Manager Salary vs Team Member

I never understood the comparison of salaries with others.

Other than perhaps it provides a benchmark as to what you might be able to get elsewhere letting you know perhaps how strong your negotiating position is, your colleagues earning more doesn't make you poorer.
 
Mattitude said:
To put this in context someone slowly moving into management, paid a fairly decent wage, expected to carry on day to day but start to manage a new recruited team of specialists like myself but with added management duties surely that would deserve a bump for added responsibilities?
Click to expand...

The additional responsibilities are worth whatever you successfully negotiate.

When I was a manager at HP, I was on substantially less than most of my team members, but it was more than my previous non-managerial role. It was fine.
 
Moses said:
It might deserve one, but if there are loads of similarly competent people willing to take the opportunity for no uplift in salary, or a negligible one, in order to 'progress their career'/'gain experience' then it might not happen :p. Which wouldn't be surprising with lower level management positions.
Click to expand...

In my experience, companies these days generally only pay someone what it costs to replace that person, meaning that if other people will do any extra work whilst not getting paid any more, it's unlikely that you will either. There is no "this person deserves this" or "this person deserves that"; it's simply, "what will this extra work cost, in order for it to get done?"
 
muon said:
I never understood the comparison of salaries with others.

Other than perhaps it provides a benchmark as to what you might be able to get elsewhere letting you know perhaps how strong your negotiating position is, your colleagues earning more doesn't make you poorer.
Click to expand...

It is natural to want a benchmark though, especially as in order to negotiate one needs to understand both sides of the negotiation (i.e. how much am I worth to the employer, not just how much do I consider my time performing duties XYZ to be worth).

In some circumstances colleagues earning more might indirectly make you poorer in that it might render your department/division/team/whatever less profitable, so there is less money in the pot for bonus/pay rises etc. These boys are filling their boots year after year while you are hit with the same old, same old "it's been a tough year so we're freezing pay, no bonus oh and btw the xmas party is cancelled". It might also mean having fewer staff so you end up having to work harder to deliver the same amount.
 
muon said:
I never understood the comparison of salaries with others.

Other than perhaps it provides a benchmark as to what you might be able to get elsewhere letting you know perhaps how strong your negotiating position is, your colleagues earning more doesn't make you poorer.
Click to expand...

actually quite often it can do, as there is often a finite pool for pay rises/bonuses
 
jon86 said:
In my experience, companies these days generally only pay someone what it costs to replace that person, meaning that if other people will do any extra work whilst not getting paid any more, it's unlikely that you will either. There is no "this person deserves this" or "this person deserves that"; it's simply, "what will this extra work cost, in order for it to get done?"
Click to expand...

My experience has been of companies using Hay Points to size the job and then using market data such as Towers Watson and Willis to define the salary for the role.
 
Its stupid to tell anyone you work with how much you get paid, it will only cause friction (assuming you all don't get paid the same)
 
As has been said it's not a black and white answer. In sales roles a manager will typically have a bigger basic wage than his team and his bonus will be based on a team number. If the entire team hits their number then the manager would typically earn more than any team member. However it is rare as you go up the ladder for a whole team to deliver their number and targets/budgets are weighted to reflect that. Also if a member of the team over achieves and gets into escalators they will typically earn much more than their manager as a manager is paid on team success not individual success in most cases. It's very nuanced but that is how most commercial/sales teams work.
 
I've seen senior sales guys being paid 5 x their Sales Manager/Director in some cases.

Just because you're more senior/have additional responsibility, doesn't mean you should be paid more than people less. People are paid based upon what value they bring, no matter where in the chain.
 
kitkat9933 said:
People are paid based upon what value they bring, no matter where in the chain.
Click to expand...

This is a lesson I have been confirming for years on this forum when people pipe up about what they think they are worth or how underpaid they are compared to people who can't do the things they can do. They simply have zero idea about the reality of how business works and a hugely overinflated view of how it measures value.

Three options.

1: Accept your employer values you correctly and realise you're wrong about your value.
2: Present evidence they are wrong, call their bluff and get paid more.
3: Leave, get paid your true value and move forward in your career knowing your were right and they were wrong.

So many don't do 2 or 3 and still think they are right.
 
