Matt McFarlane's Linkedin Analytics

In the past 12 months I've spoken to 70+ Heads of People. Of the most impressive ones, here's one trait they had in common. They're the most incredible learners. No one else has built as wide an expertise as them: • Workforce planning • Leadership development • Talent acquisition • People analytics But not all Heads of People are like this. And if they don’t have this craving for learning? They get left behind by their companies — who are increasingly demanding more from them. But here’s the thing. After a year of building compensation foundations for startups, I've learned: Many of them don't want someone (i.e. me) to just come in and solve the problem for them. They want to learn how to solve it for themselves. They want to be leaders in every part of the People function. They need to. That’s why I created the FNDN Coaching Program. This isn’t a webinar or a lecture — it’s a hands-on, collaborative experience where we tackle your startup compensation build, together. Here’s what we’ll do together: 1. Define your compensation philosophy and get leadership buy-in. 2. Build a job level framework for role clarity. 3. Benchmark salaries and create fair, scalable pay bands. 4. Run structured merit cycles for pay reviews. 5. Equip you with tools and coaching to implement confidently. Throughout, you'll get: • Targeted 1:1 support to tackle your specific compensation challenges. • Proven frameworks and templates to implement quickly and effectively. • A structured program that deepens your compensation expertise. • Scalable compensation foundations that align with your startup’s growth. If you're looking to: Stop compensation guesswork. Eliminate pay inequity. Prevent title and levelling chaos. Reduce hiring and retention risks. Make pay decisions defensible. This is for you. I'm only opening 2x spots in April, so if you're: • A Head of People • At a startup • With 50-500 people DM me "people" and I'll share more details.

If there’s one thing I know Heads of People constantly grapple with, it’s job architecture. I went deep (really deep) on the topic with Ravio and the output is this incredibly detailed article. Everything to consider when building a job level framework and the mistakes to look out for along the way. Jump into it below.

4 elite talent attracting strategies for startups: (without relying on bigger salaries) Startups can’t match large, profitable companies’ talent offers. So, what do you do? You excel where they’re weak. Here’s 4 strategies for startups to compete with the big boys (without just throwing more salary at the problem): 1. Don't win at pay. Win at pay practices. Transparency is a low bar but still rare, especially among large orgs scared to implement. Younger, startup-oriented talent increasingly values clarity over ambiguity. Share your salary bands, be upfront about pay progression, and make equity meaningful. 2. Double down on mission Why does your company exist? People want to solve meaningful problems and have a meaningful impact on your mission. Whatever your company is tackling, make it central to your pitch. Driven talent will follow. 3. Highlight development opportunities Startups are boot camps for growth. They’re fast-paced, challenging, and expose employees to a variety of experiences. Frame this as a selling point for ambitious learners looking to level up quickly. 4. Focus on Ownership Make employees feel like true owners. Equity can be powerful, but only if it’s worth something. Communicate its value clearly and tie it to the company’s success. Big companies can offer comfort. But startups offer something unique: • Purpose • Growth • A chance to create something extraordinary Don’t throw more money at it. In 5 words or less, what advice would you give a startup to attract top talent?

Me when I'm waiting for someone to reply to my email, and then I see they've looked at my profile. Also I feel like I should make a disclaimer for anybody reading this that I'm not waiting on an email from you. This is a meme for an old feeling. It's ok.

If you're forcing people back into the office, there is 1 sure-fire step you can take to make it more desirable. Throughout my entire career, one truth has always been consistent. 👉 It's easy to give your people more things. It's much harder to take things away. When the pandemic happened, employees around the world were given a new thing: flexible work from home. Now, companies are trying to take that benefit away from them. And it's causing massive issues. People feel a reduction in the 'value exchange' when they're forced to return to the office. Some companies have accepted this, noting that the threshold for an employee to leave is permanently lowered. They accept that: - Their people see a loss of flexibility - They become disgruntled, and - They're less engaged and more likely to leave On the flip side, some companies are requiring RTO, but recognising they need to offset the loss of one thing, by exchanging it for another. In this case: money. Cameo has recently come out with a way to offset the perceived reduction in value their people are feeling. They're upping the salary of those who abide by their new RTO policy. And it's looking like a win-win. Their people lose one thing but gain another of comparable value. So instead of just losing flexibility, they: - Gain additional income - Are able to purchase time back (think childcare, cleaners etc.) - See their company recognise the value of flexibility. While I don't think remote/flexible work will ever be a defined financial benefit like a bonus, it's clear their is a real value attached to it. Will we see more companies requiring RTO offer increased cash as a way to sweeten the loss of flexibility? In five words or less, tell me what an employer would have to pay you to return to the office 5-days a week 👇

