"Are there some extra responsibilities I can take on to advance my career here?" - That seems a good way to get a lot of extra work with no benefits and a loose date where management will 'revise' whether you are fulfilling it or whether the raise date needs to be bumped further out (the latter usually occurs).
I found the 4 tips on what not to do well written and useful for people earlier in their career. I didn't get a lot from this article for when you find pushback against raises (very common) especially when we're in an industry that fully rewards job hopping and has a wholly broken promotion/retention eco-system.
Taking the liberty of removing the superlatives, I think this is very true, and arguably more interesting than the article:
> rewards job hopping and has a broken promotion/retention system
Has anybody seen something successfully done about this? I mean, we know about vesting and we know that interesting work keeps good people, etc., but I'm curious what there is that isn't widely known which has been seen to shift this issue.
Basecamp appears to be successfully managing this. If you look at their "About Us"[1] page, you see a lot of people who've been there for quite a while. Their solution appears to be:
1. Pay a lot of money: "Our target is to pay everyone at the company in the 95th percentile, or top 5%, of the market, regardless of their role."[2] Previously that was benchmarked to Chicago prices; as of late 2017, that's benchmarked to San Francisco prices.[3]
2. Offer an excellent benefits package that actually benefits people (i.e. isn't just an unused ping-pong table/game console and the promise of "great culture!").[4] Something specifically noticeable is that they offer the kind of benefits that maybe aren't big selling points when you're younger, but that become increasingly enticing as you get older, and especially if you have kids - a fantastic parental leave policy, good retirement policy, short summer weeks.
3. Respect your employees and treat them like adults. Harder to quantify, but if you click around their handbook[5], you see a lot of things that boil down to "We trust you to do the right thing, even in a very independent setting. We won't be looking over your shoulder constantly." I think that's a really scary idea for some people, and a really attractive proposition for others. If you find people who are in that latter group in your hiring process, I suspect it makes it easier to keep them around when most other jobs are not going to involve that level of trust.
The idea of "interesting work keeps good people" - I dunno about that. It's hard to say what's interesting work. It's easy to say "adding new endpoints to a CRUD app" is not interesting, but for some people it might be, or at least it might be "sufficiently interesting" to make a career of it. I have friends in FinTech for whom tracking the market actually brings them joy, and I'm happy for them, but when I try to watch their screen while they tell me about what they're doing, my eyes start to glaze over. I don't know if what Basecamp does counts as "interesting work" for most people, but it seems like it's interesting enough, and the other parts of the company are good enough, for a lot of people to want to stay there for quite some time.
Basecamp pays well, but from a couple people I know with firsthand knowledge, they don't pay so well that it explains low turnover. They may pay a lot better now, but still that wouldn't explain low turnover over the life of the company.
It seems probable to me that what makes Basecamp retention powerful is a combination of:
(1) Work-from-anywhere remote
(2) A culture people enjoy working in
(3) An extremely selective recruiting process with very low hiring tempo
An important thing to remember is that there are aren't a lot of truly excellent full-remote gigs at high-status companies out there. The fact that Basecamp doesn't hire often might mean that if you leave, you're not likely to get your seat back if things don't work out at your next gig.
#2 is one of the reasons I'm where I am now - I have a young child, and my wife has been sick a fair amount this year, so a fairly liberal vacation policy has been a godsend.
I know what you mean. We are having yearly adjustments to our paycheck. But more importantly we have not only the trust to do good work and are able to do Home-Office and necessary vacations (especially in times of need) without any ado.
So I know why I am staying and not in any need to look for something else.
They are explicitly missing equity compensation in their pay calculation for #1, so you are taking a pay cut working for basecamp compared to say facebook or netflix. #2 is also present in FANG companies. I would say #3 to an extent too.
FANG has the same "problem" as the video game industry: it is inundated with applicants and can afford to be highly selective and selective in ways that are literally irrelevant to the jobs they have available. Generally for well qualified candidates who don't want to (or in some sense can't) jump through their hoops it's better to work elsewhere: the compensation difference isn't that significant in most cases.
