Director or VP? What to Do When a Role’s Scope Outgrows the Salary Range You Approved
It usually shows up three or four weeks into a search. The brief is clear, the company is credible, the market is reachable. And the shortlist keeps thinning in the same place: the people who match the scope want more than the salary range allows, and the people who fit the salary range haven’t run something this size yet.
Nobody made a bad decision. We see this constantly in growth-stage hiring, and it’s a side effect of moving fast. You scoped the role against what the business needs next quarter. The salary range came from the structure the business had last year. Both are reasonable. They’ve stopped describing the same job.
Here’s how we think about that gap in our own executive search work, and the four fixes we see work. Client details are generalized; the compensation figures are real and current.
The short answer
When a role’s scope outgrows the salary range you approved, you have four workable moves: change the title to match the market without changing the salary range, close the gap with variable compensation and equity instead of base, hire the number two who’s ready to step up instead of the sitting executive, or narrow the brief so the scope matches what you’re paying for. The first two work when the budget is fixed and the scope is necessary. The third works when the role is a real promotion for the right person. The fourth is the honest answer when the job, as written, is two jobs. Choosing takes days. Not choosing costs months of search time.
Why does a role’s scope outgrow its salary range?
Because scope moves continuously and salary ranges move in steps. Growth-stage roles are rarely designed from a blank sheet. They’re assembled out of work already being done by people who have other jobs: the founder, a functional head, an agency, a regional manager covering two markets. By the time you hire for it, the brief captures everything that work has turned into. The salary range comes from an earlier moment, usually the grade the last similar hire went into.
WorldatWork’s guidance on job architecture points the other way: for hard-to-fill, business-critical roles, the reference point should be the market, not the internal grade.
There’s a second cause, and it hits senior commercial and marketing hires hardest. A growing company needs someone who can set direction and also do the work, because there’s nobody to hand execution to. That combination is scarcer than either half on its own, and scarcity gets priced. Wharton’s research on hiring describes the wider pattern: requirements pile up as each stakeholder adds what they want, nobody trims the list, and employers end up unable to find or afford the full set.
Leveling gap or scoping gap: which one do you have?
A leveling gap means the job is coherent and correctly scoped, but the market calls it something more senior than your internal grade does. One job, labeled a step too low. A scoping gap means the job is really two jobs, combined because neither alone seemed to justify a hire.
The distinction matters because the fixes don’t transfer. A leveling gap is solved with a title, a salary range, or both. A scoping gap isn’t solved by either, because no one person is available to do both halves well. Companies lose months treating the second as though it were the first, rerunning the same search at a higher number and getting the same result.
How do you tell a leveling gap from a scoping gap?
Three questions usually settle it. All three come back to defining what the role actually requires rather than inheriting the label it already carries, which is the same shift SHRM describes in its work on skills-first hiring.
- What does this person spend most of their time doing? If they’re producing personally while also leading, the role is structurally senior whatever the title says. McKinsey’s work on spans of control makes the point: the archetype where someone carries real individual output alongside unique, non-repeatable work supports only three to five direct reports, and the example they give for it is a functional vice president.
- Who decides? A role that sets the plan, owns the number and has the final word in its function is VP-shaped whether or not the org chart agrees. A role executing a plan set elsewhere is director-shaped even with a big team.
- What would you take out to make the job fit the salary range? If the answer is “nothing, it’s just a big job,” it’s a leveling gap. If you can name a clean half and the business would survive without it for a year, it’s a scoping gap.
Can you change the title without changing the salary range?
Often, yes, and it’s the cheapest of the four fixes.
We ran a search for an international travel-technology platform about a year into its US market entry. Internally the role was a regional director position. In substance it led commercial strategy for two national markets, managed the team leaders who ran the field sales organization, and owned brand presence in a market built from close to zero. The approved base salary range was $150K to $200K.
The search had run for months before we were engaged, and the pattern was consistent: sitting VPs and SVPs had been approached and said no. A sitting SVP in that space is generally above $300K, so the economics never worked. And moving from a VP title to a director title reads as a step back on a résumé.
The title turned out to be negotiable. The budget wasn’t. At the level the market recognizes for that scope, $150K to $200K is a credible salary range rather than an impossible one. Nothing about the job changed; the label stopped working against it.
Two cautions: be ready to explain the new title to people already carrying it, and make sure the scope earns it, or the mismatch comes back at offer stage.