“What does your husband do for work?” - I heard that question and I stopped the interview. I asked the hiring manager: “why would you ask that?” His reply: “I want to know if the husband is likely to ever move, and we might therefore lose the wife who would have to follow.” “It’s irrelevant to the role we’re hiring for though, isn’t it?” I said. “But I don’t want to hire someone only to lose them if their husband needs to move location for his job” he replied. “But can you see how asking that question makes someone feel like they’re being evaluated on their husbands job and not on their ability to do the role? Instead, why don’t we focus on hiring the right person for the role, and ensuring our workplace is so good that they wouldn’t want to leave if the opportunity arose”. “Yeah, I guess that makes sense” he said. We returned to the interview, and the hiring manager apologised for the question. We all have blind spots. But what matters is how we respond when they’re called out. In startups — where speed and scrappiness can sometimes override thoughtfulness — these moments matter. - Not just for compliance. - Not just for fairness. - But for trust. For reputation. For the kind of culture you’re building, one decision at a time. Hiring isn’t just about who you choose — it’s about how you choose. What's the craziest question you've heard in an interview?

The entire internet right now

I do between 10-15 video calls a week with people around the world. I've decided there's only two kinds of people. Which are you?

LinkedIn can be cringe, but it doesn't have to be. These are the 4 best profiles to follow for genuine laugh out loud content. Renée Shaw - teaching us all what goblin mode is Errol Parker - 99% NSFW but nevertheless hilarious dry Aussie humour Ken Cheng - showing us how to channel confidence as a CEO (probably too much confidence in his case) Soren Iverson - designs the most hilarious product features you can think of (and plenty you never would have thought about) FNDN* - I'd be remiss not tag the company bringing fun to *compensation*. Mostly memes about how comp sucks when it doesn't have to. What are your favourite LI profiles? (if I see someone tag Nick Power I swear to god...) *Full disclosure, FNDN is my company and I am the brains behind the memes. You're welcome.

Harsh truth for every Head of People when it comes to compensation. You don't have to please everybody. In fact, you shouldn't. My favourite quote 👉 "If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one." How you pay is the same. It should be polarising. If you try too hard to be great across the board, you'll miss the things that the 'great people' want. Instead, you'll be doing what everyone else is doing, which means you'll get the same results as everyone else. Instead, aim to please the people you are trying to attract and retain. First you need to know who they are: - What is the critical team/skillset/person that will grow your company? - Who are your highest performers? - Which skills are you trying to hire more of? These are the people we want to skew our focus towards. It's not saying that anyone outside this group isn't important. It's saying that anyone in this group is prioritised on how you define your comp approach. Once you know the people you're trying to attract, go to work: - What is important to them? - What would do you have no one else has? - What would make them join your company over another? Document who these people are. Find research that shows what they want. Create a differentiated approach to bringing them on and keeping them. Your comp practices should be opinionated. It's a representation of your culture — it shouldn't be all things to all people. All you can do is help people understand why it suits your business and help them understand how it applies to them. Agree?

79% of employees want pay transparency. Most startups still aren’t ready to give it.  Here’s how to do it (without chaos). In my conversation with Adam Horne (Open Org), we unpacked why pay transparency still trips up even the most well-meaning companies. The problem? - Teams think transparency means sharing everyone’s salary. - Founders fear exposing gaps they can’t fix overnight. - People teams don’t have the structure to support open conversations. What actually works: - Share your process, not just the numbers. - Explain how decisions are made — even if they’re imperfect. - Be open about what you’re working to improve. Transparency isn’t about perfection. It’s about clarity, consistency, and trust. 🎧 Listen on your favourite streamer here: https://lnkd.in/gUbDkHqs

