3 ms·

In practice, it is very easy to justify a bigger salary for a new hire and very difficult to get upper management acceptance for consistent/real salary raises f

In practice, it is very easy to justify a bigger salary for a new hire and very difficult to get upper management acceptance for consistent/real salary raises for internal people. It makes no sense at all, but that’s what I experience being a somewhat new manager in a tech company.

fendy3002 4y ago
It's the exact reason, and a natural one. Why hurt yourself with increasing wage of existing, content employees rather than using it to expand the workforce with newer, (assuming) more powerful candidates? If you play any management games with employees you'll do it too, granted that the game doesn't have any employee happiness or resign when underpaid. But yeah, game and real world situation is not the same.
- bumby 4y ago
  On what do you base that assumption of a new candidate being necessarily better? They could also be worse and, in most instances, will have a period of sub-productive time when they have to learn the ropes.
  - fendy3002 4y ago
    I just describing what higher managements are possibly thinking, and I guess I'm kinda on track for it since usually management prefer to hire new people than promoting existing employees. In game though, usually better stats hiring are only appear mid-late game, or are expensive to hire early on that you can only get one mid-late game. Don't compare with real life though.
orzig 4y ago
This is exactly right, when I left my manager was pretty clear about this with me. I think he valued me as much as any potential external offer, but he has to sit in front of a compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean.
- matwood 4y ago
  > compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean DEIA is also being used as the reason for a lot of this push. Instead of raising salaries to equitable levels, they want to bring people down.
  - powerhour 4y ago
    What makes you say that?
thedougd 4y ago
I think it's because they feel it's a choice between doing it once for the new hire or N times for all the existing employees. The latter is very difficult to do.
- hashtag-til 4y ago
  Sure, but at the same time, I don't think the maths make sense, given hiring costs, training and morale costs. It makes me really sad to conclude that it boils down to the fact that these are usually different cost centres and managers from one side won't bother generating costs to the other cost centres. But yeah, it is a waste of time trying to find sense in the management folks.

fendy3002 4y ago

It's the exact reason, and a natural one. Why hurt yourself with increasing wage of existing, content employees rather than using it to expand the workforce with newer, (assuming) more powerful candidates? If you play any management games with employees you'll do it too, granted that the game doesn't have any employee happiness or resign when underpaid. But yeah, game and real world situation is not the same.

bumby 4y ago
On what do you base that assumption of a new candidate being necessarily better? They could also be worse and, in most instances, will have a period of sub-productive time when they have to learn the ropes.
- fendy3002 4y ago
  I just describing what higher managements are possibly thinking, and I guess I'm kinda on track for it since usually management prefer to hire new people than promoting existing employees. In game though, usually better stats hiring are only appear mid-late game, or are expensive to hire early on that you can only get one mid-late game. Don't compare with real life though.

orzig 4y ago

This is exactly right, when I left my manager was pretty clear about this with me. I think he valued me as much as any potential external offer, but he has to sit in front of a compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean.

matwood 4y ago
> compensation committee whose very goal is to regress everybody to the mean DEIA is also being used as the reason for a lot of this push. Instead of raising salaries to equitable levels, they want to bring people down.
- powerhour 4y ago
  What makes you say that?

thedougd 4y ago

I think it's because they feel it's a choice between doing it once for the new hire or N times for all the existing employees. The latter is very difficult to do.

hashtag-til 4y ago
Sure, but at the same time, I don't think the maths make sense, given hiring costs, training and morale costs. It makes me really sad to conclude that it boils down to the fact that these are usually different cost centres and managers from one side won't bother generating costs to the other cost centres. But yeah, it is a waste of time trying to find sense in the management folks.