full awareness of the possible influence on results.
3. Limiting datasets to similar-sized companies and standardizing compensation data based on the most correlated size criterion emerge as crucial solutions. Even where similar firms are under comparison, failure to adequately match the C-Suite levels being benchmarked, or account for differences in compensation structure will result in misleading conclusions.

Solutions for Fair C-Suite Compensation Packages

A multi-step approach is advocated, involving:

1. defining pay ratios between C-Suite roles
2. standardizing data for market comparison
3. factoring in complexities associated with different company types

This approach aims to develop fair pay ranges, considering market ratios between roles and aligning compensation with organizational and industry-specific benchmarks.

In summary, developing compensation packages for C-Suite executives involves overcoming multifaceted challenges influenced by company size, data variability, and discrepancies between public and private entities. By utilizing a multi-step approach involving standardized data, market comparisons, and role-based pay ratios, organizations can craft fair, balanced, and market-aligned compensation structures that reflect the intricacies of their operations and strategic goals.

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how to optimally design your company’s C-Suite compensation package (and/or model).

Andy Klose is an Associate Partner at Vencon Research International and heads the company’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.

By Yao Tang - Business Development

The goal of effective benchmarking is to ensure that an organisation's compensation structures align with the skill levels and expertise of their employees as well as promote internal fairness and competitiveness in the external job market.

In our last article we looked at the significance of acknowledging in-demand talent, or employees and candidates who possess so-called “hot skills”. In this article we’ll be taking a closer look at the role of skills at a broader level, to find out their relevance in the benchmarking process.

The role of skills in determining compensation

A basic framework for approaching skills in compensation benchmarking should consider the following steps:

1. Identify key skills: determine the essential skills and competencies needed for each job role.
2. Define skill levels: establish a clear framework for categorizing skill levels, such as beginner, intermediate, and expert.
3. Job role mapping: match specific skills to corresponding job roles to create a comprehensive skill-job matrix.
4. Gather compensation data: collect data on existing compensation packages for employees in each role.
5. Skill-based compensation analysis: analyse how compensation aligns with skill levels to identify disparities and opportunities.
6. Internal assessment: evaluate if the current compensation structure adequately rewards employees for their skill levels.
7. Adjusting compensation: make necessary adjustments to compensation packages to ensure they reflect skill-based benchmarks.
8. Competitor analysis: compare your organization's skill-based compensation with competitors to stay competitive in the talent market.
9. Regular review: continuously monitor and update compensation packages to adapt to changing skill demands and market trends.
10. Communication: effectively communicate compensation changes to employees to promote transparency and understanding.

While many of the above steps are the bread and butter of any efficient HR department, there are key steps that will also require external input. Finding a reliable and effective benchmarking provider is essential when it comes to establishing the market value of specific roles, related skills, and the rates paid by competitors in the market.

Skill-based benchmarking

What emerges from our experience in regards to how special competencies are translated into compensation models, is that specific skills or qualifications are a) not always reflected in a higher salary b) only rarely separately remunerated on a skill-by-skill basis.

Exceptions may be found when it comes to specific “hot skills”, often in the IT-realm, which may reflect in a higher salary or extra salary payment (though often only when this IT skill is actively deployed).  Even in these cases, there is not a direct connection between remuneration and specific skills, as:

a)       Unique & in-demand (i.e. scarce) skills at time of hire/promotion can over time become more ubiquitous in the market amongst more incumbents (and therefore would not require unique compensation).

b)      Additional compensation afforded a consultant for a unique/in-demand skill is difficult to retract once said skill becomes more ubiquitous.

c)       The exact number of skills acquired by an incumbent does not automatically align with the execution of some/all of those skills while the consultant is part of a consulting project, i.e. resulting in overpaying for unused skills.

What we can confirm from observation, is that specific skills are often a deciding factor in staffing the consulting position itself (as opposed to added remuneration). Skills are important in as much as they are linked to a particular role, but additional skills can also imbue an advantage to achieve greater success in the hiring process, and thus incur a more likely/faster career progression to the next career level(s).

Here at Vencon Research we approach our remuneration benchmarking analysis on a “type of consulting/advisory work” (i.e. line of business) basis, with the inherent understanding that incumbents are expected to have a wide variety of skills in order to be hired and perform their duties effectively. We follow a meticulous process of aligning a firm with the most suitable competitors, precisely matching job roles (while taking into account required skills), conducting business-oriented mapping, and incorporating appropriate compensation elements. This meticulous approach ensures that each of our clients receives the utmost granularity and individuality, optimizing their compensation strategy.

