Aaron Morris
Aaron Morris

Compensation decisions can appear stable from one budgeting cycle to the next, yet the market behind them keeps moving. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that wages and salaries for civilian workers rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in June 2026. For employers, even gradual movement can make an older benchmark less useful if it no longer reflects current conditions.

That challenge is also visible in salary planning. A WorldatWork survey, covering nearly 17 million employees across 22 countries, found that U.S. salary increase budgets averaged 3.7% in 2025, with respondents projecting a modest decline for 2026. The figures suggest that compensation markets continue to shift even when changes are not dramatic.

Recency, however, is only one part of the problem. Compensation benchmarking depends on comparing genuinely similar jobs. WorldatWork guidance notes that organizations should examine responsibilities and job descriptions rather than relying on titles alone, while also considering factors such as geography, industry, experience, and company size.

The same principle becomes more important as jobs evolve. In 2026, WorldatWork highlighted how unclear job documentation and hybrid roles can make benchmarking difficult. In other words, newer data does not automatically produce a better decision if the underlying comparison is poorly matched.

Aaron Morris, managing director of portfolio development at Parallel Equity Partners, approaches compensation from that broader perspective. He argues that employers can create longer-term problems when pay decisions are based on information that is outdated, unsuitable, or interpreted without enough context. "When pay decisions are wrong, the effects can become systemic, costing organizations both time and money," he says.

For Morris, the starting point is the job itself. Employers need to understand what a role actually involves before deciding which market information applies to it. "The fundamentals of benchmarking begin with understanding the job before going to the market," he explains. A recent dataset may still be misleading when the role being compared is not truly equivalent.

Source quality matters as well. Morris says his team considers compensation surveys alongside payroll information, labor statistics, and government data when developing salary ranges. His view is that no single number should be treated as definitive without considering where it came from, how closely it fits the role, and what it means for the employer using it.

He also favors a tailored process. Morris says his team first asks questions about an employer's circumstances and priorities, then uses those answers to decide which datasets are most relevant. That sequence is intended to keep the analysis connected to the organization rather than applying the same benchmark in every situation.

Technology can support that process, but Morris does not present it as a substitute for judgment. He says analytical tools, including AI-assisted systems, can help organize information and identify patterns. The more important task, in his view, is applying professional interpretation to determine whether the information is credible and relevant to a particular business.

Affordability is another part of the calculation. A company may understand the market rate for a role and still need to decide where it can realistically position itself. "There is the market data, and then there is what the company can afford," Morris says. That distinction can help employers avoid treating market benchmarks as automatic instructions rather than inputs into a broader decision.

That balance becomes more important over time. Morris argues that compensation decisions made on weak or poorly matched information can become increasingly difficult to adjust as expectations, budgets, and internal pay structures take shape. In his view, thoughtful benchmarking can help employers identify potential gaps earlier and make more measured decisions before those issues become harder to address.

Morris also cautions against viewing salary in isolation. He frames pay as one part of the wider employment experience, alongside culture, opportunity, and the reasons people choose to remain with an organization. Compensation therefore has to reflect both external market conditions and the environment a company is trying to build.

Better benchmarking is ultimately less about finding one perfect figure than about creating a disciplined process for making decisions. Current information matters, but so do job clarity, source quality, affordability, and human interpretation. Employers that revisit those factors regularly may be better positioned to make pay decisions that remain workable as both the labor market and their own organizations change.