You're balancing local compensation with global talent acquisition budgets. How can you make it work?

It’s definitely a balancing act, especially when trying to maintain internal equity while tapping into global talent markets. One approach that’s gaining traction is benchmarking roles by value and output, not just location. Instead of simply adjusting salaries by geography, some companies are focusing on what the role contributes to the business and aligning compensation accordingly. We’re also helping more businesses build remote teams in regions where cost of living is lower e.g. India, but skills are high, allowing them to reinvest savings into training, retention, or expanding their core team.

While hiring in Eastern Europe, we noticed high turnover despite competitive global packages. After researching local economic conditions and speaking with regional experts, we discovered our offers didn’t reflect local cost-of-living expectations. We restructured packages to include transport stipends and local benefits, which improved retention. This taught us that understanding local markets goes beyond salary; it’s about aligning value with real-life needs.

Balance local pay with global budgets by using market data for each region. Adjust salaries based on cost of living and role value. For example, offering competitive pay in India while staying within global limits helps attract talent and control costs.

I’d benchmark local salary data, use location-based pay bands, and align compensation with both market rates and company budget to stay competitive and fair.

Balancing local pay with global hiring? Start with a clear comp strategy tied to role value, not just location. Use geo-adjusted salary bands, prioritize critical roles, and tap into market data. Align with finance early, and stay flexible; what works in one market may not in another.

I’d analyze local market rates, apply tiered compensation models, and balance fairness with budget by aligning pay to both role value and location.

Great insights! From the RMC side, we're seeing this same principle apply to mobility packages - what motivates acceptance in Singapore versus Stockholm can be vastly different. I've noticed the most successful programs combine competitive local compensation with culturally-relevant relocation benefits. A generous housing allowance might be standard in London, but flexible work arrangements during transition could be more valued in other markets, such as the Nordic countries, with a work-life balance culture. The key is having local market intelligence for both compensation AND mobility costs to create truly compelling relocation packages. Thankfully that’s where you can lean on your RMC for help.

To balance local compensation with global talent acquisition budgets, start by researching market rates in each region to offer competitive yet fair salaries. Use a compensation framework that adjusts for cost of living and local norms while staying within your global budget. Consider offering flexible benefits, remote work options, or performance-based incentives to add value without raising base pay. Regularly review and adjust your strategy to stay aligned with market trends and business goals.

Balancing local compensation with a global hiring budget isn’t easy but it’s possible with the right strategy. Start by defining your pay philosophy. Are you compensating based on local market rates or the global value of the role? Segment roles by type as some may follow global bands, others local benchmarks. Use geo-differentials to adjust for cost of labor, not cost of living. Total rewards, like equity or flexible work, can bridge gaps. Keep budget governance tight and monitor regularly. Above all, be transparent because employees value fairness, even if pay isn’t identical across regions. Balance is possible with clarity, consistency, and data.

While hiring tech talent in São Paulo, our initial salary offers were based on global averages, but local candidates declined. After benchmarking salaries using regional data and consulting local recruiters, we adjusted our packages to align with market expectations. Applications increased significantly, and we hired top talent quickly. This experience reinforced that local benchmarks aren't optional; they’re essential for success in global hiring.

While hiring in Poland, we noticed candidates prioritized private health coverage and flexible hours over base pay. We revised our benefits package to include comprehensive health insurance and remote work options. This flexible approach not only cut unnecessary costs but also attracted top-tier candidates. It taught us that customizing benefits to local expectations is often more impactful than increasing salaries alone.

While expanding into Southeast Asia, we struggled with inconsistent compensation offers. By integrating a global ATS with a compensation analytics tool, we aligned packages with market standards in real time. It also flagged discrepancies before offers went out. This not only ensured fairness but saved hours in manual reviews. Tech turned our global hiring into a data-driven, agile process, crucial in competitive markets.

Great point on technology! From the mobility perspective, I'd add that your RMC's technology stack should be treated as a critical component of your overall talent acquisition ecosystem. The most successful global hiring teams I work with have integrated their ATS with their mobility platform, enabling real-time cost modeling, policy compliance checks, and even candidate self-service portals. This creates a seamless assignee experience from "offer accepted" to "first day of work.” This is critical for international hires who need immediate support. When your ATS and mobility technology speak to each other, you can make data-driven decisions about the total cost of talent acquisition, not just the salary component.