In this sense skills are essential determinants in defining job roles for accurate matching against competitors in the benchmarking process. However, with the exception of some "hot skills" they are not usually assessed as a value component of compensation themselves.

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.

‍

By Gonzalo Lavín Alfaro - Business Development

Evaluating the "new normal"

Factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, technological advancements, and evolving work dynamics have ushered in a new era of flexibility, leading to a rapid surge in remote work. This paradigm shift has not only redefined our work practices but has also presented several advantages for both employees and employers. However, it is crucial to retain a reserved approach to evaluating remote work while identifying the trends that have emerged since its widespread adoption and implications for human resources managers worldwide.

What was once considered unimaginable a few years ago is now commonly referred to as the "new normal", especially in sectors where office work predominates. And by now, we are all familiar with the benefits commonly associated with remote work, including:

1. Enhanced employee well-being: Reduced commute times translate into decreased stress levels, improved mental well-being, and lower transportation costs.

2. Optimal utilization of office space: Remote work diminishes the need for extensive office space, leading to cost savings for organizations.

3. Promoting sustainability: With no commuting involved, there is a reduction in vehicle usage and subsequent pollution.

Challenges and debates around remote work

Despite the well-publicized advantages, remote work also poses certain challenges. Potential drawbacks include isolation and reduced social interaction, which can impact mental health. Moreover, while arguments extolling the productivity gains of remote work abound, there are also serious voices that claim the exact opposite. While these are often dismissed as reactionary management positions, they deserve equal consideration.

The rise of remote work has also given rise to other challenges, particularly in relation to location flexibility. Some individuals now work remotely from different cities, regions, or even countries. In such cases, questions arise regarding fair compensation for those residing in lower-cost areas, as well as concerns related to insurance and taxation.

An evolving landscape: keeping abreast of developments is crucial

Over time, work-from-home policies have undergone further evolution. During and directly after the pandemic, the proportion of companies offering full-time remote work exceeded 90% in applicable sectors. However, more recently, some companies have begun reverting to traditional in-office work to address the aforementioned issues. According to Vencon Research surveys, it is common to see consulting companies offering employees 1 to 3 days of remote work, representing the majority of responses. While some firms in certain industries like IT and technology continue to offer 100% remote work, the overall trend has shifted towards a hybrid work model.

As firms worldwide continue to consider the efficiency and balance offered by different work models, remote work will remain an evolving and important aspect of human resources management. To further discuss our findings on trends in your industry or to seek our assistance in benchmarking your remote work policies, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

venconresearch.com/contact

‍

By Deepali Bist, MBA - Client Solutions

In India, compensation is not constructed as a single consolidated salary figure. It is deliberately segmented into statutory-linked pay, structured allowances, and performance-related incentives. This layered design reflects regulatory requirements, tax considerations, and long-standing market practice.

For consulting firms, where compensation represents the largest operating cost and a central talent lever, benchmarking accuracy depends on more than headline numbers. It depends on whether remuneration components are defined and compared consistently. Selecting and standardising the right elements directly influences the reliability of market positioning conclusions.

Global benchmarking frameworks often rely on simplified compensation categories to enable cross-country reporting. While efficient at scale, these frameworks do not always align with the architecture of Indian pay structures. Without localisation, structurally different packages may be treated as comparable, affecting both external benchmarking and internal band calibration.

At Vencon Research, we observe that benchmarking quality in India is closely linked to how precisely remuneration components are interpreted within the local statutory and market context.

The Architecture of Consulting Compensation in India

In Indian strategy and management consulting firms, compensation typically consists of three principal layers:

• Basic Salary
• Allowances
• Performance Bonus

Each serves a distinct financial and regulatory function.

Basic Salary

Basic salary generally represents around half of fixed compensation. It serves as the statutory anchor for:

• Provident Fund (12% of Basic)
• Gratuity accrual (~4.81% of Basic)

Because these obligations are legally defined, the level and treatment of Basic pay have direct cost and compliance implications. Adjustments to Basic salary do not merely shift internal pay mix — they influence statutory exposure.

Allowances

Allowances typically form the remaining portion of fixed pay and may include House Rent Allowance (HRA) and other special allowances. While sometimes viewed as flexible elements, they are part of fixed cash compensation and materially affect take-home pay outcomes through tax optimisation.

In benchmarking datasets, allowances are occasionally treated inconsistently — particularly where global reporting templates do not distinguish between Basic and total fixed pay.

Performance Bonus

Variable pay is a meaningful component in consulting, particularly at post-MBA and senior levels. Performance bonuses link compensation to individual, team, and firm outcomes, and can represent a substantial share of Total Cash Compensation (TCC).

