Compensation And Benefits Planning

Our latest State of Global Compensation Report - featuring equity insight from our partners Carta - just dropped, and this one is led by Jessica, Deel’s own Head of Global Compensation. Jess shapes Deel’s comp strategy and has been foundational to how we think about fairness and competitiveness across 150+ countries. This new edition gives HR and comp leaders real, actionable insights on how to navigate a fast-changing pay landscape. Highlights: - Equity is going global. With Carta’s data, we’re seeing ownership become a powerful way to build wealth and alignment across borders, especially in Brazil and India. - AI and tech roles are redefining pay norms. Specialized talent is commanding 20–25% premiums, pushing teams to rethink comp structures. - Gender pay gaps persist, but are progressing in countries like Brazil and Colombia shows what’s possible with transparency and intentional hiring. - Contractor markets are maturing. Countries like Argentina and Mexico are thriving hubs for flexible, high-skill talent. If you’re building or scaling a global team, Jessica’s insights offer a practical roadmap for fair, data-driven compensation design. Read on 👉 https://lnkd.in/dtmXytds

4 year long grants are no longer the market standard–be very careful when looking at equity compensation benchmarks The simple way to do equity benchmarking is –1) Look at new hire equity target benchmarks –2) Use those benchmarks to directly inform your company’s new hire targets for total grant size But if you’re looking at benchmarks that mix 1, 2, 3, and 4 year grants into the same sample set, you’re at risk of mixing apples and bananas in a way that can substantially impact your equity comp accuracy and SBC over time. To take a step back, let’s take a look at how the market standards for equity vesting durations have evolved over the past five years for private and public companies across both new hire and ongoing (refresh) grants. _______________ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: ↗️ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average new hire grant has increased from 3.2 to 4.0 years from 2020 to 2025 ↘️ 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average new hire grant has decreased from 3.4 to 3.0 years from 2020 to 2025 _______________ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗢𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵) 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: ➡️ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average ongoing grant has stayed most flat at around ~3.5 years ↘️ 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average ongoing grant has decreased from 3.6 to 2.9 years from 2020 to 2025 _______________ 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: 1️⃣ 𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗯𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱. In particular, the average public company grant is now ~3.0 years in length for both new hire and ongoing grants. And even private company ongoing grants are averaging ~3.5 years in length these days. 2️⃣ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝟰.𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 after a period of exploration with shorter grants during Covid and the ZIRP era. _______________ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴: As mentioned above, the anti-pattern that I frequently see is when companies perform their equity comp market analyses on total equity grant sizes rather than annualized equity grants. This is the typical way of working with traditional survey providers, for instance. But it is a fairly substantial misstep given the now commonplace experimentation of varying vesting durations across the market today. When looking at equity benchmarks, 𝗜 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 and then backing into your company’s equity program (2 year, 3 year, 4 year, etc grants).

Your comp plan is paying reps to be selfish. You say you want collaboration, team selling, flawless handoffs, and happy customers. But your comp plan tells a different story: - AEs hoarding accounts to squeeze one more renewal. - CS carrying the churn risk from overpromised deals. - SDRs passing junk just to hit demo goals. - SEs dropped from deals because they slow it down. - Partners ignored because they dilute the split. That’s not bad behavior. That’s just math. Sales comp is a system. And systems do exactly what they’re designed to do. If your comp plan only rewards individual heroics, you’ll never get team plays. If it only pays on closed revenue, you’ll never get qualified pipeline. If it ignores post-sale impact, you’ll never get long-term growth. And the worst part? We try to fix this misalignment with culture, not compensation. Cue the all-hands speeches of “We win together and we're all one team!” Buuuttttt then you flash a leaderboard that pits everyone against each other and wonder why nobody collaborates. Incentives don’t need fixing. They need realignment. Here’s how: 1. Add a handoff bonus to every AE/CS transition. Make reps prove they did a real warm intro, mapped the buying committee, and reviewed renewal risk factors. 2. Pay SDRs on qualified pipeline held to AE acceptance criteria. Not on booked meetings. Not on attendance. On quality accepted pipeline. Anything else is activity theater. 3. Carve out a multi-threading bonus inside opp scoring. Reward reps for early ID of finance, legal, and technical stakeholders. If your reps are flying solo, so is your forecast. 4. Protect SE and Partner involvement with minimum revenue share guarantees. Stop shaving 10% off their payout every time someone gets nervous about the split. Real collaboration costs money. 5. Tie CS comp to expansion readiness, not just retention. Involve CS in the expansion forecast. Bonus them on commercial influence — not just support ticket close time. It's not really fair to blame your reps for doing what they’re paid to do. If you want reps to act like owners, you have to pay them like co-owners. That starts with a comp plan that rewards shared wins, not solo ones. Your GTM engine isn’t one superstar away from greatness. It’s just one well-designed incentive model away from finally working as a team.