Can variable compensation close the gap?
Yes, when it’s credible. Where the base can’t move, the variable piece often can, and senior commercial candidates read a well-built variable package as confidence rather than as a discount.
In a fast-growing direct-to-consumer beauty business, the growth leadership role carried a base salary range of $150K to $200K against a large in-house creative and growth team and a direct line to the CEO. What made it competitive was the variable: $50K to $150K against performance, with equity on top. On total compensation, the role wasn’t under-leveled at all.
We see the same structure in watches and jewelry. On a recent global retail sales leadership mandate the base sat at $200K with a variable component worth up to roughly half that again. In wines and spirits, a luxury artisanal brand preparing a launch set a base of $175K to $200K and used equity to carry the rest.
The catch is credibility. Variable compensation only closes the gap if the targets are ones a candidate can model, influence and believe. Vague upside gets read, correctly, as a soft number.
Should you hire the number two who’s ready to step up?
Often, and it’s the most under-used of the four fixes. Instead of chasing people who already hold the title, go after the credible number two who’s ready to hold it.
That luxury artisanal brand did exactly this. Rather than compete for sitting VPs of marketing, the brief opened up to people running a function one level down, a head of social or the second in a marketing team ready for a step up. In a startup environment with very little support, that profile wasn’t a compromise. It was a better match for the work.
There’s good evidence behind the instinct. A study in Administrative Science Quarterly compared people who entered similar roles by internal promotion with people hired externally. The external hires arrived with stronger credentials and cost about eighteen percent more, yet performed worse over their first two years and left at higher rates. The candidate whose credentials most obviously match the title isn’t automatically the one who’ll do the job best.
The trade is explicit. You accept someone who hasn’t done the whole job, and you get real motivation, a realistic salary expectation, and someone still growing into the role in two years rather than out of it. Just be honest about how much support they’ll have.
Is the job you’ve written actually two jobs?
Sometimes, and narrowing the brief is the right answer when it is.
We saw a clean version of this with a design-led home goods brand building its first senior US commercial role. The brief covered the whole US retail revenue line: growing premium accounts, expanding distribution, running retail marketing, planning launches. No direct reports at the start, a small team expected inside two years, and a reporting line into headquarters abroad rather than into a US leadership layer. The work sat across what would normally be two functions.
What we added there was calibration, not correction. Based on comparable searches running at the time, we recommended a salary range of $150K to $200K for the scope as described, and we were explicit about which parts of the brief drove the number. That’s what live search activity gives you that a salary survey can’t: it reflects what candidates at that level are accepting this quarter.
Narrowing isn’t defeat. A smaller first hire who succeeds and then builds a team beats an eighteen-month search for someone who can do everything.
Which fix should you choose?
It depends on which of the three is genuinely fixed: the budget, the scope, or the title.
| Fix | Best when | What it costs | What to watch |
| Change the title, keep the salary range | The scope is coherent and the budget is credible for that level once labeled correctly | Nothing in cash; some internal explaining | Internal equity with existing title-holders; the title must be earned by the scope |
| Close the gap with variable compensation and equity | Base is fixed but the role has measurable outcomes the person can influence | Higher total compensation in a good year | Targets must be modelable and believable, or the number is discounted to zero |
| Hire the step-up candidate | The role is a clear promotion and some support or proximity to leadership exists | A ramp period and more of your own time | An honest read on how alone the person will be |
| Narrow the brief | The role is really two jobs combined | Something goes undone for a while | Deciding which half, and saying so clearly in the market |
Which search model fits a director or VP role like this?
Usually a container search. A role where the scope and the level are still being settled needs definition work before outreach starts, and that’s what the model is built for.
A container search, also called an engaged search, is one where a small upfront fee we call a commitment fee funds the early work: target mapping, calibration on level and salary range, and the first rounds of direct approach. The balance is paid on placement. It’s behind most of our director and VP work. Where the role is a genuine C-level or SVP mandate, or the brief needs rebuilding before anyone is approached, a fully retained search is the better structure.
We do also offer contingency search, for existing clients only and under certain conditions, on roles below the executive layer. For every other mandate and every new client, the engagement is container or retained. That isn’t a preference for security. Contingency economics reward speed and volume of submission, which is the right structure when the candidate pool is deep and actively looking. Where the difficulty is that very few people combine two capabilities at the level you need, the same incentives under-resource the target mapping that finds them.