Employer Statutory Contributions

Employer contributions such as Provident Fund and Gratuity provisions increase Total Cost to Company (CTC) but do not affect immediate take-home pay. For benchmarking purposes, distinguishing between:

• Employee cash compensation, and
• Employer statutory cost

is essential.

Dearness Allowance (DA), while relevant in certain public-sector contexts, is generally not applicable in private-sector consulting firms and should not be assumed to form part of standard structures in this sector.

Why Component Definition Drives Benchmarking Accuracy

Inconsistent definitions of compensation elements can quickly distort market comparisons. A frequent issue arises around the interpretation of “base pay.” Some firms define base as Basic salary only, while others define it as total fixed pay (Basic + Allowances). Without normalisation, benchmarking outputs may misrepresent relative positioning.

Two firms may report different CTC figures while delivering similar employer cost structures and take-home outcomes. Conversely, similar headline figures may conceal materially different:

• Statutory exposure
• Bonus weighting
• Fixed-to-variable pay ratios

Without component-level clarity, these structural differences remain hidden.

Statutory alignment is equally important. If Basic pay is set at an unusually low proportion of fixed compensation, Provident Fund and Gratuity obligations may be understated. Alternatively, including discretionary or non-cash elements within total compensation figures can inflate perceived competitiveness.

These distortions typically arise not from error, but from applying simplified definitions to a market with structural particularities.

The Global–Local Translation Challenge

Multinational consulting firms operating in India often rely on centralised reward frameworks designed for global consistency. These frameworks usually categorise pay into a limited set of universal components — such as:

• Base Salary
• Variable Pay
• Benefits

In the Indian context, however, “Base” is not a single undifferentiated figure. It includes internal layers that carry statutory consequences. Allowances that are integral to fixed pay may be treated as peripheral benefits in global systems. Pension logic applied elsewhere may not align with India’s statutory 12% Provident Fund requirement.

Without translating global templates into Indian compensation architecture, benchmarking comparisons may appear aligned while concealing structural misinterpretation.

Ensuring Market Relevance in Indian Benchmarking

Compensation structures in India are shaped by:

• Tax legislation
• Labour and wage code frameworks
• Statutory contribution rules
• Market-driven take-home pay expectations

Accurate benchmarking therefore requires:

• Clear distinction between Total Cash Compensation (TCC) and broader CTC constructs
• Alignment with statutory definitions for correct employer cost modelling
• Normalisation of Basic, Allowances, and Variable Pay across participating firms

When remuneration elements are standardised appropriately, benchmarking data becomes materially more reliable and comparable across consulting firms.

Vencon Research’s Approach

Vencon Research’s benchmarking framework for consulting firms in India is built around component-level precision.

Compensation data is disaggregated into:

• Basic Salary
• Allowances
• Variable Pay

Employer statutory contributions are aligned with Indian legal definitions, and cash compensation analysis is separated from non-cash benefits benchmarking. All submissions are normalised into a unified Total Cash Compensation model, reducing distortions caused by inconsistent CTC interpretations.

This approach allows both domestic and multinational consulting firms to maintain global reporting consistency while ensuring local accuracy.

Structural Precision Enables Reliable Decisions

In the Indian consulting market, remuneration structure materially influences statutory exposure, employer cost, and perceived competitiveness. Benchmarking that does not account for these structural layers risks drawing conclusions from non-comparable data.

When compensation components are clearly defined, standardised, and normalised, firms gain a more accurate view of their market position and can make better-informed reward decisions.

Vencon Research supports strategy and management consulting firms in aligning global reward frameworks with Indian compensation architecture. If you are reviewing your salary benchmarking approach in India, we would welcome a discussion on how structural normalisation can improve the precision of your market insights.

‍

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

The consulting industry in the Middle East, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), has experienced a period of rapid growth post-COVID-19. However, recent economic shifts – especially budget cuts in Saudi Arabia’s public sector – have significantly affected management consulting companies operating in the region. While consulting companies in both the UAE and KSA continue to seek sustainable growth, they are facing challenges related to talent acquisition, retention, and compensation structures. This paper explores the key trends in the consulting industry, with a focus on their impact on the talent market and firm operations.

Saudi Arabia: The Epicentre of Consulting Demand

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains the most significant market for consulting services in the region, particularly within its semi-public and government sectors. Many consulting companies have built their business models around serving Saudi clients, and the recent budget cuts have had a profound impact:

• Demand for consulting services has declined across various government projects.
• Most consulting companies have seen their growth slow down, with only a few maintaining the pace of previous years.
• Achieving ambitious revenue and profitability targets has become increasingly difficult for consulting companies.

