Total Rewards - Benchmarking & Merit Cycle Modeling
May
2026
This project demonstrates a Total Rewards approach to compensation decision making, from external market benchmarking through to merit increase planning.
Using a 2,500-employee dataset, I developed a multi-market benchmarking model , alongside a merit cycle framework incorporating performance ratings, compa-ratios, and budget scenarios. Together, the models provide a structured view of pay competitiveness, salary structure positioning, and compensation investment outcomes.
Please Note: This project is built on assumptions and dummy data
Part 1: Compensation Benchmarking
Before you decide who gets a raise, you need to know where everyone actually sits relative to the market.
This isn't straightforward. A Senior Project Manager in Dubai isn't competing in the same talent pool as a Finance Director. Construction talent in the Gulf moves freely between UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar; and Saudi is currently paying 15–25% more for senior project professionals. Corporate leadership roles compete more globally, someone considering a Director role in Dubai could also looking at London.
The benchmarking tool handles both populations differently by design.
Project & Construction Management is benchmarked against UAE, Saudi, and Qatar using Mercer TRS, Hays Gulf Salary Guide, and WTW Global Compensation data. Each survey uses a different framework: Mercer uses Career Levels, WTW uses Work Levels, Hays uses experience bands. A translation table maps all three to a common level before any comparison is made.
Corporate Senior roles (Grade AVP and above) are benchmarked against UAE as the primary market, with UK and Australia as secondary references. For international hiring, gross salary comparisons are misleading as UAE has no income tax. A Director earning AED 65,000 in Dubai takes home the full amount. The UK equivalent takes home roughly 40% less after tax. The tool shows net income equivalents so offer conversations are grounded in reality, not headline numbers.
Each internal role is matched to the closest survey benchmark by job content and not title. Match quality is rated. Every employee in scope is individually assessed with a market position across five buckets: Above P75, Above P50, At P50, Below P50, Below P25.
The finding that matters most: the overpay story is larger than the underpay story. The annual cost of employees above P75 is nearly four times the cost to bring below-P50 employees to market median. The recommendation isn't to increase everyone, it's to redirect budget to close the gaps where you actually have flight risk.
Part 2: Merit Cycle Model
Once you know where everyone sits relative to the market, the merit cycle determines how increments move them.
Two things should drive a merit increase: how well someone performed, and where their pay sits relative to the band midpoint: their compa ratio. A high performer who is significantly underpaid should get a larger increase than a high performer who is already above midpoint. This merit matrix captures both simultaneously.
The model applies a five-by-five matrix: five performance ratings against five compa ratio buckets, with guardrails applied on top: a maximum cap, a minimum floor for A-rated employees and above, and special handling for red-circled employees above the band ceiling.
Variable pay is handled separately by design. Sales roles carry low base and high commission. Construction management roles carry project completion bonuses. Corporate roles carry performance-based annual bonus. (This is not included as a part of this project as it can get very detailed and specific)
Five budget scenarios: Conservative, Base Case, Aggressive, Construction Focus, and Cost Freeze to show the full cost and workforce impact of each: total merit spend, average increase, percentage of employees getting zero, and percentage still below market after increases are applied. Changing the scenario selector updates the entire dashboard instantly.
