Dernières publications

Percentiles are a key statistical tool in compensation benchmarking, providing a clear and structured way to compare salaries within a broader market.

By dividing data into ranked segments, percentiles allow firms to understand where their pay structures fall in relation to the competition, whether they are positioned at the lower, middle, or upper end of the market. Unlike averages, which can be skewed by extreme values, percentiles present a more accurate and nuanced view of salary distributions, making them particularly useful in salary benchmarking reports.

Statistics and the Use of Percentiles

Percentiles are a key tool in descriptive statistics, allowing researchers to summarize data distributions efficiently. Over time, they have been widely adopted across various disciplines due to their ability to provide meaningful insights into datasets without requiring complex mathematical calculations.

One of the earliest large-scale applications of percentiles was in educational testing. Standardized exams in the United States, such as the SAT, GRE, and IQ tests commonly use percentiles to rank test-takers, showing how an individual's score compares to others. For example, a student scoring in the 90th percentile has performed better than 90% of test-takers. This same principle applies across other domains, from healthcare and epidemiology to finance and engineering, making percentiles a versatile and universal statistical measure.

Percentiles are widely used in various industries to analyse and interpret complex data distributions:

• Healthcare & Epidemiology: In medical research, percentiles are crucial in understanding health indicators such as blood pressure, cholesterol levels, or body mass index (BMI). Paediatricians, for instance, assess a child’s growth using percentile charts, which indicate how a child compares to others of the same age.
• Finance & Economics: Investors and analysts use percentiles to evaluate market performance. A mutual fund’s return in the 90th percentile means it outperforms 90% of similar funds. Likewise, income distribution studies use percentiles to define economic classes and assess wage inequality.
• Manufacturing & Quality Control: In industrial settings, percentiles help define product quality standards. For example, if a company wants to ensure that 95% of its manufactured parts meet certain specifications, it may set quality control limits at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
• Technology & AI: Percentiles play a key role in machine learning and AI-driven decision-making. Many predictive models rely on percentile ranks to filter out anomalies or detect patterns in large datasets.

Each of these industries benefits from the ability of percentiles to break down complex datasets into digestible insights, allowing stakeholders to make informed decisions based on clear comparative measures.

Percentiles as the Ideal Measure for Aggregated and Confidential Data

One of the biggest advantages of percentiles is their ability to present an accurate picture of aggregated data without requiring access to individual data points. Unlike averages, which can be skewed by extreme values, percentiles show the full distribution of a dataset. This makes them particularly useful when working with large sets of confidential or anonymized data, where individual records cannot be disclosed.

Consider an alternative approach—using averages to analyse salary data. A single high-paying outlier could disproportionately raise the average, leading to a misleading representation of typical market pay. Conversely, a wide spread in the lower range could bring the average far down from the predominant pay level in the market. In contrast, percentiles provide a more nuanced picture. The 50th percentile (median) shows what a "middle-of-the-market" salary looks like, while the 25th and 75th percentiles define the lower and upper ranges, respectively. This allows firms to position their pay policies strategically based on their compensation philosophy.

Salary benchmarking data is inherently aggregated because individual salaries remain confidential to protect the interests of both employers and employees. No single participant in a salary survey can access another firm’s exact data, ensuring privacy and compliance with data protection regulations. Instead, data from multiple sources is combined and analysed in percentile distributions, giving firms the insights they need without exposing specific salary figures.

This is why percentiles are such an effective tool in salary benchmarking. They allow consulting firms to compare themselves against the market while maintaining confidentiality. By using a range of percentiles, firms can see where they stand relative to different segments of the industry—whether they are paying at the lower end, middle, or upper tiers of the market. At Vencon Research, we present percentile analyses in most of our reports using 5-percentile increments, ranging from the 5th to the 95th percentile. This approach enables our clients to gain deeper and more precise insights into their market positioning.

Additionally, percentile analysis supports long-term strategic decision-making. Firms can assess pay trends over time, adjust their compensation strategies to remain competitive, and ensure they are offering salaries that align with their desired market positioning. For example, a firm aiming to attract top talent may choose to pay at the 75th percentile, ensuring their compensation package is more attractive than those of most competitors.

Vencon Research is the leading provider of compensation benchmarking statistics to the global consulting industry. To find out more about our surveys and our benchmarking methodology do not hesitate to get in touch. Our team is always ready to provide personalized assistance to meet your specific needs.