Be Market-Informed, Not Market-Led. Compensation survey data is a guide, not a rulebook. Too many companies take raw survey benchmarks and turn them directly into salary bands. The result? ❌ Pay structures with inconsistent jumps between levels. ❌ Career paths that don’t make sense internally. ❌ Overpaying or underpaying without a clear strategy. What percentiles actually tell you: 25th = Lower-paying employers or early-stage startups 50th = Mid-market positioning 75th = Competitive for talent 90th = Top-tier pay for rare skills None of these are inherently “good” or “bad.” What matters is what fits your strategy. Instead of being market-led (rigidly following percentiles), aim to be market-informed: ✅ Use market data as a starting point — not the final answer. ✅ Build structured salary bands that align with career growth. ✅ Ensure pay progression supports internal mobility. Compensation should be strategic, scalable, and intentional — not dictated by a percentile.

Many FP&A teams forecast compensation using top-down assumptions like "salaries grow 3% year-over-year and benefits are 25% of pay." But this usually fails. Bottoms-up cost builds allow FP&A professionals to build accurate compensation models like this one. Instead of starting with high-level assumptions and averages, it begins with inputs that can then drive the averages used in the financial model. This is an example I sometimes use to illustrate how FP&A teams can build more accurate payroll forecasts: • Separate senior professionals from junior professionals • Build salary growth rates at the category level • Add fringe and statutory costs line by line • Calculate each cost as a % or salaries or per person • Include benefits % of salary to capture non-cash comp The result of this technique is you get a transparent, auditable model with inputs that can be easily flexed. You get immediate sensitivities that you can run on headcount, pay mix, or changes to benefits. And you can easily integrate these assumptions with workforce planning. You can also break down leadership, management, and staff by job category and assign salary bands. If the CFO asks why personnel costs went up 8%, you can show exactly where that increase is coming from. A bottoms-up cost build like this doesn't just make your forecast more detailed. It makes it more defensible for FP&A business partners serving human resources.