Despite these challenges, Saudi Arabia remains a crucial market, and consulting companies are adjusting their strategies to adapt to the new landscape.

Increasing Sophistication of Clients and Changing Project Expectations

Clients in the region, from both the private and the public sector, are evolving in their approach to consulting services, which may have an impact on how consulting companies operate and compete:

Key Trends in Client Expectations

• Higher Sophistication: Clients demand deeper expertise and more tailored solutions from consulting companies (including more expertise with regards to the needs of SMEs).
• Longer Project Timelines: Consulting projects are taking longer to execute as clients scrutinize deliverables more closely.
• Shift Toward Smaller Firms: More clients in the region seem to be open to working with boutique consulting companies instead of relying solely on big brand names, creating additional competitive pressure from below.
• Implementation-Focused Consulting: Clients require more than just PowerPoint presentations; they need consulting companies with strong execution and operational expertise.
• Capability Building: Clients seek support in developing internal skills and knowledge instead of continuously outsourcing these capabilities to external consultants.

Implications for Consulting Firms

To succeed in this evolving environment, consulting companies should:

• Strengthen their ability to execute strategies beyond “pure” strategy or advisory work.
• Invest in training programs that help their clients develop in-house expertise.
• Offer practical, hands-on solutions rather than theoretical recommendations.
• Differentiate themselves through specialized expertise rather than relying solely on brand recognition.

Talent Market Pressures in the UAE

Unlike the KSA, the UAE consulting market is facing an overheating talent market with:

• Stagnant Compensation: Consulting salaries are said to have “maxed out”, making it difficult to keep increasing financial incentives as in the recent past. One consulting firm reported that a 5-8% pay increase for every promotion is no longer sustainable from a cost perspective.
• Employee benefits Under Review: As a result of these cost pressures, benefits were mentioned to be a “key differentiating factor” to be increasingly cost effective.
• Rising Cost of Living: The higher cost of living in Dubai and Abu Dhabi is putting pressure on consulting companies to increase allowances, which in turn is affecting profitability. In particular, the cost of accommodation was cited as a critical factor, with the rent for a two-bedroom apartment now as high as a villa with a garden would have been a few years ago. The cost of international schools has also risen significantly.
• Layoffs and Hiring Freezes: Some consulting companies have stopped and delayed hiring or even laid off staff to control costs and improve margins. It was mentioned that firms were more rigorous in their recent performance evaluations than in previous years, letting go of underperformers.
• Shift in Hiring Strategies: Also, some consulting companies are becoming more selective, hiring specialized talent for client or project-based needs rather than generalist consultants. Hiring for IT-related consulting services and subject matter expertise remains at high levels.

The result is a strategic shift in workforce allocation, with more firms opting to place or to hire consultants in the KSA instead of the UAE, where local talent is increasingly available. Also, it was said several times that consulting firms are focussing in the near term more on enhancing their benefits packages as the main differentiator in the talent market.

Evolving Workforce Strategies in Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has seen a notable improvement in the availability of junior consulting talent. Consulting companies that have invested in strong graduate and internship programs are benefiting from a steady pipeline of entry-level consultants. However, the mid-to-senior level talent pool remains highly competitive:

• Government Sector Competition: While there is no shortage of well-educated Saudi labour, many mid-to-senior-level consultants are being poached by government entities offering attractive compensation packages, leading to high attrition rates. Beyond better pay, many professionals are drawn to government roles for a better work-life balance.
• Localization Pressures: Saudi clients, particularly in the public sector, increasingly prioritize local hires and cultural alignment. This includes:
  • Fluency in Arabic.
  • Understanding of Saudi business customs.
  • Strong local networks for business development.

To address these challenges, some consulting companies are taking innovative approaches to hiring senior-level talent:

• Hiring Senior Consulting Staff from Outside Consulting: Some firms are bringing in senior candidates from industry roles in the hope that they can provide valuable client connections. However, failure rates seem to be high, often due to a lack of sales acumen and consulting expertise.
• Increasing Local Presence: Consulting companies are pressured to have “troops on the ground” to compete for major government contracts. The Saudi government requires firms to demonstrate a local commitment, including adherence to Saudization quotas (40% of staff being Saudi nationals).

