4 ms·
At the firm that I work at everything is in the open, even between groups, and it works very well. It is a formula-based compensation given your department (bas
by ljoshua 11y ago
At the firm that I work at everything is in the open, even between groups, and it works very well. It is a formula-based compensation given your department (basically consultants and back-office) and stated level. With that, I know or can calculate exactly how much my manager makes, how much an entry level HR employee makes, and how much the CEO makes.
I love it because it removes any problem with politics or shadowy discussions, and I know what I can expect when a promotion comes. The only downside is that it leaves the firm with little leverage when it comes to compensation: I can't simply get a bump without a promotion, nor are there extra bonuses that can be given out either for hiring or retaining. (This has its benefits as well however.)
- Todd 11y agoThat's enlightening and encouraging. A formula-based/matrix approach might make it more acceptable because it isn't personal. One thing I haven't seen is how to handle COLA. I'm sure that can also be added as an additional factor, though.
- ljoshua 11y ago(Late to the reply, sorry.) COLA is addressed on a per office basis. Our headquarters is in a relatively inexpensive large city, and so other offices in pricier places like SF or DC get a blanket COLA adjustment, with the percentage bump based on some particular survey's index or something.
- iamnafets 11y agoI worked for a company like this. It irritated my VP who had her hands tied when it came to negotiation (like you mention). I ended up switching companies for an 80% bump. These companies work really well for the median employee for all of the reasons you mention - especially the air of transparency. But I think it makes it nearly impossible to properly compensate top talent.