The International Potato Center (commonly known as CIP) is part of the CGIAR consortium of research centers dedicated to agricultural research and food security.  With headquarters in Lima, Peru, and country offices in 20 developing countries, CIP was facing stiff competition for talent and other issues with their pay structure.  CIP engaged Birches Group to help revamp their compensation strategy and local pay structures, while still maintaining a linkage to the other CGIAR centers, all of which participate in Birches Group surveys.


Right To Play, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, was experiencing challenges in attracting and retaining talent for their programs in more than 20 developing countries around the world. Their compensation system was still based on a cost of living approach, rather than cost of labor. Internal job grading had been developed, and the focus shifted to salary structures. Right To Play was a long-time participant in the NGO Local Pay surveys and agreed to partner with Birches Group to implement the “Pay Right Project.”


The Institute of International Education developed a strong, market-driven approach to compensation for their field offices, including salary structures and a consistent grading system.  But they lacked the internal resources to maintain the structures across a very diverse group of countries.  They faced additional challenges in selected markets due to economic volatility, and the response time from headquarters HR was slow.  IIE engaged Birches Group to assist in maintaining the salary structures and to guide the organization towards a policy-driven approach for special measures.


The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation was seeking assistance with the management of their compensation program.  Prior to engaging Birches Group, they centralized the responsibilities for pay management at headquarters and created salary structures.  But the team recognized the need for professional guidance and expertise, choosing a co-sourcing arrangement with Birches Group.


Lately, we have been receiving a lot of inquires from clients about how to best manage compensation in high-inflation countries, including Ghana, South Sudan, Zambia, Argentina,  Venezuela, Kazakhstan, etc. (to name a few!). This post shares our guidance about managing compensation when uncontrollable events, like hyper-inflation, impact the labor market.

What are “Uncontrollable Events”?
The world is a complicated place to do business. There are many unforeseen circumstances that occur to disrupt the normal dynamics of a labor market. Examples include:

  • hyper-inflation, devaluation and other economic events;
  • natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, etc.;
  • periods of unrest, civil war or other armed conflicts; and
  • accidents impacting infrastructure such as the power grid and telecommunications.

I’m sure you can think of other situations that fit the definition.

You Need to Have a Policy for “Special Measures”
The common thread in all of the above uncontrollable events is uncertainty — nobody knows what’s going to happen, how long it will last, and what tomorrow may bring.

Special Measures Policy is a way to assist managers and staff when a crisis occurs. The policy outlines what the company will do when certain uncontrollable events occur.

It might not be what employees want or ask for, but it’s what they can count on from the Company, which turns out to be even more important. Let me give you some examples using the topic everyone is asking about – high inflation.

How to Manage Compensation During Periods of Economic Turmoil
Suppose the situation you are concerned about is similar to what happened in Ghana in the summer of 2014. Devaluation over the 12 months from July 2013 in Ghana was approaching 50%. Various sources reported the annual rate of inflation in Ghana around 15% and trending higher, perhaps towards 20% by year-end. Some sources were reporting even higher numbers.

The first thing to consider is whether or not the situation qualifies as one which should be addressed by special measures. Inflation of 15% to 20% is high, but if the increase is gradual each month then it might be possible to address it through normal compensation management, perhaps with an extra pay adjustment mid-year. But if the inflation rate were higher, say 25% or more, and the increase in inflation happened all at once (or over a short period of time), then special measures might apply. Devaluation is generally not a factor in determining salaries for local staff. However, high devaluation is normally followed by periods of high inflation, so it becomes relevant.

Our recommended approach to managing a situation like the one described above is as follows:

  • If the threshold you’ve set for inflation (for example) is reached or exceeded, apply your special measures. When establishing thresholds, be sure to identify multiple, reliable data sources. Be wary of official sources.
  • We suggest providing an across-the-board increase of no more than 25% of the inflation (e.g., if inflation is measured at 40%, provide no more than 10%, which is 25% of 40%). Be sure to consider your desired market position and adjust the increase to be sure you don’t exceed where you want to be positioned in the market.
  • Treat the increase as a temporary allowance separate from base salary.
  • Monitor the market over the next three to six months through the use of market surveys, and conversations with consultants and other employers in the market.
  • When the market movement, as measured by the surveys and other data, exceeds the amount of the temporary increase, it’s time to convert the temporary allowance into base salary.
  • Having two increases per year instead of one often helps smooth out the disruptions, too.

