Equal pay in executive hiring starts before the offer
- Vladimir Janik
- 4 days ago
- 7 min read
Menity partnered with the inaugural Equal Pay Day Slovakia in 2023, and Co-Founder & Managing Partner Vladimir Janik served as an ambassador. The experience reinforced a point we also see in senior appointments: by the time an offer is made, many of the decisions that shape it have already been taken.
Equal pay usually becomes visible at the end of a hiring process, when the preferred candidate receives an offer. But the boundaries of that offer were often set much earlier.
The board or executive team has defined the scope of the role. A compensation range has been discussed, formally or informally. The decision-makers have agreed what experience matters and which trade-offs they are willing to make. Candidates have entered the process with different salary histories and different expectations. None of these decisions automatically creates an unfair outcome.
Together, however, they determine how the organisation values the role and the person appointed to it. That is why fair pay in executive hiring cannot be treated only as a final-stage negotiation.
What does the gender pay gap measure?
The gender pay gap and unequal pay for the same work are related, but they are not the same measure.
Eurostat defines the unadjusted gender pay gap as the difference between the average gross hourly earnings of men and women, expressed as a percentage of men's earnings. It reflects a broad set of labour-market differences, including the sectors and occupations in which people work, career interruptions, working patterns and access to senior positions. It should not be read as a direct measure of discrimination in individual cases.
In 2024, the average unadjusted gender pay gap in the European Union was 11.1%. The gap is also not evenly distributed across seniority. Eurostat's Structure of Earnings Survey for 2022 recorded a pay gap of 27.1% for managers, against an overall gap of 12.2% in that same reference year — with Germany at 28.6% and Austria at 27.1%. Pay differences are therefore most pronounced precisely where individual appointment decisions carry the greatest weight.
An individual executive appointment will not close a structural pay gap. It is nevertheless one of the points at which a company can make a specific, documented decision about the value of a role and the criteria used to reward it.
Why does the scope of the role matter?
Two executives can carry the same title without holding comparable mandates.
A country CFO and a regional CFO may differ in geographic scope, balance-sheet responsibility, team size, regulatory exposure and decision authority. A CEO appointed to stabilise a mature business is not necessarily taking on the same risk as a CEO hired to lead a restructuring or post-acquisition integration.
These differences can justify different compensation. The problem arises when the role itself is allowed to expand or contract depending on the candidate, without the change being made explicit. A narrower mandate can lead to a lower offer; a lower offer can then be explained by the narrower mandate. Unless the board returns to the original brief, the reasoning becomes circular.
For this reason, the reporting line, decision rights, expected outcomes and material risks should be clear before candidates are compared. Compensation can then be linked to the actual mandate rather than to assumptions about the person under consideration.
Should previous pay determine the value of a new role?
Previous compensation is an easy reference point in a negotiation. It can also carry past inequalities into a new appointment. The value of a CEO or C-level role should not be derived simply by adding a percentage to what a candidate earned before. The candidate may be moving from a smaller business, a different market or a role with another compensation structure. Conversely, a high previous package does not by itself establish the value of the new mandate.
Directive (EU) 2023/970 on pay transparency establishes that applicants should receive information about the initial pay or its range, and that employers should not ask about current or previous pay history. In Slovakia, these requirements are now binding law. In Czechia, a prohibition on salary-history questions has been proposed but, as of August 2026, is not yet in force. The role should have a defensible value before an individual candidate's history enters the discussion — and in a growing number of markets, that history may not be requested at all.
At executive level, that value also extends beyond base salary. Annual incentives, long-term awards, benefits, pension arrangements, relocation support and termination provisions can materially change the package. Comparing only the fixed salary can hide more than it reveals.
Where does the EU Pay Transparency Directive now apply?
The Directive is no longer a future standard. The transposition deadline was 7 June 2026, and Member States met it very unevenly. For a board hiring across borders, the same appointment can fall under different rules depending on the employing entity, place of work and applicable national law.
Slovakia transposed the Directive in full. Act No. 76/2026 Coll. on equal pay for men and women for equal work or work of equal value took effect on 7 June 2026. Employers established before that date were required to have a documented pay structure based on objective, gender-neutral criteria by 31 July 2026. Applicants must be informed of the starting pay or its range, and employers may not ask candidates about their previous pay. Employers with at least 150 employees submit their first pay report by 7 June 2027, covering 1 August to 31 December 2026. Where a report shows an unjustified difference of at least 5% in any category of workers, a joint pay assessment with employee representatives is required.