‍

Compensation and Pay Mix: Part 4

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

In this series of articles, we highlight an aspect of remuneration strategy that is often overlooked: the ratio of fixed and variable pay to total cash compensation (also known as "pay mix").

Pay mix determines what types of employees are attracted by a particular compensation model, which in turn impacts a company's performance and results. Setting the right pay mix, especially for client-facing and sales roles in professional services firms is critical for success.

As a rule of thumb: The higher the influence of a job holder on clients’ purchasing decisions, the higher the variable portion in the pay mix. Lastly, the type of employees being attracted to a particular compensation model will also shape a firm’s culture in the long run.

Pay Mix: A Defining Differentiator in Compensation

In Part 1 of this series, we explained why the pay mix can be the defining differentiator, particularly from an employee’s perspective, when many of the other key elements of compensation across competing organisations are considered to be broadly similar. In Part 2 we discussed how pay mix affects the financials of firms, especially with regards to personnel costs. Part 3 examined 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 this final Part 4 we will assess how pay mix may influence firms’ culture and performance.

This is the last part (Part 4) of our series on compensation strategy, where we focus on the critical importance of pay mix - the balance between fixed and variable compensation - in shaping employee attraction, firm culture, and long-term performance. In this article, we provide deeper insights into how pay mix influences organizational culture and overall performance.

Challenging Conventional Wisdom

In the midst of debates over the effectiveness of increased remuneration in motivating employees, it is crucial to challenge conventional wisdom. While monetary incentives undoubtedly play a role, our research suggests that sustainable performance depends more on creating a high-performance environment than simply increasing pay.

We propose a paradigm shift captured in our “Performance Mindset Framework” (Exhibit 1), which highlights the link between mindset, behaviour, and performance. Our model suggests hiring individuals who are motivated by intrinsic factors, such as a sense of ownership and commitment, rather than relying solely on external rewards.

Attracting and Retaining Top Talent

To attract and retain high-potential candidates, firms must adopt rigorous recruitment processes and leverage advanced personality assessments to identify individuals with the right mindset and soft skills. Additionally, offering well-balanced total rewards packages, including compensation, benefits, and personal development opportunities, enhances the value proposition for prospective employees.

Strategic Pay Mix in Professional Services Firms

In industries like consulting and IT services, where achieving “hard KPIs” such as, e.g., sales targets and margin goals is paramount, offering a competitive pay package is imperative. Consulting companies not in the top quartile of their niche can leverage a slightly higher total cash package with a “riskier” pay mix to attract individuals motivated by performance-driven incentives.

Expected Long-term Effects of Compensation Strategies

Based on the following example, we present the expected long-term effects assuming that the compensation strategy and pay mix are implemented consistently over several years. In simplified terms, the expected results are shown in Exhibit 2:

Firm 1 will attract more 'hunter'-type employees who are drawn to the compensation model, which includes a relatively high variable, performance-related portion with the potential for the highest total cash. This will result in a competitive and dynamic corporate culture. The main challenge for the company will be fostering cooperation between employees rather than motivating them.

Firm 3 is the ideal choice for employees who value a higher fixed base income over a higher total remuneration. Individuals who are less performance-driven or less self-assured may find this option more attractive compared to Firm 1. This situation may result in performance issues for the company in the long term. There is the danger that employees who consistently outperform their colleagues will leave due to the relatively low variable bonus component, which prevents them from expecting a significantly higher salary than their peers. Additionally, these employees may be enticed to work for one of the other two rival types of companies, where they can earn significantly more for the same level of performance.

In the long term, Firm 2 will see long-term results between the two scenarios outlined. Identifying 'over-performers' and motivating them may be a key challenge, but one that can be overcome with the right approach.

Long-Term Implications

Different pay mixes yield distinct long-term effects on a company's economic situation and culture. Companies with a higher variable portion in their pay mix tend to attract dynamic, performance-oriented individuals, fostering a competitive corporate culture. Conversely, companies with a lower variable portion may face challenges retaining top performers and maintaining a high-performance environment.

Tailoring Pay Mix to Market Dynamics

Designing the right pay mix necessitates a nuanced understanding of market comparatives and cultural preferences. Pay mix varies by region and country, with some cultures more receptive to aggressive pay mixes than others. Therefore, companies must align their compensation strategies with local norms while remaining competitive in talent acquisition and retention.