Why does this approach work? There are several reasons:

  1. You have a policy which can relied on by your employees, providing them with some certainty in an otherwise uncertain period in their country.
  2. While employees often express the need to be “kept whole” that is not how it works — your policy clearly indicates that the Company will offer only partial compensation for special measures. There are no surprises, and you continue to use cost of labor, not cost of living, to drive your compensation program.
  3. It’s a very conservative approach, allowing you to continue to monitor the situation and increase salaries slowly, ensuring you can continue to manage your compensation according to market conditions rather than uncontrollable economic events.
  4. It’s unlikely that you will over-compensate for an event, thus allowing you to have positive employee communications and avoid any possible acquired-rights issues.

There could be variations on how a Special Measures policy is implemented, which types of events are covered, and the specific steps each Company decides to follow.

The important thing is to have a policy and use it.

Employees want to rely on you to help them during a crisis, and managers want to be able to make decisions quickly during difficult times. A clearly written policy for Special Measures addresses these concerns easily.

Other Resources
I have written a few other articles for my blog on related topics that you might find useful as well. Although they were written a few years ago, the information is applicable to current conditions as well.

Here are three useful links:

Warren joined Birches Group in New York as a partner in 2007, following a long career in Compensation and Benefits at Colgate-Palmolive. He held the position of Director, International Compensation for 10 years immediately prior to joining Birches Group. Warren has broad experience working across the globe with clients on local national and expatriate compensation projects. He leads our Business Development and Client Services teams and manages our strategic partnerships around the world. Warren previously held leadership positions for the Expatriate Management Committee of the National Foreign Trade Council and was president of the Latin America Compensation and Benefits Forum.


No matter where you are, COVID-19 is affecting all of us. We all have had to change the way we live, the way we interact with one another, and for most of us, the way we work in the context of the pandemic. With more and more countries enforcing lockdowns of cities, people are forced to work from home as they are asked to shelter in place. Organizations recognized that despite the pandemic, the proverbial show must go on, and virtual work is all of a sudden the new normal.

For a long time, organizations looked at virtual work as something in the distant future, or only applicable to other organizations, or otherwise not feasible. What COVID-19 pushed us all to realize is that the future of work is about enabling our office staff to work from anywhere. Virtual work is no longer the future, it is the present.

Many organizations struggle with virtual work because they are lacking in a fundamental (but often ignored) area of HR: high-quality, purpose-driven job descriptions. Managers are usually asked to draft job descriptions with limited guidance beyond templates, and they end up writing checklists of tasks that they believe illustrate what a job needs to get done, rather than focusing on the purpose of the job. This checklist approach is indicative of an input-driven mindset that struggles to adapt once disrupted.

Birches Group’s Community™ approach has enabled us to prepare and practice virtual work long before the pandemic began through the use of output-based job descriptions, putting zero emphasis on the physical presence of staff at work and instead focusing on what they deliver at the end of the day.

When organizations shift to an output-based mindset, it doesn’t matter what steps our staff take in their work or where they do it from – what matters is getting the job done. When disruptive events like COVID-19 happen, output-based definitions of work facilitate working from home because it empowers staff to be more creative in their approach to work, while at the same time freeing them from managers looking over their shoulders. We find that when staff are given this independence, it promotes a more collaborative work environment, one in which staff communicate more because they are not just following a set script. They need to explain their process and thinking, and get buy in from across the organization.   Ultimately, this even helps shift discussions on performance from cascading objectives to simply asking, “Did the employee fulfill the purpose of their jobs?”

In the different countries where Birches Group staff are based, we have been able to respond quickly, especially once local authorities have limited movement, locally or internationally. Having a framework in place for virtual work has allowed our staff to continue business activities as normal and maintain relationships with our clients, even as each of us try our best to manage through these uncertain times.

Contact us to learn how we can help your organization retool for the new normal.

Bianca manages our Marketing Team in Manila. She crafts messaging around Community™ concepts and develops promotional campaigns answering why Community™ should be each organization’s preferred solution, focusing on its simplicity and integrated approach. She has held various roles within Birches Group since 2009, starting as a Compensation Analyst and worked her way to Compensation Team Lead, and Training Program Services Manager. In addition to her current role in marketing and communications, she represents Birches Group in international HR conferences with private sector audiences.


Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have taken a severe toll in the region’s economic stability. Countries currently confronting waves of unprecedented civil wars such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, along with an unprecedented flow of refugees, have achieved very minimal GDP growth in the recent years. And there is spillover to neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan as well. 

The economy of Yemen, for instance, contracted by 28.1% after a year of ravaging conflicts since March of 2015, indicating an imminent hyperinflation. On a broader scale, inflation in the MENA region surged from 3.9% to 4.1% in May – the highest rate since October of 2015. 

Living in war-torn areas is grueling and difficult for employees.  Volatile prices result from high inflation rates, coupled with periodic shortages of goods. These uncontrollable events are disruptive, and quite often, employers are compelled to rethink compensation packages to help address the pain and difficulty of living amid civil unrest, especially where the turnover of staff is uncomfortably high. 

In countries experiencing a crisis, monitoring GDP, inflation rates, and other economic indicators along with survey data may be insufficient for you to determine proper salary actions. As employers, you need to ask: with fluctuating inflation and limited availability of reliable data, what is the best way to manage compensation packages? 

A Way Forward 

Reviewing your compensation policies requires looking at how other organizations adapt and react in conflict-stricken economies. Instead of just increasing base salaries, which permanently increases fixed costs, employers sometimes provide special benefits such as cash allowances instead, which are usually implemented on a temporary basis. This approach allows employers to respond conservatively and manage costs effectively until the political turmoil in the region gets resolved. In Iraq and Syria, for example, some employers have reported providing a Risk Allowance to their staff during times of conflict.  Such steps go a long way towards ensuring loyalty and reducing undesirable turnover. 

Employers can also take steps to assist staff with commuting to the office safely, and other security measures.  Work from home options are also helpful when it is too dangerous to travel to the office. 

Even though declining oil prices are impacting the region’s economy, the World Bank reports that the private sector is hoped to become the backbone of a new growth model in the Middle East, especially when effective policies are able to address security conditions and long-standing conflicts that currently upset business sentiment. As the economy recovers, the market will soon catch up, and salaries will increase more rapidly. 

Birches Group provides updated, concise, and easy-to-digest labor market data reflective of the actual market conditions on which you can base your decisions. Using a cost-of-labor approach, our data allows you to monitor market movement over short- and long-term periods.  Our surveys are updated three times a year, in April, July and October, providing a current window to market practice on a continuous basis. 

To find out more about the conditions in countries mentioned in this article, or to learn more about Birches Group surveys throughout the developing world, please contact us

Warren joined Birches Group in New York as a partner in 2007, following a long career in Compensation and Benefits at Colgate-Palmolive. He held the position of Director, International Compensation for 10 years immediately prior to joining Birches Group. Warren has broad experience working across the globe with clients on local national and expatriate compensation projects. He leads our Business Development and Client Services teams and manages our strategic partnerships around the world. Warren previously held leadership positions for the Expatriate Management Committee of the National Foreign Trade Council and was president of the Latin America Compensation and Benefits Forum.


For many years, employers have used salary surveys to provide market references to manage compensation in their organization and to “price jobs” in the market.  Conventional wisdom suggests a high-quality, reliable survey has the following characteristics:

  • The largest possible group of participants
  • The greatest number of specific jobs
  • The highest number of incumbents reported
  • Survey statistics based on incumbent-weighted averages

In short, bigger is better.

As is often the case, we believe that the conventional wisdom is wrong!

Incumbent-based data is not job-based – it’s personal!

Think about it.

  • Salary ranges represent the range of pay an employer is prepared to offer for position with the same level of contribution to their organization (e.g., the same equivalent worth).
  • All incumbents are placed within the same internal, generic range (employers do not usually have separate salary scales for each occupational group or function).
  • Individual salary levels are not determined by any job factor!  Incumbent salaries are based on personal characteristics such as qualifications, skills, experience and performance, and organizational constraints such as internal policies and guidelines, and internal equity.

There are no job-based factors used to determine placement in the range.  It is easy to conclude using actual incumbent salaries instead of salary ranges is — at best – misleading, if not entirely invalid.  But don’t take our word for it.  Let’s put it to a test.

Salary Range Data is Highly Correlated to Incumbent Values

Birches Group did an analysis of actual incumbent data values and the corresponding salary range values for BG-10 level Senior Working Professional roles in Jamaica.  The dataset included positions from seven different job families.  Twenty-nine employers reported data at this level.

To start the analysis, we examined each discrete position reported by each employer.  In the chart below, the positions are color-coded by occupation (job family), and each employer is represented by a vertical array of dots.  The chart shows all observations, not a specific percentile.

You can see there is a wide variety of values, both within each employer and across different ones.

Next, we examined the salary ranges for these employers, and determined how the incumbent salaries fell into each employers’ salary range.  The chart below shows the ranges.

It’s clear that except for two employers with no formal range defined (the two single dots in the chart circled in red), the rest all have salary ranges defined.  Some of the incumbent values are distributed across the ranges, while some are more clustered, but they are all within the range!  You will also notice that the range spans (the “distance” from minimum to maximum) varies quite a bit – some employers use narrow ranges, others wider ranges, depending on their unique circumstances and requirements.

A common benchmark that many clients use is the 50th percentile or median of the market.  While we could debate the definition of “the market” (and we will in another post), it is possible to measure the median of the salary ranges in a market.

For BG-10 in Jamaica, the subject of this analysis, the 50th percentile salary range is J$ 6,273,150 to J$ 9,576,152.  We calculated these numbers by simply separately calculating the median of all the reported minimum values, and all the reported maximum values. The next chart shows this median range added to the incumbent chart.

Now you can see which incumbent data points are within the 50th percentile range in the market.  It’s important to realize that a percentile value in a salary survey should never be a single number; it should always be a salary range.  If you rely only on incumbent data points when using surveys, you are missing out on what is really happening in the market.

Combining the two prior charts yields the next one, which shows the employer salary ranges against the 50th percentile (shaded blue horizontal bars):

You can observe that just 6 employers (about 21% of the sample) have ranges that are totally outside of the 50th percentile range of the market.  Or stated another way – nearly 80% of employers have a salary range that intersects with the market median range.

We also examined the data by occupation, looking at the mean range for each occupation versus the market.

In the above chart, you can see, aside from Logistics and Program, which were matched by fewer than 8 employers and not truly representative, the rest of the occupational data ranges fall well within the overall 50th percentile.  In other words, the occupation or job family doesn’t impact the going rate for a job very much at all, and it would be very easy to just use the overall data, without any occupational designations, as the basis to determine your market position.

Think about it.

You go crazy trying to match multiple benchmark jobs in surveys.  Then you take that data and apply a secret formula (perhaps weighted averages by incumbent count, for example) to arrive at a “going rate” for your midpoint.  But the data you are combining isn’t really that different; our data shows you could just take the range we report and go from there.  Much easier.

A New Vision for Salary Survey Data

Birches Group believes that salary survey data should be job-based, not personal.  Salary ranges represent for an employer the potential range of salary which the organization is willing to pay for a job at a specific grade level in the organization.  In other words, the range represents the value the organization attaches to all jobs at that grade level, which are deemed to have equivalent worth because they have been evaluated to the same grade.  Salary ranges, not incumbent data, represent job-based values which are appropriate for benchmarking salaries.

By comparing salary ranges instead of incumbent data, employers avoid using personal data, which is volatile and introduces a level of false precision which is misleading when specific jobs or occupations are compared to each other.

Introducing Community™ Market

Community™ Market is the new name for the Birches Group salary and benefits survey.  The survey format has been streamlined and simplified and includes several new features, including an easy and convenient way to assess your market position at a glance.  Another important change is the way job information will be captured.  We will no longer show separate market values for each benchmark job.  Instead, we will show data aggregated for all jobs at the same Birches Group level.  We will still identify which jobs are in which grade, but as we’ve demonstrated, the occupational differences reported in surveys (including ours) are resulting from personal data, not job-based information, and are not appropriate for benchmarking.

Beginning in October 2019, the new format will be the standard report output for all our surveys.  And starting in April 2020, we will no longer collect incumbent-based data since it will no longer appear in the survey reports.

