Big title, small paycheque: Is corporate recognition losing its value?

internal pay equity.

Employees carrying the same designation may have very different levels of accountability, while employees with different titles may perform work of comparable complexity and value.

Narayan argued that compensation decisions should not be based solely on the amount of responsibility an employee voluntarily takes on.

“Accountability needs to be built into the role. The role should have clearly defined responsibilities, expected outcomes and measurable performance indicators,”he said.

In this framework, internal equity does not necessarily mean identical pay for employees with the same designation.

“Two people may have the same title but very different levels of productivity and impact. Internal equity does not necessarily mean paying them identically. It means having a transparent framework that connects compensation to the scope of the role, performance and sustained contribution,” Narayan said.

Zachariah said repeated gaps between accountability and compensation can indicate that an organisation’s job architecture needs to be revisited.

“Internal pay equity should be based on the relative value and complexity of the role, rather than simply the job title,” he observed.

At mjunction services, Paapori Chakravarty, HR Head, said employees who consistently take on additional responsibilities are tracked and considered during career progression cycles.

“We try to ensure that such employees are formally moved up the ladder during the appropriate career progression cycles,” she said.

Recognition also extends beyond compensation, with such employees being considered for high-value learning and development programmes and opportunities under the organisation’s rewards and recognition framework.

When title-pay gaps become a retention trigger

The real risk emerges when employees begin comparing their expanded responsibilities with what the external market is willing to pay for similar work.

Chakravarty described the first consequence as “a quiet erosion of trust”. Employees may not always raise the issue directly, but their engagement and willingness to take on additional work can decline.

The second risk, she said, is attrition.

“The employees who take on stretch responsibilities are the most marketable in the external job market. They’re the ones who get called by recruiters,” Chakravarty said.

Once employees understand their external market value, the comparison between title, compensation and responsibility can become a decisive factor in their decision to leave.

Narayan believes high performers generally understand that progression takes time. The problem begins when organisations repeatedly benefit from greater contribution without recognising it.

Zachariah added another layer to the equation. Fixing one employee’s pay does not necessarily solve the broader problem.

“When an employee discovers that their external market value is materially higher than their internal reward for comparable accountability, the title-pay mismatch can become a powerful trigger for mobility,” he said.

However, correcting one employee’s compensation or designation could create equity concerns among peers doing comparable work. Organisations therefore need to examine the wider role architecture rather than treating every retention issue as an individual counteroffer case.

At the same time, Zachariah cautioned against assuming that every title-pay mismatch will lead to attrition. Employees may accept a temporary gap when they see value in learning, exposure, flexibility or future career opportunities.

“A temporary mismatch can be perfectly rational if there is a transparent development proposition and a defined path to progression they can look forward to in the foreseeable future,” he said.

For HR leaders, therefore, the challenge is not necessarily to eliminate every gap between title, responsibility and pay. It is to ensure that employees understand why the gap exists, how long it is expected to last and what needs to happen for it to close.

As compensation budgets remain under scrutiny, titles may continue to play an important role in recognising expanded responsibilities. But when designations become a substitute for meaningful career progression and financial recognition, they risk losing their motivational value and potentially becoming a trigger for the very attrition companies are trying to prevent.