In the world of executive compensation, numbers often tell only half the story. Take Chuck (a disguised name to protect privacy), the CEO of a small rural bank in Alabama. After seven years at the helm, he’s led the institution to outperform its peers year after year. Yet, when he sought a salary adjustment based on market data, what should have been a moment of recognition turned into a bitter standoff. Chuck’s story highlights a classic tension between performance, perception, and pay—and raises the question: Can a fractured board-CEO relationship like this be salvaged?

The Backstory: Stellar Performance Meets Skeptical Owners

Chuck’s journey at the bank started with promise. As CEO, he navigated the organization through economic ups and downs, steering it toward consistent growth. Deposits swelled, loans performed well, and customer satisfaction soared compared to similar rural banks. By all objective measures, Chuck wasn’t just competent—he was exceptional.

However, the bank’s ownership, a tight-knit group of investors, several of whom were retired, saw things differently. To them, Chuck was “lucky” to have the gig. His base salary of $175,000 already outpaced what most of them had earned in their careers, and they prided themselves on the bank’s perks: two weeks of paid holiday for all employees and a culture emphasizing work-life balance. 

Enter the compensation consultant. Chuck hired an expert to benchmark salaries across the bank. The data was eye-opening: The midpoint for a CEO role like his was around $250,000—about $75,000 more than he was earning. Armed with facts, Chuck invited the consultant to present to the board, hoping to spark a data-driven discussion on trends in banking compensation.

 

The Raise That Backfired

The meeting seemed productive at first. The board reviewed the consultant’s findings, crunched the numbers, and adjusted their midpoint to $220,000, a figure they deemed “comfortable” for their modest operation. They approved a raise to that amount, effectively boosting Chuck’s salary by $45,000 (though the overall gap to market felt like a $70,000 opportunity lost in his mind). However, the victory came at a costly price.

The board’s message was clear: This was it. No further discussions on salary for three years, and zero interest in exploring other executive perks like bonuses, equity, or enhanced retirement plans. Chuck felt that he was perceived as “strong-arming” them into the increase, rather than being rewarded for his track record. Resentment brewed on both sides, with the board feeling pressured, while Chuck felt undervalued and dismissed.

In the end, no one walked away happy. The raise, meant to align pay with performance, instead amplified underlying distrust.

 

Why This Happens: The Psychology of Compensation Clashes

Stories like Chuck’s are more common than you might think, especially in smaller, closely held businesses in rural communities where personal relationships blur professional boundaries. Here’s why these situations spiral:

• Mismatched Expectations: Owners often view the business through a lens of legacy and frugality, while executives like Chuck benchmark against broader markets. What feels generous to one person can seem stingy to another.
• Emotional Undercurrents: The board’s “lucky to have the job” mindset reeks of condescension, eroding Chuck’s sense of accomplishment. It also did not recognize that he would not be easy to replace. Meanwhile, bringing in a consultant might have felt like an aggressive move to the board, triggering defensiveness.
• Lack of Ongoing Dialogue: Compensation isn’t a one-and-done event. Without regular check-ins on goals, performance metrics, and market shifts, adjustments feel like battles rather than collaborations.

The result? A toxic dynamic where appreciation is absent, and resentment festers. Left unchecked, this could lead to Chuck’s departure—or worse, disengaged leadership that hampers the bank’s future.

 

Can This Relationship Be Saved? Absolutely—With Intentional Steps

The good news is that, yes, this CEO-board rift is mendable. But it requires humility, communication, and a shift from transactional fixes to relational rebuilding. Here’s how we would recommend handling it, step by step:

 

1. Pause and Reflect: Both sides need a cooling-off period. Chuck should journal his frustrations privately, focusing on the facts rather than his emotions. The board might benefit from an anonymous feedback session to air their concerns without finger-pointing. Recognizing that everyone wants the bank’s success is a unifying starting point.
   
2. Reopen Dialogue with Neutral Facilitation: Schedule a mediated conversation—perhaps with the same compensation consultant or an independent advisor. Frame it not as “renegotiating pay” but as “aligning on the bank’s vision”. Discuss long-term goals: What does success look like in 3–5 years? How does executive compensation support that? This shifts focus from Chuck’s raise to shared objectives.
   
3. Develop a Pay-for-Performance Plan: Collaborate with a consultant to establish weighted goals that balance one another, where various levels of performance are tied to salary increases, and an annual bonus matrix will clarify which results the board values the most.
   
4. Tie Compensation to Clear Metrics: Move beyond subjective “midpoints”. Establish performance-based incentives, like bonuses tied to revenue growth, risk management, or community impact. This makes future raises feel earned and objective, reducing perceptions of favoritism or arm-twisting.
   
5. Address Non-Monetary Appreciation: Money isn’t everything. The board could acknowledge Chuck’s contributions through public recognition, professional development opportunities, or input on strategic decisions. For Chuck, expressing gratitude for the bank’s stability and culture might soften the board’s stance.
   
6. Plan for Regular Reviews: Agree on an annual compensation review process, even if adjustments aren’t guaranteed. This prevents surprises and builds trust. Include external benchmarks to maintain a data-driven approach, and consider establishing a subcommittee for added objectivity.
   
7. Know When to Walk Away: If efforts fail and resentment persists, Chuck might explore other opportunities. A fresh start elsewhere could validate his worth, while the board learns the cost of undervaluing talent. But this should be a last resort—saving the relationship benefits everyone if the bank is truly thriving under his leadership.

 

Lessons for Leaders and Boards Everywhere

Chuck’s tale is a cautionary one: Raises without respect are hollow victories. In small organizations, such as rural banks, where personal ties run deep, compensation decisions must strike a balance between data and diplomacy. For CEOs feeling undervalued, remember that advocacy is your right—but approach it collaboratively. For boards, view talent as an investment, not an expense.

Ultimately, the path forward lies in empathy and alignment. By focusing on mutual success, Chuck and his board can turn this setback into a stronger partnership. If you’re in a similar spot, take heart—relationships like this aren’t doomed; they’re just in need of a reset.

Back to Blog