Compensation analysis doesn't have to be a maze of nested IF statements and guesswork. The layered logic in this request, comparing years of service against tiered minimum salary thresholds, is exactly the kind of practical problem that deserves a clear, repeatable solution. It's not flashy, but it's real. And that's what makes it worth your attention.
What this means for you is straightforward: your data can do the heavy lifting if you give it the right structure. The example walks through three service bands, under three years, three to five, and five-plus, each with its own salary floor. The logic is simple: if current pay falls below the floor, return the shortfall; if it's above, say so; if it lands exactly on the boundary, count it as "within." That's not complicated. That's just clear thinking applied to a spreadsheet.
The real insight here is that you don't need a massive overhaul of your compensation system to get smarter answers. You need a formula that respects the way your organization actually works. Years of service is a fair, transparent starting point. Tying salary checks to that timeline gives you consistency without requiring a degree in data science. It's accessible, and it's actionable.
So the takeaway isn't about the specific numbers in this example, it's about the pattern. Layered IF logic, used well, turns a messy pile of employee data into a decision-ready output. It tells you who's underpaid, who's on target, and who's above the floor, all in one column. That's not a "revolutionary" feature. It's just good spreadsheet hygiene. And you can start using it today.