3 things every People leader should negotiate before accepting their next offer. At the executive level, negotiating a smart package is about more than getting a market competitive salary. It’s about aligning on a set of terms that incentivize you to drive business success while providing a safety net for you and the company both if things don’t work out. Here are 3 things every People leader should ask about — and how to do so effectively — before accepting their next role. Equity While nothing is ever guaranteed, the right equity package can make you a millionaire overnight. If your company makes it big, you don’t want to be kicking yourself over losing out on a smart equity package. Explore guarantees that protect your equity while incentivizing you to optimize for the company’s success: - Single or Double Trigger Accelerations: To protect your stock if the company gets sold before you finish vesting - Extended Exercise Window: To buy yourself more time to exercise vested options post-departure  - Equity Top Ups: To protect against dilution during funding rounds Bonus Smart bonus plans don’t just focus on the dollar amount awarded, but the structure they’re built around. Consider: - Guarantee language to cover periods of approved leave, especially parental leave - Signing bonus — especially if you’re walking away from a hefty bonus at your current company and/or taking a big risk switching to an earlier stage startup - Annual bonuses tied to business metrics — to round out your total comp package while signaling that you prioritize business success over team-specific metrics Exit Plan Think of it like a prenup. You’re going into this with a confident outlook, but if things don’t work out, you want to have a smart plan in place *before* things get messy — not after — to ensure a smooth and mutually beneficial transition. Ask about: - Guaranteed COBRA coverage - Guaranteed salary payouts  - Guaranteed transition period where you stay on payroll as an advisor or consultant vs an abrupt departure — better for optics and enables smoother handoffs As with all things, the key to effective negotiation is being thoughtful in your framing. You want to come across as business-savvy, not out of touch. It’s the difference between pushing for an unrealistic bonus structure that would put the company financials at risk and pushing for a bonus structure that hinges upon the company’s ARR goals — you only win if the company wins. And remember: These discussions shouldn’t stop at the offer letter. Roles evolve, expectations expand, and company realities change. Smart execs revisit these terms over time. Want to learn more about what to negotiate, how to frame your asks, and what is (and isn’t) realistic depending on company size, stage, and industry? Check out my negotiation cheat sheet below. 👇 #hr #people #compensation

Narayana Group launched India’s 1st truly integrated healthcare plan (insurance + healthcare) earlier this week: Approx. ₹10,000 premium for ~₹1 crore coverage (*) for a family of 4: Pre-existing health conditions covered & claims are admissible from Day 1 of the policy tenure. Below are some points to cover ⤵️ (1) Still in pilot phase - Running as a pilot in select districts: Mysuru, Mandya, and Chamraj Nagar. - Will come to Bengaluru (soon) per press (2) Details about coverage (*) - ₹1 crore coverage for surgeries & ₹5 Lakhs towards medical costs. Day 1 coverage for PEDs & specific illnesses. - Specifically treatment needs to happen at Narayana owned hospitals for above to hold. - Different TnCs for external hospitals. - PS: Tried to find the policy PDF online; sadly the IRDAI’s website is not updated. Will do more research on this. (3) 1st real managed care attempt 👍 - Several other hospital groups have run insurance companies in the past (e.g. Manipal Group w/ Manipal Cigna, Apollo w/ Apollo Munich etc) - However, this is (per my understanding), the 1st time a hospital group has integrated its hospital service w/ the insurance plan of its subsidiary - Narayana Group got its Health Insurance company license earlier in January 2014 - Managed care == owning the “full stack” i.e. insurance + clinic + hospital to deliver a cohesive, cheaper & better healthcare product  (4) Narayana One - their other effort 💡 - The news doesn’t cover Narayana One Health (NH Integrated Care Pvt Ltd) which was incorporated in January 2023 - But, One offers some fantastic healthcare plans (doctor consultations, OPD discounts, pharmacy benefits etc) for a fixed price. This is a great ‘add-on’ to insurance. - I suspect that Narayana Group will combine One (digital health) with NH Insurance (health insurance) and the Hospital (core biz) to deliver a 360* healthcare experience (5) Peers in this space 🤔 - The closest to Narayana’s model is Even Health & Loop Health; both these entities run their own healthcare clinics + sell insurance. - Caveat: The above peers don’t own the tertiary care center (hospital) and the insurance company license. - Narayana owns the full stack: insurance license, primary care & tertiary care center. - Global peer would be Kaiser Permanente (KP) in California ✅Narayana Group is uniquely positioned: Lots of learnings from past attempts (public & private co’s), great talent picked from the market (check LinkedIn) & clear right to win (owns hospital + digital health biz + insurance company). ➡️Dr Devi Shetty, Chairman of Narayana Group, said “today, the patient, insurer & hospital interests are at conflict. We are going to resolve this. We’re going after the missing middle - 100M Indians; that is our strategy” 🔥 #india #healthcare