It’s also a way to show the employer that you can accomplish more and be rewarded without having the employer risk raising a salary. It’s also a differentiator from your peers who may also want a raise.
There is a risk that your employer can take advantage, but then if you have a jerk employer, you will suffer in other ways as well. The added responsibilities will make it even easier to find a new position.
I can definitely speak to that last sentence. I recently quit my job for various reasons, and way too many responsibilities for a 2 person team was one of them. We had enough work for 6 people, and things were always on fire because we weren't allowed to make infrastructure maintenance a higher priority than shipping the product -- it was excruciating!
Now when I am interviewing, and explaining the breadth of my previous responsibilities, instead of whining about it ("ugh I was sooo overworked") I use it to my advantage ("It was challenging, but I learned a lot, and now I feel I'm better at managing my time/planning skills as a result")
If you want a pay rise find a job offer with a higher salary. Go to your current manager and ask them to match. If they don't leave and go to the higher paying job.
I think that's the only way to get a pay rise nowadays, aside from small yearly raises like 2-3%
If you don't have another offer and aren't willing to walk away, you really have no leverage to ask for more money.
I am sure that some people in some industries have success with this but there's always the risk that whoever asks for a raise in this way is going to get targeted for a staff-cut, months later, after the alternative opportunity has been passed up.
The way to do it is to look for another job and then just take that opportunity or aim for a promotion/pay-raise/departmental-shift like everyone else.
That depends on how much one is risking by putting their boss on the spot for an out-of-band/ultimatum raise. People can get very vindictive in response to being forced by aggressive moves like that.
If they're paying you so low that you must have a thick raise, it is probably better to go elsewhere.
"Hey, Tom. ZipCo offered me a great position with a AB% raise. I really like the new role, but I'd prefer to stay here if we can make it work. What can we do to bridge the gap? Oh, by the way, they'd like an answer by Friday, but I'm sure I can put them off for another week."
That makes it clear that you have an offer, but would stay if the current company can match or exceed it without being too "in your face" about it. It's just business, most managers are not going to take it personally.
That might go over OK in small shops where the manager is the owner or very close to the top.
In reality, in a company of hundreds of people, that just isn't going to go smooth. Firstly because raises are performed in lock-step with annual performance reviews. Asking for a raise outside of the annual performance review time window really puts stress on the boss and casts the employee into a prima-donna.
Much better to have a frank discussion about salary if it is a problem and maintain an authentic dialog with the boss about career progression. If that isn't possible then jump ship, because it's only a matter of time before you're obsolete. The best way to keep oneself in "top-condition" as far as salary is to regularly interview and talk with potential employers and keep the professional network maintained. This way you know what you're worth and you can consider other opportunities on a regular basis in a way that is under your control.
Pulling a stunt where you force an employer to give you an "emergency" raise on your timetable might work once and for a short time at the expense of permanently damaging trust.
So I'm going to respond to one thing that stuck out to me, this is my anecdotal response to:
> because raises are performed in lock-step with annual performance reviews. Asking for a raise outside of the annual performance review time window really puts stress on the boss
so I used to think this was how things were done at my last job (mid-size ~150-200 employee company), this was the impression they liked to put out, but the reality was they would go out of their way to retain/raise people if they deserved it or were going to lose the employee (some people took advantage of this situation).
Personally, I'm not a fan of these (as you put it) "prima-donna" games unless I really think something is deserved/owed[1], luckily for everybody I was happy with my annual boosts so never did try them.
[1] I was once promoted outside of the annual cycle without asking
It's not that simple. Higher paid employees who received raises organically or by asking (based off of this article) are less likely to get cut compared to employees who threaten with separate offers.
I think "threaten" is the wrong word in an at-will employment context where the employee can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason, barring exceptional circumstances involving discrimination. I'd rather view it as someone requesting a market rate salary, with proof of what constitutes market rate. Moreover, the employee didn't have to give you a chance to retain them at all. They already have an offer -- they could have instead told you that today is their last day and good luck.