What should you compare across search proposals?
Four things, none of them the headline fee percentage. Ask what the upfront portion funds, what happens if the search is paused or rescoped, what the replacement provision covers, and whether the fee is calculated on base or on total compensation. That last one matters most when the variable component is large, so agree the basis up front.
Where does this show up across consumer and luxury?
Everywhere, though the texture varies. In beauty and digital commerce it’s a growth leadership role with a large execution team sitting at a director-level salary range. In hospitality and travel it’s a market-entry role carrying a regional title and national responsibility. In home goods and premium consumer products it’s the first US commercial hire, built from two functions at once. We see it for the same reasons across luxury goods, travel retail, watches and jewelry and wines and spirits, where brand-led businesses often run deliberately lean commercial teams.
Frequently asked questions
What’s the difference between a director-level and a VP-level role?
Decision rights, not team size. A VP-level role sets the plan, owns the number and has the final word in its function. A director-level role executes a plan set elsewhere, sometimes with a larger team. In our searches the clearest tell is where the role sits when a trade-off has to be made: if the person decides, it’s VP-shaped, whatever the org chart says.
What base salary range should a director-level leadership role sit in?
In the consumer and luxury sectors we work in, director-level roles generally run $150K to $200K base, VP-level roles roughly $200K to $275K, and C-level above $300K. Variable compensation sits on top and varies widely by function. Commercial and growth roles carry much more of it than most.
Is it a problem to give a role a more senior title than our internal structure says?
Not if the scope earns it. A title that reflects what the person will genuinely own is accurate, not inflated. The risk is internal: people already carrying that title will compare, so decide in advance how you’ll explain the difference in scope. Where the new role’s remit is visibly larger, that conversation is usually easy.
Can variable compensation make up for a lower base salary?
Partly, and only when it’s credible. Candidates discount upside they can’t model. A variable component tied to a number the person visibly controls, with a clear mechanism and a realistic target, gets taken seriously. One described as “significant bonus potential” gets taken as zero.
Should we hire someone who hasn’t held this title before?
Often, yes. The research on external hiring suggests the candidate whose credentials match the title most obviously commands a premium that doesn’t reliably translate into better early performance. A strong number two stepping up brings motivation and a realistic salary expectation. Just be honest about how much support they’ll get: a step-up hire with no team and no peer faces a hard first year.
How long should we wait before changing the title or the salary range?
If a search has run six to eight weeks of real outreach and the same objection keeps appearing at the same stage, that’s data rather than bad luck. We’d rather make the decision then than at month five. The cost of waiting is rarely a smaller candidate pool. It’s that the strongest people you approached early have taken something else by the time you come back.
Which search model fits a director or VP role where the level is still unsettled?
Usually a container search, an engaged model where a modest commitment fee funds the target mapping and calibration work and the balance is paid on placement. The definition work is what decides whether the search succeeds, so it’s worth resourcing properly at the start. A full retained search fits better at C-level and SVP, or where the brief itself needs rebuilding. We offer contingency for existing clients only, under certain conditions, on roles below the executive layer.
What should you do next?
Pick one of the four and commit to it. The gap between what a role has become and what it was budgeted for isn’t a sign that something went wrong. It’s what growth looks like on an org chart. What costs time is leaving the question open for another two months.
If you’re weighing one of these decisions now, we’re happy to give you a current read on what your role is actually being paid, and at what title, in searches running this quarter. Get in touch with our team and we’ll tell you what we’re seeing.
Sources
- Acharya, A., Lieber, R., Seem, L., and Welchman, T. “How to identify the right ‘spans of control’ for your organization.” McKinsey & Company, 2017. mckinsey.com
- Knowledge at Wharton Staff, with Peter Cappelli. “Fix the Hiring Process.” Knowledge at Wharton, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, October 4, 2019. knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
- Bidwell, M. J. “Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External Hiring Versus Internal Mobility.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 2011. repository.upenn.edu
- Bakshi, S., and Parekh, A. “Critical Considerations for Crafting an Effective Job Architecture.” Workspan Daily, WorldatWork, August 12, 2024. worldatwork.org
- “Skills-First Movement: Redefining How Organizations Hire and Grow.” SHRM, February 12, 2026. shrm.org