12 things that destroy trust with employees fast: (From my conversation with Adam Horne at Open Org 👇) This Sunday, the next episode of the FNDN Series is coming to you. In it, (surprise surprise) Adam and I explore transparency in workplaces. What else isn't a surprise, is that people continue to crave transparency, and that companies getting it wrong are losing out, big. Here's 12 ways they're doing this: - Being vague about how pay is set - Letting managers "freestyle" comp decisions - Not explaining why someone didn't get a raise - Prioritising secrecy over clarity - Avoiding hard conversations about pay equity - Designing for employee wants over business needs - Confusing perks with performance - Failing the “printer test” on salary logic - Assuming happy = high-performing - Not documenting how work gets done - Letting culture be “understood” instead of defined - Waiting too long to fix obvious inequities Being open solves a lot of problems. Want to know how to introduce transparency to your org and pay practices? Subscribe below to get this episode when it drops. https://lnkd.in/g54D9tHZ

From one post, 250+ people are interested in attending Startup People Summit. My goal for this thing is ambitious: - 30+ speakers - 1,000+ attendee's - 30+ sessions In one action-packed day. One day of the most insightful, practical sessions available for startup People pro's building and scaling their function. We've got some incredible speakers lined up — People who have been there and done that. Many who still are, either in-house, or advising across a range of orgs. APAC is represented well, with experts with startup experience from: - Australia - New Zealand - Singapore (more on these amazing speakers in May) All speaking on wildly different startup people issues, such as: - Integrating diverse cultures into your workforce - Making work, work (and maybe even be fun?) - The inside track on being an influential people leader - How to use your network more effectively And way, way more. Sound good? 👉 Register interest now: https://lnkd.in/gVMuX4RW  👉 Follow the Startup People Summit for exclusive content, giveaways and speaker drops.

In two weeks, two big things are happening for Heads of People at startups. In May, the Startup People Summit is kicking things up a gear. 1. Early-bird tickets go on sale. 2. We'll start releasing the incredible lineup of speakers. This is quickly becoming THE event for APAC based Heads of People building and scaling people functions. We're being as generous as possible with early-bird - 60%+ discount on tickets - For 2 whole months The response has been incredible. I only wish I did this sooner. - 30+ of the most incredible speakers doing incredible things - We're on track for 1,000+ attendee's from across the APAC region - All virtual, and all in one action-packed day If you've dropped your details over at https://lnkd.in/gcvtYZT7, you'll be the first to know. Make sure to follow Startup People Summit too, for the freshest updates and more.

Harsh truth: If you want innovation, pay people enough to speak up. Employees won’t challenge ideas if they’re: - Living pay check to pay check - On a tight budget at home - Saving the pennies Job security beats long term vision every time. But companies still expect people to innovate over survive? Nah. If you want innovation, do this: - Pay them fairly - Teach financial literacy - Remove money stress Employees will push for better ideas when they’re not stressed over making ends meet. To get innovation -> create financial security. Agree?

3 reasons to keep resignations quiet from your people. (and why it's good for business) Let's be real, when someone is leaving the company, you should keep it as quiet as possible. Do it well enough, and people will ask you: "why doesn't Julie doesn't turn up to work anymore?". Good job. Mission accomplished. That is how you know you've done well at keeping a resignation quiet. Here's three reasons why you should do this: 1. Humans are sheep. If one quits, they all quit. 2. If they speak to the deserter, they'll hear their lies about what is wrong with your workplace (nothing, obviously). 3. You need to think long and hard about the transition, and then let the team absorb their work and not backfill. You're a business. Businesses exist to squeeze the most it can from people, and give it to shareholders. Ok, ok, I can't do it anymore. I can't keep up the act. These are legitimate reasons companies have used to avoid announcing resignations. Not very nice is it? Pretty silly and small minded, yeah? People leave. Get used to it. Tell your people. • Help them understand the impact on them. • Address the reasons people leave. • Prevent people being overloaded with others work. Let them trust you. Seems pretty straightforward.