If a valued employee came to me showing that he or she had received a large raise from another company and they really don't want to go but don't see how they can turn down the money, rather than resenting them I'd wonder (1) why were we underpaying a great employee at all? (2) why did we create a culture where they felt like they couldn't discuss this without another offer in hand?
Yes, this. I've seen it happen on several occasions.
Also: Let's say you use this tactic to strongarm the current employer into giving you a raise. But that won't make you happy. You looked for a different job because this one did not fulfill you -- and most of the time, the dissatisfaction is not money related.
If you aren't happy with the current gig, leave. If you like your job but feel you deserve more money, help the current employer recognize that and respond to it.
If you don't get more money and then don't leave then the employer has no incentive to give you more money. Wanting more money is by definition disloyal.
exactly. loyalty in employer’s eyes is to work as much as possible for as little as possible and not leave. if you require more from employer it can be interpreted as disloyalty. on yhe other hand, when employer fires employee, it’s just business.
No one talented and smart is loyal by that definition. If you get a raise, you have insurance against cutbacks, and the confidence to know you can get another job.
I wouldn't even bother asking for a raise. If the company's management is too screwed up to comp employees correctly the company is a sinking ship [sorry misspelled that the first time] anyway.
I’ve worked for lots of companies that I really liked but it is just sooo much easier to go someplace else that values you more than to ask for a raise.
This is true, but if you've already found a better offer with more money and you actually want to make the move, shouldn't you just make the move? Counter-offers seem... too late in the process.
Why did the company not pay you that to begin with? Why are they countering now, only after you got the new number? Do you really want to work for a company that undervalues you?
The answer might be "yes I love the tech and the mission so this lever is just what I needed" but I think you'll also find the underlying questions problematic.
This was written by an external marketing person that was asked by HPE to write articles that position HPE in a certain way. This gentleman has written about:
- salary rises
- IoT basics
in articles "how to / pitfalls", "how and how not to", "30+ conferences", "7 tips". I'm a bit puzzled they employing others to do this type of positioning. Blogs were once about speaking with your voice. Dave and Hewlett were hands on and straight. As an ex HPL I don't want to think what they would say about this.
Ironically, the author of the article is best known as a humorist (a really good one too). They perhaps could not find someone in-house to write an HPE-career-advice article with a straight face, so they had to outsource it?
Funny story, while working for a large company in 2012, that may or may not have written this article. I followed these exact steps on the advice (via podcast) of Merlin Mann who talked about how a sane person gets a raise and keeps their dignity and job.
I didn't get the raise.
Two months later I took a better paying job at a different company. Upon putting in my two weeks notice, the management came to me and asked "Why didn't you bring a competing offer, we would have given you a raise if you did?" and then offered to give me a raise in order to stay on. They also said it was common in the industry.
I was happy to leave after this. I wouldn't change anything I did, leaving was the best thing I've ever done for my career.
If you feel like you are providing more value than your employer is paying you for and they won't give you a raise. Then apply at other companies and ask for the rate you want. If you are worth what you think you're worth you will get a job offer close to that rate, otherwise you won't and you'll learn the value that the market places on your skills.
> If you feel like you are providing more value than your employer is paying you for and they won't give you a raise. Then apply at other companies and ask for the rate you want. If you are worth what you think you're worth you will get a job offer close to that rate, otherwise you won't and you'll learn the value that the market places on your skills.
This has matched with my experience every single time. At almost every job I've worked at in the last 20 years it's been:
* get hired at X because it was MN% higher than what I last had
* learn new skills
* get promoted without a pay increase or with a < 2% pay increase
* ask for a raise stating my accomplishments and promotion
* get pissed off and leave for MN% increase
* repeat
At this point in my life I've just stopped asking for raises altogether. It's simpler and easier to just go elsewhere.
