Beyond Salary: What Compensation Means in 2026
Compensation has always been central to hiring. But in 2026, the way candidates assess compensation and the way organisations need to think about it extends well beyond a single salary figure.
It can be tempting to assume that a slower or more cautious hiring market gives employers greater leverage. In practice, our consultants are seeing something more nuanced. Strong candidates, particularly those already established in their roles, are increasingly selective about what will make a move worthwhile. A more competitive market does not necessarily mean exceptional talent can be secured for less.
Salary remains fundamental. But alongside it, candidates are weighing flexibility, title, scope, progression, benefits and incentives, as well as a broader question: does this organisation offer the conditions in which I can succeed?
Salary is still the foundation
It would be naïve to suggest that salary has become less important. A competitive, market-rate salary remains the foundation of a strong offer.
This is particularly true at senior level. Matching someone’s existing earnings or positioning an offer at the very bottom of an agreed range, is unlikely to provide a compelling reason for an established professional to leave a secure position. Benefits, incentives and signing bonuses can strengthen an offer, but
they cannot necessarily compensate for a base salary that is fundamentally out of step with the market.
The challenge is that salary cannot be benchmarked effectively in isolation.
When assessing compensation, organisations need to consider the actual scope and responsibilities of the position, the experience required, geography, commercial expectations, bo
nus or commission potential and the wider package being offered. For sales positions, for example, understanding realistic total earnings may be far more useful than comparing base salaries alone.
Geography adds another layer. Organisations expanding internationally can find that compensation expectations in a new market differ substantially from those at home. The disparity between London and New York is an obvious example: transferring an existing salary structure from one market to another without testing it locally can make an otherwise attractive opportunity uncompetitive.
Effective benchmarking therefore starts with the role itself: the work someone is being asked to do, at the level they are being asked to do it, in the market in which they are being hired.
Flexibility has become part of the value equation
Flexibility is one of the clearest examples of how the compensation conversation has broadened.
For many established professionals, a degree of autonomy has already been earned in their current position. Moving into a new role that requires them to surrender that flexibility can therefore feel like a backwards step, even where the salary represents an increase.
This does not always mean formal hybrid working. It can mean flexibility around working hours, greater autonomy over where someone needs to be to perform their role, discretion around travel, or small adjustments that allow a position to work alongside family responsibilities.
Our consultants are seeing instances where these adjustments materially affect how candidates assess an opportunity. What may appear minor from an employer’s perspective can be significant when someone is evaluating the practical realities of making a long-term move.
Flexibility is therefore increasingly part of the wider value equation: not simply a benefit, but part of a candidate’s assessment of whether an opportunity represents genuine progression.
Job titles create another challenge for compensation benchmarking in the art world.
The same title can represent very different levels of seniority between organisations. A Sales Director within a smaller business, for example, cannot automatically be benchmarked against a Sales Director at a large international gallery. To understand where a role or candidate sits in the market, employers need to look beyond title to the scale of the organisation, scope of responsibility, commercial remit and level of experience required.
Roles can also Photo Credit: Jerry ZhangSomeone may hold the same title for several years while taking on significantly greater responsibility, managing larger teams or becoming more commercially accountable. When that person moves on, an employer may initially look to replace them at the same title and salary level, rather than recognising how the role itself has evolved.
This is particularly important for senior, visible or commercially focused positions. Title carries professional value beyond the organisation itself, and candidates may understandably be reluctant to make a move that appears externally to represent a step backwards, even where the responsibilities or compensation are attractive.
Salary, title and scope should therefore reinforce one another. Effective benchmarking means understanding the substance of the role rather than relying on title alone. Where these elements are out of step, candidates are likely to notice the disconnect.
Incentives need to feel achievable
Bonuses and commission can make compensation packages significantly more attractive, particularly in commercially focused positions. But theoretical earning potential is very different from compensation a candidate can realistically expect to receive.
Clarity matters.
Candidates want to understand how commission is calculated, what triggers a bonus and how performance will be assessed. Where KPIs or targets form a significant part of a package, there needs to be enough transparency for a candidate to assess whether those expectations are achievable.
This points to a wider shift in the conversations we are having with senior candidates. Increasingly, they want to understand whether they are being positioned to succeed.
An inflated salary accompanied by unrealistic expectations can ultimately be less attractive than a market-consistent package with clearly articulated goals, achievable targets and a credible path to success.
A high salary cannot compensate indefinitely for an unachievable brief.
Compensation and performance expectations therefore need to be considered together. If a significant proportion of the value of a role sits within its upside, candidates need to understand how that upside can realistically be achieved.
Today’s market rate can expose yesterday’s pay decisions
Benchmarking becomes particularly revealing when an organisation has not recruited at a certain level for some time.
Our consultants regularly encounter businesses that are surprised by current salary expectations. This can be particularly apparent at entry level, where salaries have moved considerably while some organisations continue to benchmark against what they historically paid.
At senior level, the issue can be more complex.
An existing employee may have spent several years expanding their responsibilities, developing their client base or increasing their commercial contribution without their compensation increasing at the same pace. When the organisation subsequently attempts to recruit someone of equivalent calibre externally, current market expectations can expose the gap between internal compensation and external market value.
This is where a recruitment question can quickly become a retention question.
Benchmarking should not begin when a vacancy opens.
Regularly testing roles against the external market can help organisations understand not only what they need to offer new hires, but whether existing salaries, titles and responsibilities remain aligned. Used proactively, benchmarking can identify potential compression and retention risks before they become apparent through a resignation or a difficult recruitment process.
Compensation and organisational confidence
Ultimately, the compensation conversation increasingly intersects with something broader: candidates’ confidence in the organisation they are considering joining.
Alongside salary and benefits, our consultants repeatedly hear candidates asking about expectations, autonomy, culture, strategic direction and their ability to contribute meaningfully. At senior level especially, candidates want to understand what they are being brought in to achieve and whether they will have the authority, resources and support to deliver it.
This makes the recruitment process itself important. Ambiguity around responsibilities, prolonged decision-making, inconsistent feedback or a lack of clarity around how decisions are made can influence how a candidate perceives the opportunity. Conversely, a clearly articulated brief, access to key stakeholders and transparency around expectations can strengthen it.
The questions candidates are asking are therefore increasingly interconnected:
What am I being hired to achieve? How will success be measured? Will I have the authority and resources to deliver it? What will progression look like? And does the compensation reflect what is being asked of me?
For employers, these are not separate questions. Together, they form the proposition being put to a prospective hire.
Compensation as an organisational strategy
The most competitive organisations are not necessarily those offering the highest salary. They are those that understand how salary, incentives, flexibility, title, scope and progression fit together and can clearly articulate what a successful future within the organisation looks like. This makes compensation benchmarking a broader strategic exercise.
Testing a position against the market can reveal more than what a new hire should be paid. It can highlight where roles have outgrown their titles, where internal salaries may have fallen behind, where expectations and incentives are misaligned and where relatively small adjustments could materially strengthen an organisation’s ability to attract and retain talent.
At SML, market feedback forms an important part of how we advise clients throughout a search. As compensation conversations continue to broaden, the organisations best positioned to compete for talent will be those prepared to look beyond the headline number and consider the full value, expectations and long-term viability of the opportunity they are offering.
