4 ms·

Its about how you state it: Instead of saying "no fucking way you can't do that job", You say "at this time were going to have to refuse this request", "here i

Its about how you state it: Instead of saying "no fucking way you can't do that job", You say "at this time were going to have to refuse this request", "here is the things your good at today (elaborate on list of items), You need to keep that up and do the following if you want me to give you that title and raise (give list)" The problem might be you, not them. They may see needs you haven't identified yet, and aren't articulating them well. You may also have currently unstated expectations that you can get out on the table too. Lots of people are happy having a plan/path and might reach for it if they see it is possible. There may be other mitigating factors in the ask that you aren't stating or aren't making us aware of as examples: -- Are they asking for a role your hiring for? -- Do they have life changing events going on that your unaware of, and a need for increased compensation? -- Are you below market on pay, and pushing equity as an alternative? Stock options and free lunches don't mean shit if you have a sick family member or a kid on the way.

bko 10y ago
> Do they have life changing events going on that your unaware of, and a need for increased compensation? I disagree that personal circumstances should be a factor in making managerial decisions. It's not fair to the other employees, company or investors. If you feel strongly enough to intervene, you should do so on a personal level (offer to lend the person money with no expectation of having him return it, let him crash on the couch, etc) because the other employees and investors may not share the same values as you and you need to act in their interest.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  It's a valid disagreement, but compensation is arranged so the employee is getting the least amount possible the company can get away with paying. Exceptions exist, but generally, if somebody needs more money and you're already paying them the least amount you can, it's time to look at losing him / her vs paying more to keep somebody reliable. It's expensive to rehire, more expensive in almost every case plus risky.
  - bko 10y ago
    I agree that if you need to pay them more to keep them and they're worth it, you should. I think the argument that employers pay employees the minimum amount is true on the surface, but it is too cynical and unrealistic. The firm isn't "getting away" with anything same as you're not "getting away" with a wage/working conditions higher than your next best alternative. You're engaged in a mutually beneficial agreement, although the gains may not be evenly distributed among parties. Economist Ronald Coase had an interesting perspective as to why firms exist: > Mr Coase argued that firms make economic sense because they can reduce or eliminate the “transaction cost” of going to the market by doing things in-house. It is easier to co-ordinate decisions. At the time, when communications were poor and economies of scale could be vast, this justified keeping a lot of things inside a big firm, so carmakers often owned engine-makers and other suppliers. So paying someone no more than you have to would be the model of purchasing contract work rather than decisions made in the firm. In the firm, you accept some inefficiencies in order to minimize transaction cost, including those associated with finding, vetting and hiring a new employee. [0] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584985-anyone-who-cares-about-capitalism-and-economics-should-mourn-death-ronald-coase-man http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584985-anyone-who-ca...
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  > personal circumstances should be a factor in making managerial decisions Promoting someone (deserved or not) because they are having a kid or have a family issue would be a bad idea. If it is something temporary, then a loan or a place to crash might be in order, and that should be a personal decision not a company one. Knowing what those circumstances might have a massive impact on what you do next. A boss of mine once told me "tell me your interviewing so I can fix your tie". As a manager on two occasions I have encouraged staff to find a job that would no longer limit their growth. At the time we simply didn't have enough money or a role for them to continue to develop. Helping someone move on, and doing it in the most constructive way possible might actually be in the best interest of your fellow employees and investors, and the person involved. In a more personal case, I was instrumental in a good friend taking a lower paying job and relocating to help support a sick family member. It worked out in such a way that the "on paper" pay cut, turned into them having more disposable income. I think that knowing those circumstances can lead you to a better managerial decision, and it has for me in the past, provided your open minded about what you can and can't do!
- tluyben2 10y ago
  I had this discussion were my partners (slightly different case, but not much) argued that I live cheaply (easily on a 1/3rd of what they need) and because of that I should get 1/3rd of what they get. I find that utter bullshit; my wife and I made decisions in our life which allows us to not need much money in order to never have money stress. The fact that they did not is not relevant imho. And yet this personal circumstances stuff reappears a lot; lot of managers seem to think it's a valid reason to raise one person instead of all similar jobs.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  Agreed on this. However, it might provide insight to the motivation for the increase compensation request.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Yes, the manager shouldn't take that into account. The problem is, people work for money and they want that money to live their life as they wish. Be it traveling the world 3 months per year or raising a family and buying a big house. They will tell you why they want a raise and you should understand their reasons: You want employees that perform and an employee that is happy raising their family because they have good work/life balance and the money they need would always perform better than one that just thinks he's not valued or not getting his economic needs covered by your compensation. As a manager, you have two risks: 1) They leave, which in mid-term could be a blessing or it could just mean bad times for you. Nobody wants managers with high turnover on qualified positions - your team is never performing close to 100% in that case. 2) They stay. Unmotivated, venting their problems at the canteen with their colleagues, who start to think about theirs... You know, the rotten apple. This is most of the times not on purpose to hurt you or the company, it's just a de-stressing mechanism. Employees are (still) human, so in order to be a good manager you need a holistic view over their needs and worries. After all, you're managing people and not software.

