The skills index: what GCCs actually paid for AI talent this quarter
Band-by-band movement across IT and AI & Data roles, drawn from placements closed in Q1.
Draft. Figures marked like this are illustrative and pending verification against Recruise placement data & Sachith sign-off before publication.
Key takeaways
- This index reads band-by-band movement across IT and AI & Data roles, drawn from placements we actually closed in Q1 — not survey intentions.
- The clearest movement wasn’t at the top of the market — it was in the mid-senior bands, where judgment-heavy AI roles bid against each other.
- Every figure here is drawn from closed placements and pending sign-off before it’s published as a number.
Why closed placements beat survey numbers.
Most compensation commentary on AI talent is built on what companies say they intend to pay. This index is built on what they did pay — the offers that closed, for real roles, at real numbers, across the IT and AI & Data placements we completed in Q1. Intention drifts; a closed offer is a fact. That distinction is the whole reason to read a placement-based index rather than a survey.
It also means the picture is narrower and sharper. We’re not claiming to describe the entire market — we’re reporting the bands we actually moved talent through, and where within them the money went this quarter. Where we cite a specific figure, it’s wrapped and awaiting sign-off; the direction of movement, though, is drawn straight from the desk.
“We don’t report what the market says it will pay. We report what closed. A signed offer is the only compensation data that can’t argue with you.”
Sachith Rai · MD & Founder, Recruise
Where the movement actually was.
The headline story people expected — runaway premiums at the very top — wasn’t where the real movement sat this quarter. The sharper action was in the mid-senior bands, where AI & Data roles that carry judgment and ownership were bidding against each other. That’s consistent with what we’re seeing structurally: as routine work is assisted, the premium concentrates on the people who own the assisted system rather than operate it.
Within IT, the split was visible too — the roles that read as production softened relative to the roles that read as direction and review. It’s the same pattern the rest of our AI coverage keeps surfacing, now showing up in the numbers on the offers rather than just in the shape of the reqs. The band-by-band detail is in the full index.
How to read it against your own bands.
The index is most useful held against your own structure. If your bands were set before this movement, the risk isn’t just paying under market at the top — it’s mis-pricing the mid-senior judgment roles that are quietly where the competition is now. Those are the offers most likely to be declined for a reason that never makes it into your data.
Use the movement here to pressure-test the bands you’ll be hiring into next quarter, not to benchmark last quarter. And treat the specific figures as provisional until they’re signed off — the direction is reliable, the exact numbers are held to the same proof standard as everything we publish.
One pattern worth knowing, every week.
The Signal is our weekly read on the senior GCC talent market — one chart, one pattern, no noise. Written from live placement data.
More from Recruise Insights.
Most GCC AI pilots stall at the same place. Here's why.
We've mapped GenAI rollouts across the GCCs we work with. The failure mode is consistent — and it isn't the technology.
GenAI hires aren't the same as AI/ML hires. Most JDs miss it.
Three distinct profiles are being confused for one. The mis-hire rate is predictable. The fix is upstream of recruitment.
The roles AI is quietly creating inside GCCs
Not the ones in the headlines. The senior seats that appear when a function moves from doing the work to governing it.