Conclusion

Pay mix is a strategic tool that significantly impacts employee attraction, firm culture, and overall performance. A comprehensive approach to compensation and aligning pay structures with organizational objectives can position companies for sustained success in a competitive marketplace. Optimizing pay mix and remuneration systems to suit individual company needs and objectives is essential for achieving this success.

We are at your disposal for further questions and suggestions regarding how you optimally design 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.

‍

By Cara Solorzano

Our latest article addresses professionals and decision-makers in the consulting industry involved in shaping the global expansion strategy of their firms. It delves into Location Responsibility models—Local, Regional, or Global and offers insights into strategic planning, effective management, and balancing global consistency with local nuances.

The Global Landscape of the Consulting Industry

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, evolving business landscapes, and an increasing demand for specialized expertise, the consulting industry has witnessed a remarkable global expansion. The traditional role of consultants as problem solvers has transcended geographical boundaries, and consulting firms now find themselves navigating the complexities of a world interconnected by digital networks and international markets.

The Location Responsibility Dilemma: Local, Regional, or Global?

As consulting firms strive to navigate this dynamic landscape, the crucial question emerges: What Location Responsibility model best serves your firm's vision - Local, Regional, or Global?

Regionalizing Offices for Global Competitiveness

Many consulting firms that have a significant global presence organize their country markets by regions, such as APAC (Asia Pacific), or LATAM (Latin America). Regionalizing offices empowers consulting firms to navigate the intricacies of diverse markets, respond rapidly to client needs, and leverage local talent, ultimately strengthening their overall competitiveness in the global consulting arena.

Strategic Planning for Successful Regional Expansion

While regionalizing offices has its advantages, consulting firms must carefully weigh these against the potential downsides, such as increased operational complexity, challenges in maintaining consistency, and any potential impacts on company culture and financial performance. Through Vencon Research’s years of data collection, we have observed that strategic planning and effective management are crucial factors in mitigating the aforementioned risks. Ensuring successful regional expansion can be resolved by assigning one country market to be responsible for the entire global standardization and operations of company acculturation.

Centralized Global Oversight: Enhancing Consistency and Collaboration

Global oversight of consulting firms, where a centralized management structure governs operations across various regions, presents several advantages.

Establishing Consistent Standards

One significant advantage is the ability to maintain consistent standards based on the philosophy of the company. With a centralized approach to oversight, consulting firms can establish and enforce standardized methodologies, best practices, and service quality benchmarks that apply uniformly across all offices worldwide.

Fostering Collaboration and Synergy

This consistency enhances the firm's reputation, instils client confidence, and fosters a sense of reliability in the delivery of consulting services. Centralized management enables efficient sharing of information, resources, and expertise across different regions. This interconnectivity allows for a more collaborative and synergetic approach to problem-solving, leveraging the diverse skills and perspectives available within the global consulting firm.

Drawbacks of Global Oversight

While a model predicated on global oversight provides uniformity in strategies and operations, this method of management also has some disadvantages.

Overlooking Local Nuances and Cultural Differences

One potentially significant drawback is the risk of overlooking the nuances inherent within local cultural differences. A centralized management structure may struggle to fully understand and address the unique challenges and business environments in specific regions. This lack of localized insight can result in strategies that are less effective or may not resonate well with clients in certain markets.

Communication Challenges and Team Detachment

Cultural and communication barriers may also arise in a globally overseen consulting firm. Effective communication becomes more challenging as the organization spans different languages, time zones, and cultural contexts. Furthermore, global oversight may lead to a sense of detachment among local teams. Employees in regional offices may feel less connected to the overarching vision and decision-making processes of the firm, potentially affecting morale, engagement, and retention.

Striking the Right Balance: Considerations for Success

While global firm oversight offers benefits in terms of consistency and efficiency, consulting firms must carefully consider and address the potential downsides, including the risk of overlooking local nuances, reduced agility, and communication challenges.

Balancing Global Oversight with Regional Specifics

Balancing global oversight with mechanisms to understand and address regional specifics is essential for success in a diverse and dynamic consulting industry. It ensures that your firm can adapt to local nuances while maintaining global consistency, fostering resilience in the face of evolving market dynamics. This equilibrium is the cornerstone of sustainable growth and competitiveness in the global consulting arena.

