Scaling Your Pay Structure from 10 to 200 People
A practitioner guide to startups
Loading voice engine…
The first 10 hires are personal decisions. The founder knows everyone, sets pay intuitively, and trusts the team to flag if something feels unfair. By hire 50, that model is breaking. By hire 100, it's broken — you have unexplained pay gaps, a levelling system held together by ad hoc job titles, and a senior engineering team that's been poached twice this year by companies with clearer progression paths.
The Core Design Challenge
Here's how to build reward infrastructure that grows with you, not against you.
At this stage, your only goals are: (1) don't create pay commitments you can't afford, (2) grant equity in a structured way (EMI if you qualify), and (3) keep notes on every pay decision so you can reconstruct your logic later. Informality is fine. Opacity to the individuals involved is not.
By hire 25, you need a simple job architecture: four to five levels per function, with clear descriptors of scope and competency. This doesn't need to be an HR consulting engagement — a one-page framework that the leadership team agrees on is sufficient. The point is that when you make hire 26, everyone knows what level they're joining at and why.
How the Approach Works
Attach a salary band to each level using a credible market data source. Publish the bands internally. Candidates increasingly expect transparency, and internal publication prevents the awkward conversation when two people at the same level discover they're paid £15,000 apart.
At 50 people, compensation decisions can no longer sit with the CEO. You need a compensation committee (even if it's just the CEO, CPO, and CFO meeting quarterly), a defined merit review process, and a policy for how you handle off-cycle increases and market adjustments.
This is also the moment to run your first pay equity audit. Small companies develop pay gaps faster than large ones, because early informal hiring creates unexplained variation that compounds with each merit cycle. Catching it at 50 people is a small correction. At 200 people, it's a legal and reputational risk.
Governance and Implementation
By 100 people, you need a dedicated reward resource — either an in-house practitioner or a fractional Head of Reward. You also need a total reward philosophy that is written down, approved by the board, and communicated to employees. "Why do we pay the way we pay?" should have a clear, honest answer.
At 200 people, you're in the territory where regulators notice. In the UK, you'll be approaching or crossing the Gender Pay Gap reporting threshold (250 employees). In the EU, you'll be well within Pay Transparency Directive scope (150+ employees). Your compensation systems need to be data-clean enough to produce defensible numbers.
This is the moment to invest in HRIS compensation modules, automated compa-ratio tracking, and annual salary survey participation. The infrastructure cost is real — but it's far less expensive than the regulatory and reputational exposure of getting it wrong.
- →By 100 people, you need a dedicated reward resource — either an in-house practitioner or a fractional Head of Reward.
- →At 200 people, you're in the territory where regulators notice.
- →This is the moment to invest in HRIS compensation modules, automated compa-ratio tracking, and annual salary survey participation.