Hate to say it but I think if you have to ask for a raise you're probably not going to get it (or won't get as much as you want).
I've seen companies let bonafide rockstars with the most domain knowledge in the group walk over money. I just don't get it. It's like someone in the HR industry made up this rule and bad companies stick to it for whatever reason. I'd go as far as saying the majority of the attrition I've seen has been money related, and all of my decisions to bounce have been motivated by money.
Companies will spend $100k+ on Christmas parties, sport box suites, and other marketing/sales related things but won't give a critical piece of the team an extra $25k or whatever? Just mind boggling.
The thing that makes me think the system is broken is how they'll avoid larger raises at all costs even if it means losing great engineers with lots of domain knowledge.
The cost of replacing this is immense to an organisation, even if they can hire a similarly skilled engineer they've:
1. Had to absorb hiring costs
2. Search in a competitive market for talent
3. Distract team members with another round of interviews
4. On-boarding costs whilst the engineer absorbs all the lost domain knowledge. (This is the big one).
Once all that is taken into account it's probably getting close to a full yearly salary of the engineer they just let walk. I still feel it takes a good 3-6 months for an engineer on complex domain projects to really feel comfortable regardless of their seniority.
It's definitely broken. It doesn't help that a lot of the cost of hiring is born in externalities - it's difficult to measure the cost of the time spent screening and interviewing and thinking about prospects, or the cost of the extra 15 or 30 or 60 minutes of Googling/reading the codebase/chasing bad ideas that the rest of the team has to do to replace having that knowledge sitting next to them in the form of a person, or the technical debt accrued when the next thing you build is implemented in a slightly worse form than it could be.
This is spot on. The argument is probably that the 100k will benefit "everyone" where as the raise only benefits that one person. Where in reality that raise most likely has a much better ROI.
> Company management may accept with varying levels of ease employees voluntarily sharing salary info with each other.
May accept? No, in the US, they have to accept it (unless the employees are supervisors or working for one of the few exempt industries such as railroads or airlines; even then, other laws may apply). See https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights.
Threatening to quit is one of the best pieces of advice. Just be prepared to follow through or swallow it and shut up if it doesn't go your way. But for lots of bigger companies, they can't or won't without a thread like this.
There's a lot of talk about this, including in the article. But I would suggest that it is somewhat distasteful to outright threaten to quit, when you can be more subtle about it. Diplomacy is about making sure both parties win. And in this scenario, remember that your boss and the company are two separate entities, with differing agendas.
The biggest danger in threatening to quit is that you only really get to use it once with a particular company, and even then you should really think about how your company would respond. I've worked with management teams that were quick to put someone into the "unreliable" bucket as soon as they threatened to quit, avoiding placing them on critical projects and focusing on making them redundant. Even in some cases with non-malicious intentions.
The only people left would be the 'reliable' people. Never mind the people of who can actually do the job. Oh, and the managers. This sounds exactly like the real hpe.
I was talking about this with some co-workers the other day. This article focuses on salary, but consider that sometimes what you want may be extra vacation time or personal days. They may be more acceptable to some managers.
That feels like a consolation prize. And it does not seem like good currency when you change jobs (especially for companies that demand current salary information).
I would say that unless you are underpaid for your position, then extra time off is the prize. Most research shows that time is happiness, not money. Having extra time off to spend with family/friends is what is going to make you happy in life. An extra $10K/year isn't going to make a difference if you don't have time to spend it.
I don't necessarily disagree, but two small counter points:
1. It's now illegal in California for employers to ask for salary history.
2. Vacation days, if they're not unlimited, are compensation and must be paid out if you leave. That's not base salary with which you can negotiate a higher offer at another company, but it is money.
Yeah, I've wondered (figured) if that's part of the motivation. That and they can just shame people into taking none. Not a fan unless the company is super trustworthy, which is hard to gauge.
Totally, even within the same company it can vary. I worked some place where engineering was really good about encouraging people to take time off and lots of upper management set a good example with unlimited PTO. However, I had heard that sales and consulting weren't as encouraged.