When Rajiv was offered a CEO role at a mid-sized tech company, the headline number looked impressive — nearly 40% higher than his current pay. But when he unpacked it, he realized: The fixed pay was modest. A big chunk came as ESOPs vesting over 4 years. The bonus was tied to aggressive targets that depended on a market expansion not yet tested. On paper, it was a dream. In reality, it was the board’s way of testing his skin in the game. This is the politics of executive compensation. It’s not just salary — it’s strategy. Companies use pay structures to align incentives, retain leaders, or quietly signal risk. Don’t just look at the CTC headline. Break it down. Ask: Is this pay designed to retain me, motivate me, or test me? Negotiate not just for today’s number, but for tomorrow’s value.

Managing Your 401k Isn’t Just About Saving for Retirement… It’s like saying a pawn is the whole chess game. Sure, it’s an important piece, but it’s not the whole strategy… Elements that make up your 401k strategy include: ☑️ Contributing more than just the employer match. ☑️ Taking advantage of catch-up contributions if you’re over 50. ☑️ Rolling over instead of cashing out when changing jobs. ☑️ Being aware of plan costs that can eat into your returns. ☑️ Seeking professional guidance to navigate investment options. ☑️ Avoiding over-investment in your company’s stock. ☑️ Understanding the implications of taking loans from your 401(k). Remember, it’s not just about tossing money into your account; it’s about strategically playing each piece to secure a win—your comfortable retirement. Think of your 401(k) as more than a savings account. It’s a dynamic part of your financial portfolio that requires attention, strategy, and sometimes, a little bit of finesse. P.S. Feeling overwhelmed with your 401(k) options or not sure if you’re maximizing its potential? Drop your questions in the comments! ⤵️

“I’ll have to work until I’m 60.” She said it with a sigh. Just a few years ago, her goal was to retire at 55. What changed? At age 42, she welcomed her son. Life’s greatest joy had also reshaped her financial future. During our meeting, she shared her concern:- “I have to say, it’s not encouraging at all. I wanted to retire at 55, but looking at my situation now, I think I’ll need to extend it to 60.” Her words carried both hope and worried. Like countless others, her priorities shifted as life unfolded in beautiful, unexpected ways. This wasn’t a failure of planning. It was a successful adaptation to life. Her plan needed to evolve, just as her life had. Having a child later brought immense joy, but also new financial layers:- childcare, education, and her own retirement. All unfolding within a tighter timeline. We identified three core challenges:- 📌 Shortened Savings Window – Only 13 years until her original retirement age, with savings not yet where they needed to be. 📌 Increased Financial Commitments – Funds once aimed at retirement were now lovingly redirected to her son. 📌 Extended Dependency Period – At 55, her son would only be 13. Her retirement would need to support them both. Retirement planning isn’t about sticking rigidly to one path. It’s about adapting to life’s changes with clarity and courage. Together, we built a new map forward: ↳The Power of Five More Years Extending her retirement target to 60 became her most powerful lever. As adding years of savings and compounding, while shortening the portfolio's required lifespan. ↳ Intentional Spending vs. Mindful Cutting We audited her cash flow not just to cut back, but to redirect. Every ringgit moved was a conscious choice funding either her son's future or her own. ↳Turbocharging Retirement Savings We maximized her EPF voluntary contributions and aligned her investment strategy to make the next 13 years work harder than the past 20 could have. ↳ Building a Separate “Future Fund” A dedicated education fund for her son was created. This critical step protects her retirement nest egg from becoming a college fund later. Life doesn’t always go as planned, and that’s okay. What matters is recognizing where you are and taking intentional steps forward. Her story isn't unique, but her response is commendable. She chose adaptation over anxiety, and action over avoidance. What about you? When was the last time your financial plan had a heart-to-heart with your life? If it's been a while or if life has thrown you a beautiful curveball, let that be your prompt. Revisit your plan. Adjust the timeline. Redefine the goals. Because the best retirement plan isn't the one written in stone. It's the one that grows and changes with you.