Compensation and Workforce Mobility Challenges

As consulting companies adapt to the evolving landscape, compensation strategies are also changing:

• High Costs for Senior Expats: The shortage of mid- to senior-level talent has forced consulting companies to rely on expatriates. However, relocating expats from the UAE to the KSA is expensive, as Saudi Arabia is still considered a “hardship location” from an expat's perspective. And it was said that hiring an expat to work in the KSA would cost 1.25 times more than hiring a Saudi national.
• Reduced Willingness to Relocate: Several international consulting companies noted that they receive many applications for relocation to the UAE from other countries. Once in the UAE, expats are also more inclined to stay, as one firm put it, “This is the highest paying region (in addition to no income tax and a comfortable lifestyle). Everybody wants to come and nobody wants to leave”.
• Dual Contracts for Expats: To mitigate costs, some consulting companies employ dual contract structures:
  • A significant portion of the salary is paid in the UAE, where the consultant’s family resides.
  • A smaller portion is paid in Saudi Arabia, where the consultant works for 3-4 days per week.

• ‍Alternative Talent Pools: Some consulting companies have started flying in consulting staff from lower-cost countries from Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. However, this approach presents challenges such as:
  • Visa and work permit complexities.
  • Additional allowances required for travel and accommodation.
  • Higher attrition rates due to (longer) travel chore and equality concerns.

The Future of Consulting in the Middle East

The Middle East consulting industry is undergoing a transformation driven by economic shifts, talent dynamics, and localization requirements. Consulting companies may adapt their strategies to remain competitive by:

1. Investing in Local Talent Pipelines: Strengthening internship and graduate programs to develop homegrown consulting talent.
2. Balancing Compensation and Cost Management: Rethinking expat pay structures and leveraging innovative mobility solutions like dual contracts.
3. Enhancing Local Market Access: Hiring (senior) professionals with deep local connections while ensuring they have the necessary consulting skills and sales acumen.
4. Optimizing Workforce Deployment: Using a mix of onshore, nearshore, and offshore talent to manage costs while maintaining service quality.
5. Aligning with Client Expectations: Adapting to client demands for:
   • More implementation-driven consulting.
   • Stronger internal capability-building efforts.
   • IT-related consulting services and subject matter expertise.
   • Broader acceptance of smaller consulting firms as credible advisors.
   • By proactively addressing these challenges, consulting firms can position themselves for sustained success in both the UAE and KSA markets.

We would be pleased to assist you with any additional inquiries or questions you may have.

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.

‍

By Philip Thomas - Data Integrity Manager

Vencon Research observes a wide variety of partner remuneration models across the consulting market. Designing or optimising a model can be a complex task, requiring consideration of factors far beyond the typical starting point of competitive total income.

Partner compensation models are often shaped—or limited—by a firm’s structure. For example, public firms are not able to offer full profit-sharing compensation packages to their partners, while private firms may be able to lean more heavily on a cash-based, full profit-sharing approach.

Despite structural differences, most models aim to achieve the same goals: being competitive enough to attract and retain talent, and robust enough to remain sustainable and fair over time.

What separates an average model from a strong one is not simply what components are offered or how much partners earn—but rather why each component exists and how it is designed to support the broader aims of the firm.

Hallmarks of Success

The following are the key indicators Vencon Research considers fundamental to competitive and robust partner remuneration models:

Fairness across the partner group

Perceived fairness is critical to maintaining trust and morale. Remuneration structures should be transparent and consistently applied.

Incentivisation of both personal and firm performance

Partners should be encouraged to succeed as individuals while benefiting from collaboration and shared firm success.

Encouragement of both short- and long-term thinking

Effective models strike a balance between rewarding immediate results and promoting sustainable growth.

Robust link between performance and variable payout

Variable components should be clearly tied to measurable outcomes. Partners who perform well should feel appropriately rewarded, and those who do not should not be surprised by the outcome.

Alignment between pay, role, and financial contribution

Remuneration should reflect the scope of a partner’s responsibilities and their impact on firm performance.

Clarity and communication

Partners are more motivated when they understand how the model works and what is required to progress. Clear expectations reduce uncertainty and build long-term confidence.

Retention and buy-in mechanisms

These mechanisms help secure mid- to long-term commitment by aligning partner interests with the firm’s future direction.

Recognition of partner risk

Partners who hold equity or invest financially in the firm take on significant personal risk. If applicable, models should acknowledge this by offering appropriate upside and protections—reinforcing a genuine ownership mindset.

Why Getting It Right Matters

To what extent a partner remuneration model meets the above criteria deserves serious consideration. Falling short in any of these areas can negatively impact firm performance and increase the risk of dissatisfaction or attrition among partners.

Vencon Research’s Advisory services work closely with clients to design tailored partner compensation models that align with each firm's unique structure, strategy, and ambitions—ensuring the key principles outlined above are not only met, but built in from the start.

‍