It can work well, but I think it comes down more to the your manager/org than the overall company (assuming we're talking about a large enough company for there to be disparate orgs). We have unlimited PTO and I think I took 7-8ish weeks last year—including spending pretty much all of November in New Zealand. Nobody had an issue with it.
OTOH, I know of people in the company who struggle to take more than two weeks.
During my last job search I would point-blank ask the hiring manager how much PTO they and their reports took in the last year.
#2 is not entirely true. It appears that in the U.S this is a state law that can vary by state. In Arizona it seems that they leave this up to the employer which means obviously they will choose not to pay out that balance.
I was told, years ago, that when you are negotiating salary for a new job, and they say, "Sorry, $x is the most we can offer," you should ask for another week of vacation. At that point it seems (to them) cheap to say No, so you have a relatively good chance of getting it.
I'd think it would apply equally to asking for a raise, though I haven't tried it.
This is the "standard" advice. However, I recently heard something that does the exact opposite.
Make a list of nontangibles. As a reference, look up the benefits people get (by law) in countries like Sweden, France, Denmark, etc. Stuff like minimum 4-5 weeks vacation, 6 months paid medical leave when you have a kid, etc.
Then ask for one or two of them. Don't be a jerk about it. Just say it would be really important for you to have it. Mildly make it a problematic point (i.e. don't say "yes" to the offer - just keep asking).
They most likely are not going to give you them (in the US). Since these are hard to give, but not unreasonable (so many countries give them), they will not get offended. After a few back and forths, they may come to you and say "Look, I'm sorry we cannot give you X, but would you be willing to accept an increase in pay as a substitute?"
So don't ask for a salary and settle for vacation (unless that's what you really want). Ask for a lot of vacation, and settle for more money.
Yes I guess it's highly subjective. And being from the UK where we have 28 days by law, for me personally, each extra day is probably worth less in comparison
Don't give them current salary. If they won't hire you, you're better off.
Instead, add a (reasonable) raise to your current salary, then add another X percentage just in case you don't get a raise for a couple years. Hand the hiring company that figure.
At some giant mega-corps. Others operate a 'grade' system, where there is a hard limit on salary for each grade, and you will need to be promoted before a raise is possible.
My problem with the article is that if you try to follow all of that advice, you are left with no real leverage to work with, and the sad reality of the vast majority of jobs is that you will not get a raise unless you have leverage.
If I had to compile my own advice, which is inevitably incomplete but I think gives more actionable advice than the article, I'd say:
1. Don't openly criticize your colleagues. Word tends to get around and it erodes their trust in you.
2. Don't threaten. That makes your manager defensive, which is counterproductive. You can imply your dissatisfaction and your manager will infer the risk of losing you, but threatening to leave tends to get a defensive reaction.
3. If you are trying to be less underpaid, then approach it from a perspective of fair compensation for the work that you do. Do not hide that you think it's unfair, but also make sure that you're well-justified in thinking it's unfair.
4. If you are trying to get paid more despite being fairly compensated, then have a discussion about where you have to up your game to earn more.
""If every staff member met with their boss simply for a chat and received a raise as a result, there would be a lot of high-paid salaries and complacency among staff," says Steve Pritchard, an HR consultant for Cuuver"
Well to quote Mandy Rice Davies well "he would say that wouldn't he" Just Paroting the HR line is not that helpful for an employee looking fro a raise.
Achieve some level of financial security (say 6-12 months savings), then just do whatever you want.
The hard part is the former. Once you've done that the negotiation bit is trivial because you don't really need to care - you can just take it as a given that eventually you'll be paid more (unless you're taken ill and stop/slow down working).
The difficult scenario is if you really enjoy your job. I work at a company that I have almost nothing to complain about... flexible, great benefits, no micromanagement, challenging and stimulating work. However, I do feel that I am slightly underpaid. It is hard to _really_ know what the environment would be like at a new company if I was willing to walk. I guess the hard thing (for me) is quantifying the importance of the other factors besides money.