Tailored Collaboration for Success

Vencon Research is your collaborative partner in navigating the complexities of global expansion. Our bespoke recommendations are crafted with your unique needs in mind, ensuring local relevance and global consistency. Contact Vencon Research today to discover the ideal Location Responsibility model for your company's success in the global consulting arena.

‍

By Andy Klose - Associate Partner

In this series of articles, we would like to highlight 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 today's fast-paced professional services landscape, the recruitment and retention of highly-skilled employees is paramount for success. However, not all companies can offer cash compensation packages that meet (or exceed) industry benchmarks, making the strategic design of pay structures increasingly important. This article explores the nuances of pay mix and its influence on a firm's capacity to both attract and retain top talent. Benchmarking percentiles are instrumental in guiding companies to align their compensation strategies with market realities. Through practical examples, we reveal how even minor alterations to remuneration structure can impact a company's competitiveness in the labour market.

In Part 1 of this series, we explained why the pay mix can be the defining differentiator, particularly from an employee’s perspective, when many of the other key elements of compensation across competing organisations are considered to be broadly similar. In Part 2 we discussed how pay mix affects the financials of firms, especially with regards to personnel costs. This Part 3 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.

Introduction

As people are the key asset 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.

Companies have different operational models, service different market segments or clients resulting in different economic realities. As a consequence, not all companies will be able to offer total cash compensation packages which are “in line” with the market (i.e. around the market’s median) or above to attract the best talent in the market.

Therefore, particularly for companies forced to offer total cash compensation below the market’s median it is crucial to get the pay-mix right. Understanding and utilizing percentiles in the benchmarking process can provide valuable insights into compensation competitiveness.

Total cash compensation in relation to fixed and variable pay

The following example (Exhibit 1) illustrates this: Assuming the following five 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, both Firm 1 and Firm 4 offer the lowest total cash compensation (90). On the contrary, Firm 3 and Firm 5 offer the highest total cash compensation (100). Firm 2’s offer (95) is in between the other four offers.

The key difference though lies in the pay mix, particularly when comparing offers amounting to the same total cash compensation:

When comparing Firm 1 and Firm 4: Both firms offer the same total cash compensation (90), but Firm 1 offers a higher base salary (70) and a lower variable pay (20) than Firm 4, which offers a lower base salary (60) and a higher variable pay (30). When comparing these two offers, obviously Firm 1’s offer is more attractive, because less money is “at risk”.

The second comparison refers to Firm 3 and Firm 5. Both firms offer the same total cash compensation (100), but Firm 3 offers a lower base salary (60) and a higher variable pay (40) than Firm 5, which offers a higher base salary (70) and a lower variable pay (20). When comparing these two offers, obviously Firm 5’s offer is more attractive, because less money is “at risk”.

But generally, Firm 4s offer is the least attractive from all five offers, since it offers the lowest total cash compensation (90) and the lowest base salary (60). Assuming full transparency in the market, Firm 4 would be having the most problems in attracting talent.

In contrast, Firm 5s offer is the most attractive from all five offers, since it offers the highest total cash compensation (100) and the highest base salary (70). On the other hand, one could argue whether Firm 5 is overpaying by offering both, the highest total cash compensation and a very comfortable pay mix (with relatively little money “at risk”).

Pay mix as a means of offering competitive compensation

In the next example (Exhibit 2) we will focus on the first three offers of Firms 1 to 3, which are more in line what one would consider a rational approach for adjusting pay mix according to the size of total cash compensation offered:

We already highlighted the inverse correlation between size of total cash compensation and ratio of fixed to variable compensation components (aka pay mix): Simplified one can say, the higher total cash compensation, the higher is also the variable pay in relation to base salary and total cash compensation (or in other words: the “riskier” is the pay mix).

Pay mix and market percentiles of different pay elements

Assuming that these offers match the market’s pay range as follows: Firm 1’s total cash compensation (90) matches the lower quartile (25th percentile) of the market’s range, Firm 2’s offer (95) matches the median (50th percentile), and Firm 3’s offer (100) matches the upper quartile (75th percentile).

Considering the market positioning with regards to total cash compensation, ideally the positioning with regards to base salary should be the other way around: Firm 1 should target a higher market percentile (e.g. the 75th percentile) for base salary, Firm 2 could be targeting the median (50th percentile), and Firm 3 could offer a slightly more “aggressive” pay mix by targeting a lower percentile (e.g. the 25th percentile) for base salary.