bko 10y ago

> Do they have life changing events going on that your unaware of, and a need for increased compensation? I disagree that personal circumstances should be a factor in making managerial decisions. It's not fair to the other employees, company or investors. If you feel strongly enough to intervene, you should do so on a personal level (offer to lend the person money with no expectation of having him return it, let him crash on the couch, etc) because the other employees and investors may not share the same values as you and you need to act in their interest.

michaelbuddy 10y ago
It's a valid disagreement, but compensation is arranged so the employee is getting the least amount possible the company can get away with paying. Exceptions exist, but generally, if somebody needs more money and you're already paying them the least amount you can, it's time to look at losing him / her vs paying more to keep somebody reliable. It's expensive to rehire, more expensive in almost every case plus risky.
- bko 10y ago
  I agree that if you need to pay them more to keep them and they're worth it, you should. I think the argument that employers pay employees the minimum amount is true on the surface, but it is too cynical and unrealistic. The firm isn't "getting away" with anything same as you're not "getting away" with a wage/working conditions higher than your next best alternative. You're engaged in a mutually beneficial agreement, although the gains may not be evenly distributed among parties. Economist Ronald Coase had an interesting perspective as to why firms exist: > Mr Coase argued that firms make economic sense because they can reduce or eliminate the “transaction cost” of going to the market by doing things in-house. It is easier to co-ordinate decisions. At the time, when communications were poor and economies of scale could be vast, this justified keeping a lot of things inside a big firm, so carmakers often owned engine-makers and other suppliers. So paying someone no more than you have to would be the model of purchasing contract work rather than decisions made in the firm. In the firm, you accept some inefficiencies in order to minimize transaction cost, including those associated with finding, vetting and hiring a new employee. [0] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584985-anyone-who-cares-about-capitalism-and-economics-should-mourn-death-ronald-coase-man http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584985-anyone-who-ca...
zer00eyz 10y ago
> personal circumstances should be a factor in making managerial decisions Promoting someone (deserved or not) because they are having a kid or have a family issue would be a bad idea. If it is something temporary, then a loan or a place to crash might be in order, and that should be a personal decision not a company one. Knowing what those circumstances might have a massive impact on what you do next. A boss of mine once told me "tell me your interviewing so I can fix your tie". As a manager on two occasions I have encouraged staff to find a job that would no longer limit their growth. At the time we simply didn't have enough money or a role for them to continue to develop. Helping someone move on, and doing it in the most constructive way possible might actually be in the best interest of your fellow employees and investors, and the person involved. In a more personal case, I was instrumental in a good friend taking a lower paying job and relocating to help support a sick family member. It worked out in such a way that the "on paper" pay cut, turned into them having more disposable income. I think that knowing those circumstances can lead you to a better managerial decision, and it has for me in the past, provided your open minded about what you can and can't do!
tluyben2 10y ago
I had this discussion were my partners (slightly different case, but not much) argued that I live cheaply (easily on a 1/3rd of what they need) and because of that I should get 1/3rd of what they get. I find that utter bullshit; my wife and I made decisions in our life which allows us to not need much money in order to never have money stress. The fact that they did not is not relevant imho. And yet this personal circumstances stuff reappears a lot; lot of managers seem to think it's a valid reason to raise one person instead of all similar jobs.
yitchelle 10y ago
Agreed on this. However, it might provide insight to the motivation for the increase compensation request.
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
Yes, the manager shouldn't take that into account. The problem is, people work for money and they want that money to live their life as they wish. Be it traveling the world 3 months per year or raising a family and buying a big house. They will tell you why they want a raise and you should understand their reasons: You want employees that perform and an employee that is happy raising their family because they have good work/life balance and the money they need would always perform better than one that just thinks he's not valued or not getting his economic needs covered by your compensation. As a manager, you have two risks: 1) They leave, which in mid-term could be a blessing or it could just mean bad times for you. Nobody wants managers with high turnover on qualified positions - your team is never performing close to 100% in that case. 2) They stay. Unmotivated, venting their problems at the canteen with their colleagues, who start to think about theirs... You know, the rotten apple. This is most of the times not on purpose to hurt you or the company, it's just a de-stressing mechanism. Employees are (still) human, so in order to be a good manager you need a holistic view over their needs and worries. After all, you're managing people and not software.