HeliaConnects Snapshot: CEO Compensation
Building a CEO review and compensation structure that actually fits
HeliaConnects brings together social sector leaders to tackle real challenges through peer consultancy. This session focused on building strong board and leadership partnerships.
Peer Consultancy Challenge
I'm the founder and CEO of a housing-focused lender and investor. We've deployed hundreds of millions of dollars, we're profitable, and we have about 14 staff. My board chair — who leads a global real estate company — wants to shift to a more metrics-based, dashboard-style CEO review.
We already have a review structure: I do a self-assessment memo against my goals, we run a staff 360, and I report performance against the annual plan's SMART goals. But only the executive committee sees all of that. The full board just gets a qualitative survey — they're not looking at my goals or my performance against them when they fill it out. So there's a disconnect.
Here's what's making this hard:
A big part of what we do is opportunistic — maybe 30% of our work shifts in any given year based on what comes up. R&D is a significant part of my job. I'm worried about getting locked into a specific metric that turns out to be wrong — or worse, chasing a number instead of overall impact.
We have a heavy bonus structure (30% for me, 20% for senior staff, scaling down from there). But here's the thing: we've always paid full bonuses because we've always been profitable. My C-team has basically said bonuses don't change their motivation — they're doing the work because they believe in it. So is money even the right lever here? What do we actually want to drive?
I want consistency between how I'm evaluated and how my team is evaluated, but I'm not sure what that looks like.
What I'm trying to figure out:
How do I build a review structure that allows for flexibility and pivoting — not one that locks us into the wrong metrics?
Should compensation even be tied to performance this way — and if not, how else do you do it?
How do I get the full board the context they need without overcomplicating everything?
Collective Wisdom
On whether to tie compensation to performance at all:
The research is actually pretty clear: tying compensation directly to performance reviews tends to backfire on both sides. People don't give honest feedback because they're worried about affecting someone's pay. And bonuses often don't actually change performance — they just perpetuate whatever biases already exist in the review process.
An alternative approach: set compensation based on market adjustments, competency development tiers (you move into a new band when you hit certain development milestones), and regular pay equity studies. Frame the review process as a learning process — especially if you're a learning organization, that's aligned with your values. Performance issues get addressed as performance issues, not through compensation.
One organization actually split the review process and the compensation process into different times of year — the performance conversation happens in January, the comp decision happens in July. It just delineates things in a way that takes some of the heat off.
On building in flexibility:
OKRs can help. Your strategic plan gives you the overarching objectives, but the key results can shift quarterly based on what's actually happening. So you're not locked into what you said in January when November looks totally different — but it all still flows up to the same strategic direction. Makes the review conversation more about "did we accomplish what mattered this year" versus "did you hit the exact targets you predicted."
Consider an 80/20 split: 80% of the review tied to quantified annual goals, 20% reserved for R&D and opportunistic work. That protects what's actually made the organization successful while still giving the board the structure they're asking for.
On structuring metrics if you go that route:
Think about this like managing a CIO — it's financial and metrics-driven, but also about leadership and culture. A weighted matrix structure can help: balance quantitative metrics with qualitative pieces like team management and organizational health.
If you do tie bonuses to metrics, you could think about a "bonus gate" concept — profitability sets the baseline for whether bonuses are paid at all, and then within that, you have a split between corporate metrics and individual performance. Some organizations weight it differently by level: executives might be 70% corporate metrics / 30% individual, while junior staff might be the reverse, since they have less control over big-picture outcomes.
On getting the board better context:
Consider a "landscape 360" where the board talks to a few external stakeholders — not just staff — about the organization's positioning and your leadership impact. It gives the board context they can't get any other way, and often increases their respect for the work. One organization does this every other year.
You're already presenting performance to goals — maybe the shift is partly just surfacing that to the full board, not creating something new. A dashboard view of what you're already tracking might satisfy the ask without reinventing your whole process.
On making this feel less overwhelming:
You don't have to get it perfect the first year. Frame the new approach as a pilot — run it parallel to the old process, see what works, adjust. Takes the pressure off and lets everyone be more honest about what's confusing or not landing.
The Key Thing
Start with values, not structure. What do you actually want this system to drive — and for whom? You have the power of the pen here; you're the one drafting the proposal. Ground it in what matters to your organization first, and the mechanics will follow.
Want To Go Deeper?
Want to be part of conversations like this? Start or join a HeliaConnects group
Looking for support on compensation structure? Two consultants came highly recommended in this conversation:
Related reading:
The Problem with Performance-Based Pay — research on why tying comp to performance often backfires
Salary and Compensation Discussion Guide — RoadMap Consulting's values-based framework for thinking through compensation policy (great questions to ground the conversation)
Helia's article on OKRs for Results — for when you need a structure that allows for flexibility
This Snapshot comes from a HeliaConnects peer consultancy in January 2026. Take what's helpful, leave what's not, and make it your own.
Article & Resource Tags