From our experience in benchmarking hundreds of consulting and professional services firms we see, that these relationships and ratios are often overlooked when designing compensation models.

In summary, not all firms can offer market-competitive total cash compensation packages, making it critical to optimise their pay mix. We illustrated how companies with similar total cash compensation packages can differ in their attractiveness to candidates due to differences in their pay mix. Companies with a higher base salary and lower variable pay may be more attractive because they involve less financial risk for employees. The pay mix should be adjusted in relation to the total cash compensation offered, with higher compensation typically having a larger variable component (and vice versa). Ideally, companies should aim to align base pay with market percentiles to effectively attract and retain top talent.

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.

‍

By: Gonzalo André Lavin Alfaro – Business Development Associate

The persistent issue of hyperinflation and currency devaluation in many countries has led consulting companies to adopt new strategies to retain their talent and remain competitive.

Here, we briefly cover various measures taken by leading management consulting firms to alleviate the pressures faced by their employees, including regular increases in base salaries and bonuses, one-off payments adjusted for inflation, and the option of pegging salaries to another currency.

Over the past year, Vencon Research has launched Pulse Surveys in heavily affected countries such as Argentina and Turkey to explore the actions taken by leading management consulting firms in response to the challenges of managing compensation in times of hyperinflation. Our analysis of the resulting data revealed that several responses were commonly considered by participating firms:

· The most common approach was to regularly (often quarterly or even monthly) review and increase Base Salary in order to align income with a depreciating currency.

· This was followed by regularly (again, often quarterly or even monthly) increasing bonuses and/or other variable income.

· Other firms opted to offer "one-off" payments adjusted for inflation. These seem to be offered semi-annually.

· It is noteworthy to mention that only a few firms considered pegging salaries to another currency with an equivalent value, such as the US dollar, to be an acceptable alternative. This option was most commonly considered by large, internationally-based, pure strategy firms. Nonetheless, given that there is little expectation of significant improvement in the short term in many of the countries mentioned, this may be an option that is considered more widely in the near future.

Summaries of our inflation-related surveys for Argentina and Turkey are available on our website here:

Argentina

‍Turkey

Should you want to us to present and further discuss our findings and/or want us to assist you with a review of your strategies to deal with hyperinflation, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at Vencon Research.

‍

Vencon Research’s 2022 Pulse Survey provides an insight into the effects of currency devaluation and inflationary pressures in Turkey. The survey results highlight the challenges faced by firms in Turkey in retaining their employees, and the measures they are taking to address the financial hardship faced by their employees.

1.  CHALLENGES IN RETAINING EMPLOYEES

The study revealed that firms in Turkey are facing challenges in retaining employees, with a significant increase in voluntary attrition. As a result, 67% of firms surveyed have increased their hiring efforts. Despite this, half of the firms reported that their employees are experiencing financial hardship.

2.  RESPONSES FROM CONSULTING FIRMS

To address the issue, all firms reported adjusting their compensation structure in the last 12 months, with 67% of them attributing this to both inflation and currency devaluation.

The adjustments were made for all types of employment contracts, with two-thirds of firms adjusting based on job role, function, and/or career level.

Measures taken to combat inflation and currency devaluation included increasing base salary, offering one-off or multiple payments, and increasing bonus/variable pay. Interestingly, only 17% of firms used "pegging" of compensation to a foreign currency.

3.  DRIVERS OF COMPENSATION DECISIONS

The most critical factors driving compensation were the cost of labour and inflation, with other contributing factors including cost of living expenses, fluctuations in exchange rates, and attrition rates.

About 50%of the firms were unable to make predictions about the anticipated situation in the next 12 months in Turkey. However, most firms are planning to make changes to their compensation model in the coming year.

Half of the firms plan to raise the base salary by over 20%, one-fourth plans to boost the bonus by 20%, and another quarter plans to raise the bonus by 11% to 20%.

4.  INDUSTRY REMAINS PROACTIVE

In conclusion, the survey shows that businesses in Turkey are taking proactive measures to retain employees and address their financial hardship in light of inflation and currency devaluation. It also highlights the need for firms to review their compensation structure more frequently than the typical once-per-year review, and plan changes to address the challenges of inflation and currency devaluation.

‍

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