Czechia has partially transposed the Directive. Since 1 June 2025, employers may not restrict employees from sharing information about their own pay. A broader transposition proposal presented in March 2026 would prohibit salary-history questions and require employers to provide pay information to candidates, with the core provisions proposed to take effect on 1 January 2027.
Germany and Austria had not completed transposition at the time of writing. Both continue to operate under their existing national frameworks — Germany's Entgelttransparenzgesetz and Austria's income reporting under the Gleichbehandlungsgesetz — which the Directive will substantially expand once national law follows.
The United Kingdom sits outside the Directive entirely and operates its own gender pay gap reporting regime for employers with 250 or more employees.
The practical consequence for senior hiring is specific. A question still used in some markets — “What were you earning before?” — is now prohibited in Slovakia. In Czechia, such a ban has been proposed but, as of August 2026, is not yet in force. A compensation range that was previously discussed only internally may now need to be defensible to the candidate at the point of approach. For cross-border appointments, boards should confirm with local employment counsel which rules apply to the employing entity, place of work and recruitment process.
Legal note: This is a high-level overview as of August 2026 and does not constitute legal advice. Employers should verify the applicable requirements with local counsel.
Does fair treatment require identical offers?
No. Fair treatment does not mean ignoring relevant differences between candidates or offering identical terms regardless of experience.
One candidate may bring direct regulatory credentials, another may have completed the same type of transformation, and a third may need to relocate. Those factors can affect the final package. The standard is not uniformity. It is whether the differences can be explained by the mandate, market evidence and criteria that the board would apply consistently to any candidate.
This distinction matters. A company should be able to explain why two offers differ without relying on confidence, negotiating style or historical salary as substitutes for evidence.
What can an executive search partner influence?
The client owns its remuneration policy and makes the final offer. An executive search firm does not certify equal pay, conduct a pay audit or replace the board's judgement.
A retained search partner can still improve the quality of the decision. It can challenge an unclear brief, ask whether the compensation range has been approved, bring relevant market context and ensure that candidates are assessed against the same role requirements. It can also make inconsistencies visible before they become part of the final negotiation.
We hold ourselves to the same standard. In every CEO and C-level mandate we accepted in 2025, a compensation range was confirmed with the client before the first candidate was approached.
In practice, five questions are useful at the beginning of a CEO or C-level mandate:
Is the scope of the role defined independently of the candidates being considered?
Is the compensation range attached to the mandate rather than to a candidate's previous package?
Will every candidate be assessed against the same evidence and decision criteria?
Can any difference in the final offer be explained by factors relevant to the role?
Does the process comply with the pay transparency rules in force in the jurisdiction where the appointment will be made?
These questions do not remove judgement from an executive appointment. They make the basis of that judgement easier to test.
For boards hiring across CEE, the comparison becomes more complex. The same title may carry different market scope, regulatory exposure and reward structures from one country to another. Those differences should be made explicit rather than absorbed into the final negotiation.
Menity and the first Equal Pay Day Slovakia
Menity was a partner of the first Equal Pay Day Slovakia, held in Bratislava on 10–11 November 2023. Vladimir Janik, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Menity, served as an ambassador of the initiative.
Ahead of the event, he spoke with Akčné ženy about unequal access to career opportunities, the position of women in leadership and the need to base the assessment of work and compensation on objective criteria rather than gender. The interview is also available through the Equal Pay Day Slovakia initiative.
Menity's participation did not imply that an executive search firm can solve a structural pay gap. It reflected a more specific responsibility. When advising on senior appointments, a search partner should recognise where the process can widen access, where it can reproduce an old assumption and where a board may need better evidence before making a decision.
Equal pay is larger than any single appointment. A single appointment is still a place where a board can act with precision. By the time the final offer is drafted, the most important assumptions may already have been set. A clear mandate, consistent criteria and defensible compensation logic give the decision a stronger foundation. That work starts before the offer.
About the author
Vladimir Janik is Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Menity. He has worked in executive search since co-founding the firm in 2007 and advises clients on CEO, Board and C-level appointments across CEE. In 2023, he served as an ambassador of the inaugural Equal Pay Day Slovakia.
Further reading
About Menity. Menity is a partner-led retained executive search and CEO & Board Advisory firm founded in 2007. We work with CEOs, boards and owners on CEO, Board and C-level appointments across CEE, with selected cross-border mandates into DACH and the UK.
