Finding the Balance: Pay, Flexibility, and Employee Satisfaction

When asked what makes a role attractive, surveyed employees named flexibility as the key driver. (Interestingly, and as an aside, employers thought their key attraction was cause and reputation.)

However, when employees were polled on their reasons for leaving an organisation, it wasn’t a lack of flexibility at top of the list, it was low remuneration.

Because as we all know, at the end of the day, money makes the world go around. Or put more simply in the words of Agnetha, Bjorn, Benny and Frida, “money, money, money”.

After all, flexible working are highly sought after, but they don’t pay the mortgage, the bills or for groceries at the supermarket check-out. Especially in the context of skyrocketing cost of living.

Ironically, what we see in this year’s survey is a consistent pattern of base salaries climbing in tandem with operating budget and staffing size. Meaning, in simple terms, the bigger the company, the higher the salary. It’s a trend that isn’t specific to either sectors or roles. It’s consistent across the board, as evidenced by the data revealed in the survey.

While anyone who has worked in smaller not-for-profit organisations might laugh at this state of affairs, given the long hours and multi-tasking required to help and organisation stay on track when the operation is running on the smell of an oily rag, there are clear arguments in favour of this climb.

Higher incomes reflect higher levels of risk and responsibility that rise in line with an organisation’s size; risk management, a larger workforce, higher budgets and so on.

We also know larger organisations tend to have less flexibility than smaller more agile organisations. In the for purpose sector, where many not-for-profits working within the constraints of lean budgets are unable to compete with the comparatively higher salaries of their commercial, profit-oriented peers, incentives like flexible hours, location or hybrid working are often leveraged to provide competitive advantage.

Even as larger organisations in the private sector – examples include Coles and Woolworths – are starting to push back against come flexible work arrangements in the post-Covid era, there are also indications that smaller organisations may actually increase flexible arrangements over the next 12 months. Larger organisations blame decreased productivity and innovation for the walk-back, while smaller organisations say it gives them a competitive advantage and happier staff. (Here is source for this paragraph if you want it though I understand if you don’t want to link to it! https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/qld-business/bosses-flag-big-change-to-workfromhome-in-next-12-months/news-story/5a93d4ab328e2255466114fa71adf482)

No large Australian not-for-profit organisations seem to have indicated publicly as yet that they will tread a similar path, but it can’t be ruled out as organisations navigate the new status quo.

It should be noted that the gaps between salaries in line with organisation size are not always sizeable. For example, the Pro Bono Salary Survey for 2025 shows the difference between an average salary for a communications officer a $2 to $5 million company and one working at a company worth over $50 million sits at around $13,000 per year.

If we’re right to say that increased salary is to compensate the employee for increased responsibly, risk and stress, is the trade-off worth it? What would be worth it? Or should the employee be able to make that choice? Should there be options within employment offers that reflect the needs of the employee?

The magical unicorn for anyone is to find a job where there is a comfortable balance between remuneration reflecting value or skillset and flexible working arrangements that support a healthy work-life balance. This is particularly true for working women, who commonly take on a higher proportion of the domestic load.

The question for both employers and staff is where the priorities lie and how to balance them from both perspectives.