The Targeted Raise: Flat Pay Budgets, the Retreat From Across-the-Board Increases, and How Leaders Can Differentiate Pay Without Breaking Trust
The HCL Review PodcastSummary
As companies prepare for the 2027 salary increase cycle, a significant shift is occurring in how raises are being allocated. Research indicates that the projected salary increase budget for 2027 is flat, with the median raise hovering around 3.5 percent. However, a mere 3.1 to 3.2 percent of this budget is earmarked for merit-based raises, as companies are increasingly prioritizing critical roles and top performers, particularly those with AI skills, over uniform increases. This change reflects a growing concern among organizations about retaining talent amid rising inflation and a competitive job market.
The traditional practice of providing uniform raises, often referred to as the "peanut butter raise," is declining. Companies are recognizing that this approach can inadvertently lead to high performers feeling undervalued while low performers remain content. The concept of "sorting effects" highlights that when all employees receive the same raise, it can drive top talent to seek opportunities elsewhere. As a result, organizations are now focusing their limited budgets on rewarding those who significantly contribute to the company's success.
Moreover, the landscape of salary transparency is evolving, with new regulations mandating clearer communication about pay structures. This shift presents challenges for managers, who must navigate the complexities of employee expectations and perceptions of fairness. The need for transparent pay practices is underscored by research showing that employees react more negatively to discovering they earn less than their peers than positively when they find they earn more. As companies adapt to these changes, the future of compensation may see a move toward more dynamic pay structures, potentially resembling a high-end gig economy where salaries fluctuate based on real-time performance metrics.
Show Notes
Abstract: As organizations finalize 2027 compensation plans, U.S. salary increase budgets have settled at roughly 3.5% for a second consecutive year, while employers are moving away from uniform, across-the-board raises toward targeted increases for top performers, scarce skills such as artificial intelligence, critical roles, and retention risks. This article examines that shift through the lens of research on pay dispersion, pay-for-performance, organizational justice, and pay transparency. It argues that differentiation can improve the performance return on a flat budget, but only when it rests on credible performance measurement, explicit criteria, routine pay equity audits, and managers who can explain decisions. Drawing on 2026 survey evidence and documented practices at organizations in technology, retail, healthcare, financial services, and higher education, the article offers five evidence-based responses and three long-term capabilities for leaders who want to reward contribution without eroding the trust, fairness, and legal compliance that expanding pay transparency laws now make visible.
More from The HCL Review Podcast
Abstract: Organizations are investing heavily in generative AI, yet many deployments stall at shallow, defensive use. This article examines new field research from Stanford, Virginia, and Dartmouth showing that how managers frame AI shapes whether employees embrace it: in a law firm, a division that was introduced to an AI tool as a way to enrich its work used the tool 58% more and experimented with it 70% more than an otherwise similar division told the tool would speed up drafting. Drawing on Gallup, Microsoft, Workday, and BCG data and on peer-reviewed research on meaningful work, self-determination, and job design, the article traces how productivity-first framing fuels hidden use, lost meaning, and stalled value, while enrichment framing backed by real resources enables discovery. It sets out five evidence-based responses: co-diagnosing work, resourcing learning and exploration time, reinvesting freed capacity, measuring value rather than volume, and governing with worker voice. Documented examples from finance, retail, healthcare, biopharma, technology, and media illustrate each response, and three pillars for long-term capability close the article.
Abstract: A growing share of remote employees work from places their employers do not know about. G-P’s 2026 World at Work Report, released in October 2026, found that 93 percent of business leaders were confident their distributed workforce complied with local tax and labor laws, while 28 percent of remote workers admitted working outside their home country or state for more than 30 consecutive days without notifying HR. Other surveys point in the same direction, especially among younger workers. Undisclosed cross-border work exposes organizations to tax, social security, immigration, employment-law, and data-security risks, and it signals a gap between formal flexibility policies and how people actually want to work. This article reviews survey evidence, regulatory developments, peer-reviewed research on flexibility and trust, and documented organizational practices across technology, financial services, professional services, government, and other sectors. It sets out five evidence-based responses: clear work-from-anywhere policies, simple approval and triage, disclosure-friendly culture, proportionate security controls, and global employment infrastructure that offers fair access.
Abstract: Holding more than one job has moved from the margins of working life toward its mainstream. G-P's 2026 World at Work Report, a survey of 7,100 executives and professionals in six countries, finds that 43% of employees already have a secondary income stream and 31% are considering one, while 79% of organizations maintain formal policies against secondary employment. U.S. federal data show multiple jobholding at 5.5% of employed people in September 2026, and Australia reports rates near historic highs. This article examines the drivers of multiple jobholding, from cost-of-living pressure to the search for autonomy, and its consequences for performance, wellbeing, confidentiality, and trust. Drawing on organizational research and documented cases across IT services, technology platforms, cybersecurity, public administration, and graduate medical education, it argues that blanket prohibitions are increasingly unenforceable, legally constrained, and counterproductive. It proposes evidence-based responses built on risk-based policy, safe disclosure, identity integrity, capacity management, and attention to the push factors that drive employees to seek a second paycheck.
Abstract: Despite several years of heavy investment in generative and agentic artificial intelligence, most organizations report little enterprise-level value. Recent surveys of chief information officers and chief executives show that only a small minority of enterprises have realized significant or transformational value, that most AI use cases fail, and that many leaders struggle to demonstrate financial returns. This article argues that the gap is primarily a work design problem rather than a technology problem. Drawing on field experiments, sociotechnical systems theory, job design research, and economic studies of automation, it explains why tool-centric pilots and headcount-first strategies tend to disappoint. It then outlines five evidence-based responses: redesigning workflows end to end, writing explicit role-redesign plans for a human-agent workforce, installing stopping rules for low-value initiatives, reinvesting freed capacity, and governing AI economics through outcome measures. Organizational examples from financial services, retail, biotechnology, education technology, and software illustrate both promising practice and costly missteps. The article closes with three long-term capabilities that allow organizations to capture what it calls the redesign dividend.
Abstract: Organizations have spent years asking leaders to carry employees through restructuring, technological disruption, and economic uncertainty, while paying comparatively little attention to the condition of the leaders themselves. Recent evidence suggests that the reserve is running low. DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2027, drawing on more than 11,000 leaders, finds that only 17% feel very prepared to anticipate and react to change, 19% frequently feel "used up" at the end of the workday, and just 9% are fully engaged, with half sitting in a lukewarm middle. Gallup data show manager engagement falling faster than that of the people they manage. This article examines leader depletion as a hidden performance risk, drawing on conservation of resources theory, the job demands-resources model, and research on leader sleep, emotional labor, and recovery, while treating contested ego-depletion findings with care. It reviews five evidence-based organizational responses, from redesigning the leader role to building peer communities and measuring leadership capacity, and outlines how organizations can treat leader energy as a strategic resource rather than a personal problem.