Skills

Conduct a Compensation Benchmarking Analysis

6 weeks · 0 milestones

Research and analyse compensation levels for a specific role in a specific industry and geography using real public data sources — Glassdoor, LinkedIn Salary Insights, BLS Occupational Employment Statistics, or published industry salary surveys — and produce a benchmarking report with a recommendation on competitive positioning. The report must include the methodology, data sources cited with dates, the distribution of pay by experience level, and a written recommendation on what the organisation should pay and why. Proof requires review by an HR or compensation professional who can confirm the methodology is sound and the data sources credible.

Part of: Business & Management · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define the Benchmarking Scope and Collect Compensation Market Data

1–2 weeks

Select a real role or set of roles for compensation benchmarking — ideally from your own organisation or an organisation you have access to. Define the job scope (level, responsibilities, location, industry), identify comparable roles in the market, and collect compensation data from free public sources (Glassdoor, Levels.fyi, LinkedIn Salary, government labour statistics).

Proof required

Submit: (a) a job scope document for the role(s) being benchmarked (minimum one role, maximum five), (b) a market data collection table showing compensation data for comparable roles from at least three distinct public sources with source URLs and collection date, and (c) a comparability assessment explaining why the market comparators are genuinely comparable to the benchmarked role — not just the same job title.

What gets checked

Market data from at least three distinct sources — not three data points from the same source
Comparability assessment addresses level, location, industry, and scope — job title alone is not a sufficient comparator
Collection date is documented — compensation data ages quickly

Common mistakes

Using job title as the only comparator without assessing scope equivalence — a 'Senior Manager' at a 5-person startup is not comparable to a 'Senior Manager' at a Fortune 500
Using salary data from a single source without triangulation

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the comparability assessment: 'You've benchmarked this as a P4 Engineer role — but the responsibilities you've listed include architecture decisions typically made at P5 or P6. How did you account for scope in your comparator selection?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce the Compensation Benchmarking Analysis and Identify Gaps

2–3 weeks

Produce a compensation benchmarking analysis comparing the organisation's current compensation against market data. Calculate position in range (compa-ratio), identify roles or individuals below market (typically below the 25th percentile), at market (25th–75th percentile), or above market. Present findings by role level and assess the competitive implication of any significant gaps.

Proof required

Submit a benchmarking analysis (minimum 1,200 words) covering: (a) compa-ratio calculation for each role benchmarked (current compensation ÷ market median), (b) position-in-range assessment showing how many roles fall below the 25th percentile, between 25th and 75th, and above the 75th percentile, (c) identification of the two or three most significant gaps with competitive risk assessment, and (d) a cost estimate for bringing below-market roles to the 50th percentile.

What gets checked

Compa-ratio calculation shown with formula and inputs
Position-in-range assessment distinguishes between base compensation and total compensation (including bonus and equity where relevant)
Cost estimate uses actual headcount and actual compensation values — not estimated numbers

Common mistakes

Benchmarking only base salary when the market operates on total compensation — for tech roles especially, equity is often the largest compensation component
Presenting the analysis without a recommendation — benchmarking exists to inform decisions, not just describe the current state

Powstik Guide

A compa-ratio table showing where pay trails the market.

Steps

Match each role to a market job by duties, not title.
Record the market 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and the source.
Compute compa-ratio: current pay ÷ market median.
Do it for base pay and for total pay separately.
Cost the move for below-market roles to the median.
Name the two gaps with the highest attrition risk.

Template

| Role | Matched market job | Source | Base pay | Market P50 | Compa-ratio (base) | Total pay | Compa-ratio (total) | Band |
|------|--------------------|--------|----------|------------|--------------------|-----------|---------------------|------|

Cost to move below-P25 roles to P50: headcount × gap =

What gets sent back

Base pay only where the market pays largely in bonus or equity.
Estimated numbers instead of actual pay and headcount.
No recommendation at the end.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the compa-ratio calculations: are they using total compensation or just base? Many companies intentionally lag on base but lead on equity — this must be factored in.
Challenge the competitive risk assessment: 'You identified three below-market roles — which of these represents the highest attrition risk, and why?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Findings to an HR or Compensation Professional

1 week

Present the benchmarking analysis and recommendations to an HR professional (compensation specialist, CHRO, HR business partner, or HR consultant) who will challenge at least two of your comparator choices or findings.

Proof required

Submit: (a) a compensation recommendation memo (minimum 400 words) addressing the identified gaps with specific recommended actions and costs, (b) a Q&A log from the review session (minimum 250 words with at least two challenges and your responses), and (c) attendance record with reviewer name and HR credentials.

