Is Your CMO ‘Quiet Quitting’ — Because of the CFO’s Paycheck?

A lopsided paycheck in the C-suite may be quietly stalling company performance.

That’s the costly lesson from a new paper by Kimberly A. Whitler, the Frank M. Sands Sr. Associate Professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, that explores how  compensation for chief marketing officers is set.

Drawing on more than two decades of data from 457 U.S. public firms, Whitler and colleagues Hui Feng of Iowa State University and Michael Wiles of W.P. Carey School of Business argue that CMOs care more about how their pay stacks up against colleagues inside the firm, especially the CFO, than against industry benchmarks. When their paycheck falls short of the CFO’s, revenue growth takes a hit.

The paper, “Chief Marketing Officer Pay: The Revenue Growth Consequences of Employing Internal and External Benchmarks,” was published earlier this year in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. The research arms boards and compensation committees with a new approach for determining C-suite compensation, excluding the CEO.

“The key question we are addressing with this research is: How do you design CMO compensation so that it motivates the chief marketing officer to operate in the best interests of sustainable, long-term growth for the firm,” says Whitler.

She adds: “Since CEOs only have external benchmarks to base compensation on, it is common for boards to only use external benchmarks for other C-level positions. This one-size-fits-all approach for executive compensation doesn’t make sense when CMOs may be more likely to compare against internal, versus external, benchmarks. Boards need to identify the appropriate benchmark for CMOs (and other non-CEO leaders) instead of defaulting to external peer benchmarks.”

Rethinking the CMO Pay Playbook

Companies often follow the same playbook for setting CMO pay as they do for the CEO: benchmark against peers.

“What has happened historically is what I call ‘the cascading effect,’” says Whitler. “The board is really focused on the CEO and, whatever process is right for the CEO is often replicated for the rest of the C-suite. When setting pay, the objective is to use benchmarks that are relevant."

For CEOs, since there isn’t an internal peer, it’s logical to set pay based on external benchmarks, such as the average pay of within-industry CEOs. "The approach used for the CEO — leveraging external benchmarks to say ‘peer’ — is transferred throughout the C-suite,” she adds.

On the surface, it’s a logical approach to benchmark to external peers — set the salary too low, and you risk missing out on top talent; set it too high, and you may be overpaying or shortchanging other priorities such as employee compensation and benefits. And since public companies must disclose the compensation of their top five highest-paid executives, including the CEO, it’s easy for CEOs to see what their peers are making.

It's not so straightforward when it comes to CMO pay.

While using external benchmarking may work for the CEO, the researchers found it’s a poor fit for determining CMO pay. Instead, they argue, internal benchmarks — especially the CFO’s pay — are a better guide.

“The CEO has no internal benchmark,” says Whitler. “To determine pay, you look outside the company at peer CEOs. But the CMO, CFO, CIO, and general counsel have internal benchmarks: each other.”

When Pay Feels Unfair, CMOs May ‘Quiet Quit’

Why do internal comparisons matter more to CMOs?

The answer lies in equity theory, which is all about whether or not employees feel they are being paid fairly.

The theory suggests that employees are motivated by a sense of fairness in their workplace, especially when it comes to pay relative to their contributions. When they feel underpaid relative to peers, their drive suffers.

CEOs don’t face this problem. As the singular leader of the firm, they lack an internal counterpart for comparison. But CMOs do.

How does this work for CMOs?

CMOs assess the fairness of their pay by comparing their inputs to outputs against a relevant referent. In essence, they compare their rewards (pay) relative to their effort relative to other people to determine whether their compensation is fair.

According to the researchers, when CMOs see that they’re earning less than a CFO they collaborate with closely — despite believing their contributions are comparable — it can trigger a sense of unfairness. That perceived imbalance may not lead to outright disengagement, but it can result in lower motivation and effort, ultimately hurting performance and, with it, revenue growth.

That’s significant, because a CMO’s main role is to develop and execute marketing strategies that drive top-line growth. In fact, research from Accenture shows that half of CEOs see CMOs as the primary driver of disruptive growth — and they’re often the first to be blamed when targets are missed. 

“What you start seeing is poor firm performance on the measure that marketers own: revenue,” says Whitler. “Our inference is that it’s affecting their motivation level. You can get ‘quiet quitting,’ where someone stays in their job, but they’re just not as motivated.”

As the researchers put it in their paper, “While we considered a number of potential internal peers, we found that the CFO was particularly salient for CMOs. When CMOs are paid below the CFO, there is a strong association with revenue growth (i.e., hampering growth), as such pay inequity can be particularly demotivating.”

What This Means for Boards and Compensation Committees

“All my research is designed to solve the central C-level problem of helping firms drive sustainable revenue growth,” says Whitler. “So, what’s the impact? If the number one challenge for a company is growth, you expect your CMO to lead growth, and your CMO is making much less than the CFO, something is amiss.”

Here’s what boards can do:

Ditch the one-size-fits-all model. Tailor C-suite compensation to each role’s context (expectations) and internal comps. Especially for public firms, assume that C-level leaders are reading the proxy and therefore know peer-level compensation. Make sure that within C-suite compensation makes sense relative to their peers and relative expectations of impact.

Make CFO pay the key reference point. For CMOs, align their pay more closely with internal peers, especially the finance chief.

Monitor pay equity within the C-suite. Be aware of the demotivating effects of pay disparities and address them proactively.

Ultimately, it’s not just about fairness, it’s about fueling performance. That starts with pay structures.

As Whitler puts it: “We need to think about constructing CMOs’ pay so that they are, at a minimum, not demotivated, but rather motivated to the maximum and aligned on the things that are going to engineer sustainable growth over time.”

In other words, if growth is the goal, motivation matters. And motivation starts with compensation that feels fair. “The way you pay your CMO,” Whitler adds, “should energize the strategy — not undercut it.”

Professor Kimberly A. Whitler is co-author of “Chief Marketing Officer Pay: The Revenue Growth Consequences of Employing Internal and External Benchmarks,” (2025) with Hui Feng of Iowa State University and Michael Wiles of W.P. Carey School of Business, published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.