Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Research and Design the Compensation Philosophy
3 weeks
Produce a written compensation philosophy document covering: the organisation's position in the market (lead, match, or lag market), the rationale for that position, geographic scope and location differentials, the components of total compensation (base, bonus, equity, benefits), and the principles governing how people move through ranges. Conduct market research using at least two benchmark sources and document the data. Present the philosophy to at least one senior leader (CEO, CFO, or board member) and document their challenges and revisions.
Proof required
Submit the compensation philosophy document (min 800 words), market research notes from at least two benchmark sources, and a documented Q&A session with a senior leader who reviewed and challenged the philosophy.
What gets checked
- Market position is argued with benchmark data — not just stated as a principle
- All four total compensation components are addressed in the philosophy
- Senior leader Q&A is substantive — at least two specific challenges raised and responded to
Common mistakes
- Philosophy is written without market data — it reflects internal preferences, not market reality
- Philosophy is never challenged by a senior leader — it is adopted without scrutiny
- Equity component is ignored or vague — the hardest component to explain is left undocumented
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to explain why they chose their market position (lead/match/lag) — what specific data supports it?
- Confirm the Q&A was with a CEO, CFO, or board member — not an HR peer
- Check the equity component is addressed — this is where most frameworks are vague
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Build Job Levels and Salary Bands
4 weeks
Translate the compensation philosophy into a job level architecture and salary band structure. This must include: a defined number of levels per track (IC and management), level criteria documents for at least two tracks (e.g. engineering and product), and salary bands for each level with ranges benchmarked against market data. Review the resulting bands with at least three managers who will use them for hiring and promotion decisions, and document their feedback.
Proof required
Submit the job level architecture document, level criteria for at least two tracks, salary band spreadsheet with benchmark data references, and feedback notes from at least three managers who reviewed the bands for usability.
What gets checked
- Level criteria are specific enough to distinguish adjacent levels — not generic 'leadership' descriptors
- Salary bands are benchmarked against named data sources — not internally derived
- Manager feedback is documented and at least one issue with usability is identified and addressed
Common mistakes
- Level criteria are too generic — managers cannot use them to make clear promotion decisions
- Salary bands are created without benchmarking — they reflect internal pay history, not market
- Manager review is skipped — bands are shipped without the people who will use them weighing in
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to pick two adjacent levels in one track and explain what specifically distinguishes them
- Confirm the salary bands are anchored to named external benchmark sources
- Verify three managers reviewed the bands for usability — not the same manager three times
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Run the First Compensation Review Cycle
6 weeks
Run a full compensation review cycle using the framework: calibrate current employees against the new level architecture, identify out-of-band employees (above or below band), develop a remediation plan for below-band employees within budget constraints, communicate the framework and outcomes to employees, and debrief with managers on how the framework held up in practice. Document the cycle and produce a post-cycle report.
Proof required
Submit the calibration summary (anonymised — no individual names required, just role/level distribution), remediation plan for out-of-band cases, a sample of the employee communication used, and the post-cycle debrief report (min 500 words) covering what worked and what needs refinement. A senior HR leader or CEO must review and confirm the cycle ran.
What gets checked
- Calibration covers all employees — not just a sample
- Remediation plan addresses below-band cases within a documented budget constraint
- Post-cycle debrief identifies at least two specific framework refinements needed
Common mistakes
- Calibration is done but below-band employees receive no communication — the framework creates inequity without addressing it
- Manager debrief is skipped — the submitter doesn't know where the framework broke down in practice
- Post-cycle report is optimistic — identifies no refinements needed
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter what percentage of employees were out-of-band and how they handled the below-band cases
- Confirm a senior HR leader or CEO reviewed and confirmed the cycle ran
- Check the post-cycle report is honest — does it identify real refinements, or only positives?
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of