That's your good mental health right there. That's worth a fortune. I'd never threaten to walk out on a job like that. This is where the article's advice is more useful than the commenters' :)
>That's your good mental health right there. That's worth a fortune. I'd never threaten to walk out on a job like that.
I used to think that way, but in general, the situation will change. You can have a this awesome job for N years, and then management can change and you'll be miserable.
I think it's always better to be in a position where you know you can easily move if things go south. If your current awesome job is also making you grow, then great! If, however, it's too comfortable and you cannot differentiate yourself well, you will not be able to move easily once things go south.
>It is hard to _really_ know what the environment would be like at a new company if I was willing to walk
You should seriously consider interviewing at other companies, where you should directly ask your interviewers questions about these topics, explain why you value them in your current role, and ask how this new company handles the same things. You can find stimulating work at a lot of places if you look hard enough...
Similar position. I have some complaints, but otherwise I do like my job a lot and am proud of my work, but I also don't have many options in my area. My boss was rather surprised when I told him I can't afford an apartment and still save money, though.
don't worry about it. You aren't underpaid because your job has other benefits that are worth a small amount of money. Or look around for a competitive job that has similar benefits and better pay
I think all of those are difficult for anyone. walking away is a huge risk especially if you screw up on 1 & 2. Knowing your value is very hard to do.
But the one nobody has called out, which I think is the hardest, is number 1. Knowing what your employer finds valuable is a difficult proposition. And in a lot of cases the line between value and liability is thin and nondeterministic.
Part of knowing your value is to occasionally respond to recruiters on LinkedIn and go on interviews. It's good practice anyways, even if you're happy in your job.
Some of the best advice I ever got was to do interviews even if you don't think you'll get the job, or even just for practice. It's like going to the doctor; you just have to go do it sometimes, and it can be surprisingly good long-term.
> Knowing what your employer finds valuable is a difficult proposition
Yes. But you probably have an idea how to reduce the number of headaches for your manager, and how to make him or her look better in front of that person's own manager.
You may go unrecognized for a while be keep doing it because eventually you'll be that person that your manager really doesn't want to loose. That's value.
While I tend to agree if you are going unrecognized and your manager is inept there is a good chance that you are not being seen as valuable to the company and therefore missing #1. That is why I think it is a difficult one. I have also seen the opposite problem though where an employee felt they were providing tons of value and their managers felt the same way, but their peers and other teams found them to be a burden. When that employee left the company there was a bump in productivity and general happiness on many teams. In the end they were providing the wrong things and the value they thought they were providing was actually a deficit. That could be an edge case, but does illustrate that it's not easy to merely make yourself valuable. You must also prove that the value you think you are providing is actual value.
Yes I should have qualified my comment in that I assumed a functional and healthy manager. Optimizing for a dysfunctional one would lead to what you describe.
Disregard down votes, this is 100% correct. I only add:
Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Realize smart people undervalue themselves, and dumb people overvalue themselves. Remember that if only dumb people ask for a promotion, one of them gets it. If you're a good employee, always shoot a little above your worth to compensate.
People are whining that it's hard to know your value, that people are timid, and many people can't walk.
I agree, and that's why they're underpaid. It's not your boss's fault if you're uninformed, timid, or scared to ask for a raise. Do what you need to do to improve your bargaining position. Then leverage it.
Thr vast majority of the supposed "wage gap" is that men feel compelled to climb the hierarchy. They take more risks asking for raises and positions- even if they aren't qualified, and even at the expense of work life balance. You can do that too, if you want the money.
My company dangled the carrot.
The job became so mundane that I wrote my own tools to do alot of repetitive tasks.
I understood my value, as I was doing 80% of the team's work first year.
2nd year, I procrastinated, put in 50% effort, still outperformed my team mates.
There were "senior" members that I quadrupled output.
I am probably overqualified for my role.
I asked for raise, as I'm undervalued of what I can do.