What gets checked

Recommendation memo prioritises actions — not a flat list of all gaps
Q&A log shows challenges to comparator choices or methodology
Reviewer has HR or compensation expertise

Common mistakes

Recommendation memo lists all below-market roles without prioritisation — HR leaders need to know which gaps to address first given budget constraints
Review with someone without HR or compensation expertise

Powstik Guide

A prioritised pay memo, challenged by an HR professional.

Steps

Rank the gaps by risk and cost, not by size alone.
Write the memo: actions, cost, and order.
Note the weaknesses of your data source up front.
Book a compensation specialist, HR partner or HR consultant.
Ask them to challenge your comparators; log the session.

Template

Priority list
| Priority | Role | Gap | Action | Cost | Why first |
|----------|------|-----|--------|------|-----------|

Known data limits:

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a comparator choice):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

Every below-market role listed with no priority.
A reviewer without HR or compensation expertise.
No challenge to comparators in the log.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the comparator choice: 'You chose Glassdoor data as your primary benchmark — but Glassdoor has known self-reporting biases toward tech and US companies. How might this affect your findings for non-tech roles?'
Provide written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your HR credentials and the challenges you raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Human Resources Management →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define the Benchmarking Scope and Collect Compensation Market Data

1–2 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Market data from at least three distinct sources — not three data points from the same source
Comparability assessment addresses level, location, industry, and scope — job title alone is not a sufficient comparator
Collection date is documented — compensation data ages quickly

Common mistakes

Using job title as the only comparator without assessing scope equivalence — a 'Senior Manager' at a 5-person startup is not comparable to a 'Senior Manager' at a Fortune 500
Using salary data from a single source without triangulation

Resources

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the comparability assessment: 'You've benchmarked this as a P4 Engineer role — but the responsibilities you've listed include architecture decisions typically made at P5 or P6. How did you account for scope in your comparator selection?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Produce the Compensation Benchmarking Analysis and Identify Gaps

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Compa-ratio calculation shown with formula and inputs
Position-in-range assessment distinguishes between base compensation and total compensation (including bonus and equity where relevant)
Cost estimate uses actual headcount and actual compensation values — not estimated numbers

Common mistakes

Benchmarking only base salary when the market operates on total compensation — for tech roles especially, equity is often the largest compensation component
Presenting the analysis without a recommendation — benchmarking exists to inform decisions, not just describe the current state

Powstik Guide

A compa-ratio table showing where pay trails the market.

Steps

Match each role to a market job by duties, not title.
Record the market 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles and the source.
Compute compa-ratio: current pay ÷ market median.
Do it for base pay and for total pay separately.
Cost the move for below-market roles to the median.
Name the two gaps with the highest attrition risk.

Template

| Role | Matched market job | Source | Base pay | Market P50 | Compa-ratio (base) | Total pay | Compa-ratio (total) | Band |
|------|--------------------|--------|----------|------------|--------------------|-----------|---------------------|------|

Cost to move below-P25 roles to P50: headcount × gap =

What gets sent back

Base pay only where the market pays largely in bonus or equity.
Estimated numbers instead of actual pay and headcount.
No recommendation at the end.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the compa-ratio calculations: are they using total compensation or just base? Many companies intentionally lag on base but lead on equity — this must be factored in.
Challenge the competitive risk assessment: 'You identified three below-market roles — which of these represents the highest attrition risk, and why?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present Findings to an HR or Compensation Professional

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Recommendation memo prioritises actions — not a flat list of all gaps
Q&A log shows challenges to comparator choices or methodology
Reviewer has HR or compensation expertise

Common mistakes

Recommendation memo lists all below-market roles without prioritisation — HR leaders need to know which gaps to address first given budget constraints
Review with someone without HR or compensation expertise

Powstik Guide

A prioritised pay memo, challenged by an HR professional.

Steps

Rank the gaps by risk and cost, not by size alone.
Write the memo: actions, cost, and order.
Note the weaknesses of your data source up front.
Book a compensation specialist, HR partner or HR consultant.
Ask them to challenge your comparators; log the session.

Template

Priority list
| Priority | Role | Gap | Action | Cost | Why first |
|----------|------|-----|--------|------|-----------|

Known data limits:

Review session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and years of experience:

Challenge 1 (a comparator choice):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold? What would I change?

Change I made after the session:
Reviewer's overall view (their words):

What gets sent back

Every below-market role listed with no priority.
A reviewer without HR or compensation expertise.
No challenge to comparators in the log.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Challenge the comparator choice: 'You chose Glassdoor data as your primary benchmark — but Glassdoor has known self-reporting biases toward tech and US companies. How might this affect your findings for non-tech roles?'
Provide written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your HR credentials and the challenges you raised.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.