Internal audit leaders are under sustained pressure to recruit and retain talent in a tight market. When roles stay open or candidates decline offers, the instinctive response is often to look at salary. Are we paying enough? Are we competitive?
In many cases, pay is not the real issue.
What increasingly separates effective internal audit functions from those that struggle to hire is not compensation alone, but how well their teams are structured, how capabilities are distributed, and whether roles reflect the realities of today’s risk environment. Benchmarking - done properly - brings those issues into focus.
Salary is only part of the value proposition
Internal auditors, particularly at mid‑senior levels, are acutely aware of their market value. But they are just as sensitive to role clarity, development prospects and the credibility of the function itself.
When organisations focus narrowly on salary benchmarks, they often miss the broader picture. A role may be competitively paid and still unattractive if:
- The remit is overly broad or poorly defined
- Capability gaps mean high performers are carrying disproportionate risk
- Reporting lines or team design limit influence with stakeholders
- Location expectations don’t reflect how the market is actually operating
In these situations, increasing salary can feel like pushing against gravity. It might loosen the market briefly, but it doesn’t solve the structural issues driving hiring friction.
Benchmarking reveals whether your team is built for purpose
Effective benchmarking goes beyond “what do others pay?”. It asks more fundamental questions about how internal audit functions are resourced and organised.
At a structural level, benchmarking helps leaders understand:
- What size and shape internal audit teams typically have at comparable organisations
- How many layers sit between delivery and leadership
- The balance between in‑house resource, co‑sourcing and specialist support
It also exposes where functions are overloaded. A common issue Leonid sees is teams expected to cover technology, ESG, operational risk and regulatory scrutiny without sufficient depth in any one area. On paper, headcount looks adequate; in practice, critical risks are thinly covered.
Capability mix matters more than headcount
One of the most valuable outcomes of benchmarking is clarity around capability mix. Two teams of the same size can perform very differently depending on how skills are distributed.
Modern internal audit functions increasingly require a blend of:
- Core audit and assurance expertise
- Sector‑specific knowledge
- Data and technology risk capability
- Strong stakeholder and communication skills
Without benchmarking, it is easy to over‑index on generalists or replicate legacy profiles that no longer align with organisational risk. The result is a team that is busy, but not strategically impactful.
Benchmarking against peers helps leaders identify which capabilities are typically permanent, which are rotational, and which are better accessed flexibly. It also supports more credible conversations with boards about why certain hires are necessary, rather than simply “desirable”.
Location strategy is an underused lever
Location is another area where benchmarking frequently shifts thinking.
Many organisations have legacy assumptions about where internal audit talent “should” sit; often close to headquarters or established centres of excellence. The market has moved on. Candidate pools, expectations around hybrid working and regional cost dynamics have all changed.
Benchmarking location strategies can reveal:
- Where comparable organisations successfully base audit roles
- Which locations offer depth of specialist talent versus generalist capacity
- How location impacts retention, not just hiring
This insight is particularly valuable when roles are hard to fill. The answer is not always more pay; it may be rethinking where the role sits, or how location links to career progression and visibility.
Better benchmarking leads to better decisions
For audit committees and senior executives, benchmarking provides evidence. It grounds resourcing discussions in external reality rather than internal sentiment.
Instead of framing decisions as salary inflation, leaders can demonstrate:
- Why additional headcount reduces specific risk exposure
- How capability gaps compare to peers
- Where the organisation is under‑ or over‑invested
This kind of insight also strengthens succession planning. Understanding how roles are typically structured at the next level helps organisations assess whether internal candidates are being set up to succeed, or quietly stretched beyond reasonable scope.
Moving beyond reactive hiring
Ultimately, benchmarking shifts internal audit from reactive hiring to intentional workforce design. It allows leaders to ask: Is our team built for the risks we face, or for the organisation we used to be?
Salary will always matter. But it is rarely the decisive factor in building a resilient, high‑performing internal audit function. Structure, capability mix and location strategy determine whether salaries are effective, or simply compensatory.
For organisations under increasing scrutiny from regulators, boards and stakeholders, benchmarking is not a nice‑to‑have. It is one of the most practical tools available to ensure internal audit has the credibility, capacity and confidence to keep pace.
At Leonid, we offer a 'Talent Intelligence' service which benchmarks your team against the wider market and can help unlock budget for new hires, or inform decisions around organisational design.
If you would like a demo and a free 'lite' assessment, please contact Adam Bond to book it in.