I was a lil cocky, but true, that I coasted and still outperformed everyone.
I gave them 3 months to show they value me, as I had offers from other teams and a bunch of people were leaving to other local companies.
I said all the thanks, kudos, awards, and even titles are meaningless.
I want to get paid, that's all that matters.
The more I get paid, the more I am willing to do.
Took 3.5 months, they gave me a raise and a promotion doing slightly different things so not so borinh
> 2nd year, I procrastinated, put in 50% effort, still outperformed my team mates.
This echoes my response when I feel undervalued. The first year I give at least 100% to assess my impact compared to my peers. If I'm leaps and bounds ahead I dial it back _significantly_ until I just barely exceed the expectations set for other people. If they can be there for x years working at such a slow pace, I don't need to make them look considerably worse, especially if my compensation below market rate. Just for reference, so far I've yet to make market rate for a base salary. Things like working from home on Fridays are a perk that does have a monetary and mental value but perks rarely put food on the table by themselves.
In an ideal situation, companies would be able to spot your max performance, watch it decline and immediately work with you to rectify it. Maybe you picked up a new meth habit but chances are if you're like us, you're merely adjusting your output to match their perceived monetary input (however truthful that may be).
This is not to say that I don't work with my peers to try to enhance their productivity levels. I don't feel I'm a unicorn by any means, I'm just really good at being really lazy and awkwardly enough using proper tooling means I can be both lazy and extremely productive at the same time.
If you don't have any alternative and aren't willing to quit, your value is what you're getting paid currently.
You can bluff your way to a higher value but without leverage (other offer, willingness to walk) that's all it is-- a bluff that might or might not be called.
Your value is what you earn for your company. The difference between your value and your compensation is the surplus value the company collects from your labor.
The company's goal is to maximize aggregate surplus value. Salary and wage based negotiation is a zero sum game until you add commissions, stock options, profit sharing.
I think people are getting bogged down by the word "value". Let's use "negotiating leverage" instead. For salary negotiations, what matters is your alternatives.
They are already getting that value that you define out of you. If they pay you half, the value you provide is still the same. The question is "Are you going to keep working for them, or do you have better options?"
The number that matters is the difference between what you can get elsewhere, and the value you provide.
Your value is what your company is able to extract from your labor. Doing the exact same stuff for multiple companies would give different levels of "value" to the same person. The further you are away from sales or high-level executive decision making, the harder it is to demonstrate clear value to people who make 'value' decisions.
If you don't have alternative offers, your cost is probably very close to your value. Otherwise a competitor could offer you a higher salary and still collect a little surplus value.
In tech, when your employer hires you as an engineer, they hope they're getting 10x your cost back in value each year, at a minimum a startup needs to get 2x return to cover debt obligations with growth, on average they get 3-5x. You can get a rough estimate (with profit or earnings as a proxy for capital growth) by looking up a company's (or sector's) profit per employee.
These are averages and not reflective of engineering roles.
Walmart: ~5-6k profit per employee (Q3)
Exxon: 176k profit per employee (Q3)
Facebook[0]: 1.7M profit per employee (Q3)
Apple: 522k profit per employee (Q3)
Internet Services & Social Media sector average: 497k profit per employee
Internet Services & Social Media sector average: 2.1M revenue per employee
A competitor can/should/will try to steal you from your current employer with a higher compensation if they can extract good surplus value from you, relative to anyone else. The last part (relative to anyone else) is the crux of the situation, everyone selling their labor is doing so at a massive discount because of the competition in the labor pool. You can't actually demand anything close to your value because somebody else will undercut you.
The people/firms that can demand the highest percentage of their
value as compensation are those with the most unique skills, those for whom few alternatives in the pool exist.
That's why all 3 steps are necessary, I know plenty of people who fill step 1 and step 3 but never do step 2 - so they just end up leaving instead of getting a raise.
Job hop. I've had one time in my life when I got a raise as good as changing jobs. The way to manage your career is to see each job as a step.