Community™ Market is part of the Birches Group Community™ platform for integrated HR management.  The platform includes modules for job evaluation (Community™ Jobs), skills assessment (Community™ Skills) and performance management (Community™ Performance) in addition to market surveys.  The job levels established using our Community™ Jobs methodology are used to provide job levels in our surveys, and to assess skills and performance against standards that reflect the same job levels.  It’s the first integrated approach to human resources management.

Learn More

Contact us to learn more about the changes in our survey methodology, or to explore how the Community™ platform can be useful for your organization.

Warren joined Birches Group in New York as a partner in 2007, following a long career in Compensation and Benefits at Colgate-Palmolive. He held the position of Director, International Compensation for 10 years immediately prior to joining Birches Group. Warren has broad experience working across the globe with clients on local national and expatriate compensation projects. He leads our Business Development and Client Services teams and manages our strategic partnerships around the world. Warren previously held leadership positions for the Expatriate Management Committee of the National Foreign Trade Council and was president of the Latin America Compensation and Benefits Forum.


If you work in international HR, you know how important market data is for the management of your international operations. Finding reliable data in all of your countries is undoubtedly a challenge. Each country has different survey suppliers, different employers participating in the surveys, and variable levels of quality. So naturally, when you find a survey you trust, the tendency is to stick with it. But is one survey enough? I don’t think so.

Two Surveys Provide A Balanced View of the Market

Typically, your “go-to” survey has several characteristics:

  • It reflects the market in which you compete – the participants are the ones you are most often look for, usually from the same sector. It’s the survey “everyone” is in.
  • It’s the one that “corporate” designates (and pays for) – sometimes it’s not the best, but you have to follow headquarters instructions, and besides, it doesn’t hit your budget.
  • It’s the survey you’re used to – why bother exploring another option when you’ve finally mastered this one?
  • The survey results are OK – you’ve never had a problem using the survey, well, except a few times when some of the data was a bit suspect, but overall, it’s fine.

These are some of the typical reasons why companies participate and rely on surveys year after year. But these same reasons often stand in the way of exploring additional options.

They say two heads are better than one. While I have yet to meet a two-headed individual, I have worked with a lot with surveys, and I can attest to the fact that two surveys are better than one!

There are many reasons for this — here’s just a few:

  • Some key employers might be missing – by participating in another survey, you will get an alternative group of employers and therefore, a broader view of the market. If your main survey is a sector-based one, try a general market survey to complement your sector data.
  • Survey methodologies vary – and this means the results from another survey could be different. Different could be good – it will challenge you to dig deeper and try to understand the differences. Perhaps the alternative survey provides more details in certain areas, such as non-salary allowances and benefits in-kind, or uses a unique valuation for benefits.
  • The results might actually be aligned – maybe the data from the two surveys match closely. That reinforces the conclusions you may have already reached and raises the confidence in both surveys as a result.
  • The results might be totally different – thus allowing you to explore the full extent of the market options. Is it the employer group that causes the difference, or the methodology? How do you know which survey is right?

The answers to these dilemmas, of course, vary according to your unique situation. Which country? Which sector? How great are the differences? You have to explore to find the answer for your company.

So Look Beyond Your Old Reliable Survey

Challenge yourself to participate in at least two surveys. Make sure that they focus on different aspects of the market and bring a unique perspective. Analyze the data carefully and apply your judgement to incorporate data from both perspectives. Soon you will find you have a better understanding of the market.

If you need a first or second survey source for your international locations, be sure to check out Birches Group surveys. We cover 148 developing markets, more than any other global provider, updated three times a year. Together with Aon Hewitt, our marketing partner, we cover the world.

Warren joined Birches Group in New York as a partner in 2007, following a long career in Compensation and Benefits at Colgate-Palmolive. He held the position of Director, International Compensation for 10 years immediately prior to joining Birches Group. Warren has broad experience working across the globe with clients on local national and expatriate compensation projects. He leads our Business Development and Client Services teams and manages our strategic partnerships around the world. Warren previously held leadership positions for the Expatriate Management Committee of the National Foreign Trade Council and was president of the Latin America Compensation and Benefits Forum.


In the first installment of this series, we wrote about why jobs don’t matter in salary surveys.  We hope you’ve already read it, but if not, be sure to do so.  This week, we will bust another myth – market percentiles.

