92% of leaders say it's not about the money. But here's why it should be.


I spend my days talking to senior people in customer functions who are working out what they do next.
This is what it sounds like:
"After 15 years I feel like I've hit a ceiling. It's been amazing, it's just time."
"We've had too many restructures. I can't actually get anything done."
"My role is becoming more office based and my commute is 90 minutes. It just isn't sustainable."
"I'm not looking, but your role excited me."
Step one in understanding the person behind a CV is always the same three points, in the same order. I ask every leader the same things in the same way because it keeps the assessment fair, and it means I am comparing what people tell me rather than how well they interview.
Where are you now. What made you update your CV.
Your role and your experience. Remit, team, business, achievements.
What next. Goals, market, timelines, non-negotiables.
Salary comes up in that third conversation, and 92% of the time it is followed by a but.
"...but that's not the most important thing."
That is the real turning point. It is where everything else we have discussed gets tested.
When someone is moving for more money alone, it usually tells me we have not got to the depth of the motivators yet. People rarely upheave a whole career for a couple of grand when they are happy, and at leadership level that would surprise me. Someone who has been underpaid for years and knows it is different. That is a correction, and it is overdue.
Moving for less needs the same test. If you are happy, why leave for less. A drop will solve the immediate problem, the commute, the restructures, the lack of ownership, and for a while that feels like relief. Then the other frustrations start arriving and there is less in the role to absorb them. Less money usually means less responsibility, and less responsibility shows up in ways people do not plan for. Smaller decisions. Fewer of the rooms you are used to being in.
A typical version of this came up recently. A 15k drop against 90 minutes of daily commute. Personally a good trade off. In practice the role was ill suited, the remit smaller than expected, and the friction showed up in what they could own. Back on the market inside the year, with two offers on the table.
Unless intentional 'taking a step back' is often a hard adjustment for a leader who is used to operating at a certain level. Most people underestimate it. Being paid under what you are worth mostly feels like being undervalued and that you are measured against things you might not have done in a while, and only rarely doesn't.
Salary is a measure and it works in both directions. Right role, wrong number. Smaller job wrapped in a bigger title. The number shows you a balance before the job description does.
What a business pays tells you the remit it expects and the level the job really sits at. 92% of leaders tell me it is not the most important thing. Yet, It is still the most reliable measure they have.
FAQs
If salary isn't the main driver for senior leaders, why does it come up in every conversation?
Because it's still the clearest single measure of how a business values the role. What a business pays tells you the remit it expects and the level the job really sits at.
What's the difference between a leader chasing more money and one who is underpaid?
People rarely leave a role they're happy in for a couple of thousand pounds more. A leader who has been paid under their worth for years and knows it is making a correction.
Is it ever worth taking a pay cut for a shorter commute or a calmer role?
It can solve an immediate problem, but a drop in salary usually means a drop in responsibility too. That often shows up later as fewer decisions and fewer of the rooms a senior leader is used to being in.
How do you find out what's really driving a leadership candidate's move?
The same three questions in the same order, every time: where they are now, what made them update their CV, and what they want next. Salary comes up third, and what follows it tells you the most.
Latest Posts


FAQs
Does bringing AI into a customer function mean replacing the leadership?
Usually not. It means checking that the leader can decide where AI helps and where it hurts, and lead the team through the change. Many can. Where they cannot, leaving it unaddressed is what costs you.
What should a board look for when hiring a customer leader for an AI-era function?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Why does AI in customer contact carry more risk in regulated industries?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
How does Stellify approach these searches?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.






