Bonus season has drawn to a close with a majority of execs seeing a boost in pay, but not as much of a boost as they may have hoped for. Now that Dodd-Frank requires say-on-pay votes at least every three years, the crusade to amend pay on Wall Street may be just heating up.

FierceFinance spoke with Constance Melrose, managing director of eFinancialCareers North America, about its recent survey of Wall Street compensation and this year's difficult bonus season.

FierceFinance: In addition to government and public pressure, are there internal forces scrutinizing Wall Street compensation?

Melrose: This is an extrapolation with what we see in the data. I think from an internal perspective, there's a self-reinforcing mechanism, as staff gets more frequently used and more fundamentally used. It becomes a more important component of compensation as employees become closer aligned with shareholders. More differentiation of bonus and more recognition of long tail risk mean the employee is taking on more risk.

The other internal pressure is retention. In our survey we ask how many people are looking to change firms and 37 percent are looking to change. Even people who got higher bonuses, 20 percent were still dissatisfied. So, retention becomes issue, and that's where you get an internal focus.

Demand has been rising (evidenced by an increase in job postings on our site), so if you know you have retention risk and governance risk, the internal pressure is you need to get it right because you need to retain your most talented employees.

FierceFinance: Beyond the slow pace of recovery, what other factors do you think may have made bonus season difficult for financial firms?

Melrose: Both regulatory scrutiny and the need to deal with potential retention issues--those two things made this bonus season difficult. There were more factors and more hurdles that firms had to hit to get it right. Another thing, particularly if you use more stock in compensation structure, is that employees have to believe in the company's ability to perform in the long haul--they become more aligned with shareholders. So, firms have to communicate even better with employees about the strength of their own organizations' performances.

FierceFinance: Did any of the survey responses surprise you?

Melrose: One thing that was not necessarily surprising, but we had to think it through was that on average bonuses were down but more than half got more pay. How do we reconcile that arithmetically? Our interpretation was the more senior the person, the higher the bonus--that makes sense since there's longevity in the industry. And the more senior the person is, the higher their job level, the more responsibility they have, and the higher the pay. So, it may well be that more of the senior people shouldered a bit more of the recalibrating that needed to be done among bonuses to keep in line with factors.

FierceFinance: What does the average 5 percent drop in bonuses reveal about Wall Street's "pay-for-performance" approach?

Melrose: It shows that it's there because business has been good. And we know that because more than half of respondents reported bonus increases, so clearly something is going on with pay-for-performance and differentiating. Given that demand has been strengthening through the year, there's pretty good reason to think it's a going to be a tougher year. That tells us, in order to keep everyone in line, firms really had to focus on pay-for-performance. It's showing that firms are demonstrating that they get it.

FierceFinance: How has bonus satisfaction changed year-over-year?

Melrose: Last year, 44 percent of Wall Street respondents were satisfied with their bonus payments, 16 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 40 percent were dissatisfied with what they took home.

FierceFinance: With 37 percent of U.S. employees expecting to change firms, what can firms do to improve retention?

Melrose: Back in October we did a bonus expectation survey and asked people how important money is to their decision to work on Wall Street. Most people not on the Street would have guessed 100 percent, but 37 percent said it is most important and 61 percent said it's important but not the most. That response also tends to differ between larger firms, which are always subject to more regulatory scrutiny, compared to boutique banks which are not so much in the spotlight.

So, with that backdrop, recognizing that compensation is clearly important (and to some, most important), firms must know their employees and what motivates them on personal level. A Wall Street employee once said, "I get paid with what I earn, with what I learn--about my craft and business--and with the relations I get to build."

And firms must also know that challenge is important to Wall Street. If you know you need to retain employees and you know who they are and what they bring to the firm, then what can you do provide challenges and advancement in their profession?

FierceFinance: Why do you think the highest bonuses went to those in investment banking, foreign exchange and derivatives? Is it simply market performance or are there other dynamics at play?

Melrose: The people in those groups are more likely to be front-office. There's been very strong demand for banking, and more recently stronger demand in trader, debt-fixed income and capital markets. Those are revenue-generating areas in the firm, with a lot more clarity about financial structure.

FierceFinance: Any additional thoughts on the future of Wall Street bonuses?

Melrose: The trend depends on so many things. However, I do think that more careful attention to compensation structure will be here for a while. What that means in terms of up or down, no one knows. But this type of thoughtfulness and the focus on trying to meet competing needs will be around for a while.

This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.