Companies are full of management from junior to executive, who are good at making problems someone else's. Not actually solving them. They love to make their financials improve on the backs of the rank and file, rather than their own skill, then compensate for lower pay will with guilt trip fantasies about loyalties. Then treat people: employees, contractors, customers, vendors, doesn't matter, like toilet paper. Your real boss is you.
I don't agree, I think you should. You're selling your labor, you need to know what the market price is. The article says that you don't know why the other employees are earning more, and that's a valid point. Only way to know what it is that your employer values more in other people? Ask your employer about it. If it's something tangible, like education, certificates, landing an important account, good deliveries on time or something like that you know what you need to get a raise. If your employer comes up short with reasons for why you're paid less than your peers you have the perfect argument for a raise.
It could be that I'm Swedish though because it's rather common and not taboo to do this research before asking for a raise. Why do you think we're way ahead of the US in income equality between genders?
Former HPE employee. Manager asked if i have any offer letters when asked for raise. Actually my manager really was a kind of guy who can not lie or cover so much. I understood immediately this is a standard thing and also it made sense. From an employer stand point only about 20 % might have an offer letter from another org and the rest 80 % are too lazy to go to interviews and get offer letters. It works for them.
> Finally, don't lead with how long it's been since your last raise, says Valerie Streif, a senior advisor at Thementat.com, a San Francisco-based organization for job seekers. "This starts off the conversation with a tone of entitlement and shifts the focus away from your achievements. Instead, it reveals that you expect the raise solely due to the amount of time you've been in your position."
Right, because experience has no impact on your expected value in the job market. I think managers should read some articles on how to not lose valuable employees.
From my experience, these people always tend to be the one talking about raises or becoming management the most. Can barely do their job, 6 years in, still barely can do their job, but think they deserve the world.
This advice is pretty ridiculous for someone with in-demand talents. I get it if you are in some highly-replaceable role, or you are looking to swing the work-life balance more towards life and you want to just play by the rules and keep your head down.
But if you are a talented contributor and you believe in the value you add, you probably shouldn't listen to any of these points, they are heavily "company-centric" in focus.
>1. Don't make it all about you
Unless I have a significant equity stake, this literally IS just about me and my employment arrangement with the company. It's frustrating to be told that my salary is dependent on equity value increasing - which I won't see any piece of. Shouldn't it be dependent on my value to the company and not the value of the company itself?
>2. Don't compare yourself to your co-workers
Why the fuck not? This is standard corp-speak for "don't rock the boat, man." They also describe looking at coworker salaries in the HR system (they say "use" not "hack" or "break into" the system) as "illicit." This is the same old nonsense about not discussing salaries to keep the power with the company.
>3. Don't make promises you can't (or don't want to) keep
This is condescending and basically amounts to "don't threaten to quit because that's not professional." How about we start looking at why people are being pushed to a point where they feel like threatening to quit is their only option?
>4. Don't ask too soon
Bullshit. As soon as you feel that your value has measurably increased you should ask to be compensated for it. You shouldn't have to work 1.5 times the hours/workload for 2 years or some shit just to be considered for a raise/promotion. There's also a compounding effect over time here, each delay in a raise for you is going to delay the _next_ raise as well.
Obviously this is within reason, you can't walk in the door of a company, fresh out of school, and then demand a raise 3 months in. But there are similar scenarios later on when you have experience where you might walk into a new job and you realize within 3 months that you were hoodwinked about the workload when you interviewed. It's perfectly fine to at least discuss an increase in comp to match what you now understand the job requirements to be.
Couldnt agree with this more! The power needs to be put back into the hands of the employee, this article is basically telling you to act like f*cking boyscout, with that being the exact type of behavior that got most of us into these situations.
I found the 4 tips on what not to do well written and useful for people earlier in their career. I didn't get a lot from this article for when you find pushback against raises (very common) especially when we're in an industry that fully rewards job hopping and has a wholly broken promotion/retention eco-system.