Users of salary surveys are accustomed to referring to the market data in terms of a percentile.  The most common percentile of reference is the median average or 50th percentile.  Simply stated, the 50th percentile of an array of values is the point where there are equal numbers of observations above and below.  This is a definition from mathematics – it has nothing to do with salary surveys.

For example, suppose you want to analyze passengers at a bus stop.  If you capture the number of passengers boarding each bus during an hour and sort the data from low to high, the middle value is easy to spot.  You can calculate the median number of passengers getting on at that particular stop fairly easily.

Salary survey providers also report data back to users as percentiles.  If you are targeting the 50th percentile, you might look at a range including the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles in order to decide on the value to use in your analysis.  The graph below illustrates the “pay line” approach found in most surveys:

You can start your analysis with the 50th percentile value (97,777), and adjust it up or down to suit your needs.  As you move horizontally along the x-axis, you pass through multiple percentiles – increasing to the right, decreasing to the left.  But there is no information about vertical movement.  We refer to this as a horizontal market model.

But wait a minute!  Is that right?

Is the 50th percentile of the labor market in a salary survey a single value, like the number of bus passengers?

Nope.  For any percentile value, the labor market is more accurately measured using a range of values.  You see, organizations define their salary structures with minimum and maximum values.  All staff are paid in between these bookends, defined by grade or band.  At any given moment, you would ideally be able to see the 50th percentile range of the market, from the salary scale minimum to the salary scale maximum.  The incumbent value could be captured too, since it falls somewhere in between the minimum and the maximum.

At Birches Group, we call this the Market Footprint™.  In our surveys, we capture three separate pay lines – one for the salary scale minimum, one for the salary maximum and the incumbent average, MRP or market reference point.  The graph that follows illustrates the Market Footprint™.

What is interesting about the Market Footprint™ is the rich level of information you can observe by just adding two more pay lines (the minimum and maximum).  Now, if you settle on the 50th percentile, you have a range of values to choose from within that percentile, by moving vertically from minimum to maximum.  And while it is possible to also move horizontally through different percentiles as before, you can also observe there is some overlap across percentiles.  The orange arrows in the graph show two examples of values that occur in two of the market reference percentiles simultaneously.  In addition, the red line illustrating the incumbent data clearly has variations depending on the percentile.  In the 25th percentile, employers are paying closer to the minimum of the range, while at the 50th and 75th percentiles, the incumbent average is close to the actual midpoint of the range.

We strongly believe that looking at market data in one dimension (horizontally) doesn’t allow employers the flexibility needed to design compensation structures properly.

Using a two-dimensional approach (both horizontal and vertical) gives employers the flexibility to address both individual situations and the overall company requirements.

Suppose you have a salary band and one group of employees, say engineers, needs to be paid higher than other occupations due to market pressures.  If you had access to market ranges by percentile, you could easily set the salary of the engineers at competitive levels to the market but still within your stated market reference (say, 50th percentile).  This allows you to address a market issue and stay true to your policy at the same time – quite an elegant outcome.

Another useful outcome of taking a Market Footprint™ approach is setting your salary range spans – the “width” of your pay bands from minimum to maximum.  In many developing countries, the spans vary widely, and even within the same country, vary substantially by level.  If you use survey data that captures the ranges, you can benchmark against the actual spans in the market, and adjust yours to match the common practice, if desirable.  This avoids overpaying on the low end and underpaying on the high end of the range.

We hope this has given you some food for thought.  Using range data as part of your market analysis will free you from the confines of your current approach.  This series of articles is designed to help employers consider how they use survey data, and open the discussion about the pitfalls of the common approaches.

It’s time to rethink how surveys are conducted and used.  One-dimensional analysis just doesn’t cut it any more. You need to look for sources that give you a flexible way to analyze your market data.  We will share more ideas in the coming weeks.

Warren joined Birches Group in New York as a partner in 2007, following a long career in Compensation and Benefits at Colgate-Palmolive. He held the position of Director, International Compensation for 10 years immediately prior to joining Birches Group. Warren has broad experience working across the globe with clients on local national and expatriate compensation projects. He leads our Business Development and Client Services teams and manages our strategic partnerships around the world. Warren previously held leadership positions for the Expatriate Management Committee of the National Foreign Trade Council and was president of the Latin America Compensation and Benefits Forum.