There's an important formula that get's missed when handling compensation: Me + CandorIQ + The Modern People Leader = Happy Demi Lovato (I don't think Demi is on LinkedIn, otherwise pls tag) So if you'd like to be as happy with your compensation cycle as Demi Lovato is, check this out. I'm joining a cool little webinar with Haris Ikram, Stephen Huerta, Daniel Huerta, and a couple hundred close friends. You can be one of them. Someone (I don't know who) started a rumour that Demi Lovato may even make an appearance — I can neither confirm nor deny. But if you'd like to join us, the link is below. • It'll be pretty informative. • We'll run through some things you can do to level up your cycles. • Haris has incredible things to show you on what the tech can do to make your life easier. PLUS We're even building a playbook for you as a keepsake. Makes sense to join right? Right — here you go: https://lnkd.in/gnk__r5N (Ok, look, Demi Lovato is like 99% not going to come, but I don't want to get sued for making funny LinkedIn posts so I'm just clearing that up)

There's one conversation no Head of People wants to have. You hired someone as a "Director" early on, when they're really performing as a Manager. Now you're stuck with two options: - Keep the inflated title despite misaligned expectations (and watch your structure crumble) - Reset the title to match reality (and have a brutal conversation about lowering the level and changing job title) (if you're blessed with time, maybe you can give them a grace period to 'become' their title) This can happen with promotions too. When companies scale, there's immense pressure to promote based on tenure rather than capability. "I've been here since day one, where's my VP title?" But title inflation leads to: - Compensation chaos when benchmarking against market rates - Confusion about decision-making authority - Frustrated employees who can't see clear progression paths The solution? Build structure early. Your job architecture should clearly distinguish what a Manager, Director, or VP is responsible for based on things like: - Span of control,  - Decision-making authority, - Strategic vs operational impact. Otherwise, titles quickly lose meaning. The result: pay equity issues, confused employees, and overall brand damage. I chatted to the Ravio team about this exact challenge recently. Have you ever had to reset someone's job title — and how did you handle it? Full discussion here ➡️

Ok, I’ve kept quiet about this one for long enough. It’s time to lift the lid on something big I’ve been working on for startup people professionals. In all the spare time I have while building compensation practices under FNDN (ha). In between being chronically on LinkedIn (my literal life). I’ve been building something new…. For a long, long time, it’s felt like those I work and interact with in and around the APAC startup space haven’t had a great range of events to learn from when it comes to building and scaling the people function. Something that is: • Practical and readily adapted. • Realistic to startup budget and constraints. • And most of all, comes from people who have been there and done it. So I’ve been working on something to fix that. The Startup People Summit. The playbook for building and scaling a modern people function. • It’s all happening 31 July 2025 • 1-day, virtual event • Featuring 30+ speakers The depth of speakers is incredible. They’ve been there, and they’ve done it. Many are still doing it. • From operating in small, scrappy startups, to larger scale ups • Bootstrapped to VC backed • and everything in between This will be an unmissable event for 2025. 👉 Register interest now: https://lnkd.in/ghEb3UEU 👉 Follow the Startup People Summit for exclusive content, giveaways and speaker drops.

Of all the companies I've worked with, 2 companies are doing something that I've not seen done in many other places. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. You need to pay your people a salary that: - Covers their basic living expenses without stress - Enables them to participate meaningfully in life outside of work - Doesn’t require them to “survive” the job they’re doing The problem? Most companies are still benchmarking against a market that doesn’t reflect reality. They’re using salary surveys to set pay, without first understanding whether those numbers actually support someone’s life. And here’s where it gets worse: If you let the market set the floor, you’re at risk of institutionalising hardship. Paying “what the market pays” is meaningless if that number doesn’t let your people live well enough to show up and do their best work. But two of my clients decided to flip that model. - They introduced a living wage before seeing what the market told them to pay. - They didn’t wait for a salary survey. - They didn’t wait to see what everyone else was doing. They asked themselves: “What does someone in our business, in this country, need to actually live?” Here’s how we approached it: 1. We mapped out common living costs (rent, transport, food, utilities) in the geographies where they hire 2. We ran calculations for realistic, not idealistic, expenses 3. We set their salary minimums accordingly — and only then cross-checked against market data This is the difference between being market informed and market led. Market informed means you use data to sense-check decisions. Market led means you outsource decisions that should be yours to make. If you want to build a high-trust, high-performing team — start with a pay floor that lets people live, not just work.