I wouldn't say people are paid based upon the value they bring, but that's definitely where the upper limit is set. It's up to the employee to bring to their employers attention the value that they are adding - sitting in the same job and expecting to just receive raises is a good way to lose out on thousands of pounds on your base rate in a fairly low number of years.

If you aren't very good at your job then lie low and take the cost of living increases :p
 
Housey said:
Three options.

1: Accept your employer values you correctly and realise you're wrong about your value.
2: Present evidence they are wrong, call their bluff and get paid more.
3: Leave, get paid your true value and move forward in your career knowing your were right and they were wrong.

So many don't do 2 or 3 and still think they are right.
Click to expand...

I think all (2 or 3) does is prove they were right; the absence of it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.

Surely if today Joe Bloggs hasn't done (2 or 3) and is therefore wrong about his value (as it must be in this model) and then tomorrow he actions (2 or 3) and suddenly is right about his value, either his valuation today is wrong or his valuation tomorrow is wrong. He hasn't suddenly increased in value overnight, unless we define value as 'whatever you get paid' which makes the whole discussion a bit moot anyway as by definition it would be impossible to identify anyone who was not paid their exact worth.
 
Caged said:
I wouldn't say people are paid based upon the value they bring, but that's definitely where the upper limit is set. It's up to the employee to bring to their employers attention the value that they are adding - sitting in the same job and expecting to just receive raises is a good way to lose out on thousands of pounds on your base rate in a fairly low number of years.

If you aren't very good at your job then lie low and take the cost of living increases :p
Click to expand...

If you're skills are reverent to your employer, you shouldn't need to bring it to their attention. Unless they are a bad employer, they should no what their employees bring.
 
HangTime said:
I think all (2 or 3) does is prove they were right; the absence of it doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.

Surely if today Joe Bloggs hasn't done (2 or 3) and is therefore wrong about his value (as it must be in this model) and then tomorrow he actions (2 or 3) and suddenly is right about his value, either his valuation today is wrong or his valuation tomorrow is wrong. He hasn't suddenly increased in value overnight, unless we define value as 'whatever you get paid' which makes the whole discussion a bit moot anyway as by definition it would be impossible to identify anyone who was not paid their exact worth.
Click to expand...

I feel you miss my point..

Good people don't put up with being undervalued or don't moan about it without action. Now there are plenty of good people who could earn more but are not that aspirational or prefer a comfy life, but that want my point either as they tend not to be the vocifourous on the matter.

The question I ask people when I hear this, as I was not 2 hours back is "so, what do you plan to do about that?"

In a business sense the skilled AND ambitious are the ones who earn their true value, to my point.
 
kitkat9933 said:
If you're skills are reverent to your employer, you shouldn't need to bring it to their attention. Unless they are a bad employer, they should no what their employees bring.
Click to expand...

A lot of employers are bad, helps to assume that you need to prove your worth rather than trusting that they know.
 
so much context missing from the OP.

If you know what your staff are being paid and you are in an industry where you can use something like the http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/ to benchmark your salary and see what the difference is. However, this could be totally wrong or as one persons manager role can be totally different with totally different skills to another.
 
kitkat9933 said:
If you're skills are reverent to your employer, you shouldn't need to bring it to their attention. Unless they are a bad employer, they should no what their employees bring.
Click to expand...

There are good employers out there?

I've worked for one guy in 20 years that knew what I was doing all the time, who paid attention to my skill level, effort and what I was bringing to the company, and unfortunately, that lasted 3 months before redundancy.

I think most people that complain about not being paid enough compared to others are when the others doing the same job. I rarely see people complain about earning less than someone above them.

I am not earning enough in my role by 30-50% the industry standard.

I know this by what I do day to day and what job's are being advertised. I'm also being paid £500 less a year than the guy who had the job before me, who didn't and couldn't do half of what I did and was sat down each monday and friday and was given a list of jobs and monitored what he had done. It's annoying, but I've been doing it for 7-8 months now, i've not had a review yet and I get left to it.

I am looking and applying for new jobs, I'm pushing my own little things and I am learning everything I can. I won't get a pay rise here, they don't value my position or kind of work, they value sales and appointment makers.

When (IF) I get a review, I'll be asking for more money, talking about what I do, what I've learnt, what I've suggested, I will be talking about the level of work I do and what it's paid out in the real world. Worst they can say is no, i'll have a little more experience and i'll keep looking for work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom