Hiring staff on more money?

Flinty997

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sometimes it can be very beneficial to have a good mix of backgrounds in departments, it can reduce group think, and produce alternative thinking towards problem solving

I think it can be useful. But the danger especially in a project lead or manager is they feel undermined by their lack of domain knowledge and see any technical challenges to their decisions as a challenge to their authority and over rule them.

The flip side of this especially in IT, with programmers who become managers is they may be woeful at project managing. Often they only look to solve every problem through coding and technical solutions and won't listen to anyone who is not a programmer.

Wanderer78

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think it can be useful. But the danger especially in a project lead or manager is they feel undermined by their lack of domain knowledge and see any technical challenges to their decisions as a challenge to their authority and over rule them.

The flip side of this especially in IT, with programmers who become managers is they may be woeful at project managing. Often they only look to solve every problem through coding and technical solutions and won't listen to anyone who is not a programmer.

oh theres no question managers from the field can also be great, ive experienced this as well, but ive also come across poor managers that were great at their previous role

economist pippa malmgren has experienced this as well, in her career, she says coders think coding can pretty much solve all, and hardware folks think hardware can pretty much solve all, only that in some situations, neither can

Jim2007

Mollydog123 wrote: »

I'm a manager albeit not in IT. I cant grasp how any manager could manage people without having a pretty good grasp of the roles of the people they manage, and the job they do. Therefore I'd expect the manager to be qualified in the same area. In my industry(Pharma) all engineering managers would be engineers, all quality managers would have quality degrees etc.

You don't manage experts, you facilitate their interaction and do the admin stuff. It's what I have seen and experienced for the last 30 years. It takes a special kind of person to be good at because you are basically the social side of the team. A team that usually are not so good at the social stuff.

The body of knowledge is too large and changes too quickly even for every techie on the team to be at the same level never mind someone outside those roles.

The most important ability of an IT manager in an outage is having the contacts and being able to get the people in place. You won't be held responsible for the technical decisions because you aren't expected to have the knowledge, but if say the team need the assistance of a senior sys admin at 4:30 in the morning and you don't know how to get one in or online you will have a problem.

dreamers75

Jim2007 wrote: »

You don't manage experts, you facilitate their interaction and do the admin stuff. It's what I have seen and experienced for the last 30 years. It takes a special kind of person to be good at because you are basically the social side of the team. A team that usually are not so good at the social stuff.

The body of knowledge is too large and changes too quickly even for every techie on the team to be at the same level never mind someone outside those roles.

The most important ability of an IT manager in an outage is having the contacts and being able to get the people in place. You won't be held responsible for the technical decisions because you aren't expected to have the knowledge, but if say the team need the assistance of a senior sys admin at 4:30 in the morning and you don't know how to get one in or online you will have a problem.

Agree with this, and its how it should be. I manage 12 Electrical engineers (electricians with the degree) if I made 1 of them manager for one day i would have 0 electrical engineers the next day.

Its madness to think that because you are a manager you should get more than the "talent/product".

Some industries would be exempt from this ie where the employee is not the "product" would agree with the OP but would need more info.

micosoft

TBH a lot of folk talking nonsense. It is very rare that managers earn less than their line reports. That's typically because managers do a lot more than just issue instructions i.e. a Team Leader. It does happen, I've been in that scenario, but it is very rare. Those claiming that some super skilled individual contributor should earn more don't really understand what management is actually about. It's not team leading.

To the OP I'd simply say - there is no quicker way to increasing your salary than as an external candidate. Everything internal falls into the mystique of HR wage levelling process whose
job it is to minimise wage inflation and not address hard cases. It just is the way it is*. The only way to break through it is to have a job offer lined up with an increase. They "might" make an exception. But tbh my view has always been at that point to just move on. This is just a big indicator that its the right time. You can always return two years later!

*Unless you have insider information and on the inside track. As Gordon Gekko said. If you aren't, well that just says something about your positioning in the firm...

micosoft

dreamers75 wrote: »

Agree with this, and its how it should be. I manage 12 Electrical engineers (electricians with the degree) if I made 1 of them manager for one day i would have 0 electrical engineers the next day.

Its madness to think that because you are a manager you should get more than the "talent/product".

Some industries would be exempt from this ie where the employee is not the "product" would agree with the OP but would need more info.

I think there is confusion here on definitions. You team-lead a team. You manage a function. There is a difference. If you define the management of a team as a glorified coordinator (which is a common role in engineering offices) then absolutely. Secretary wages for a coordinator. If you manage a budget, risk, customer relations, project prioritisation, escalation point and all the myriad of roles a genuine manager would do then I assure you the compensation will match this. It's not impossible but it is exceptionally rare.

If you suggest individuals are the "talent/product" you are literally a body shop and acting as a staffing agency which is another thing again.

dennyk

Good companies understand that management is a separate skill set and career path, and will consequently implement some sort of parallel progression path for individual contributors with similar compensation increases that help them retain their skilled employees who prefer to remain individual contributors long term. Companies that don't grasp that will either lose said skilled employees to other companies because that's the only way for them to get a decent pay rise commensurate with their experience and the value they bring to their employer, or worse, they will pressure those skilled employees into moving to management roles that they might or might not be any good at in order to progress in their careers, thus losing a skilled IC and possibly ending up with a mediocre (or worse) manager in exchange.

Lux23

This is why I haven't stayed in the same job longer than five years, you aren't valued for your service anymore, and if they can continue to get away with paying less to do the same work as someone else, they won't feel bad about it.

jakiah

micosoft wrote: »

I think there is confusion here on definitions. You team-lead a team. You manage a function. There is a difference. If you define the management of a team as a glorified coordinator (which is a common role in engineering offices) then absolutely. Secretary wages for a coordinator. If you manage a budget, risk, customer relations, project prioritisation, escalation point and all the myriad of roles a genuine manager would do then I assure you the compensation will match this. It's not impossible but it is exceptionally rare.

If you suggest individuals are the "talent/product" you are literally a body shop and acting as a staffing agency which is another thing again.

This is an odd take. I work in a consultancy firm, the staff are all paid more than middle management. The consultants are "the function". If the guy with the specialised skillset who designs and delivers the service gets hits by a bus at the weekend, work is stopped the following Monday morning. If his manager gets hit by a bus, the show goes on.

Im chuckling at the idea that I could 'escalate' an issue to my manager. If there is an issue I tell him about it so he can inform the business, but Im ultimately responsible for the engagement, not him - if he had skillset he'd be where I am, earning more money without all the management bull****.

We have very little middle management tbh, it isnt really required when the staff are all senior.

tjhook

Annoyedmanager wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, just some context the field we are discussing is IT. I served my time as an engineer and worked my way up to management.

I think this is a key point. It sounds like *in your organisation*, the move to management was a promotion, I assume with a payrise etc.

Now people are being hired to do what you were doing before your promotion, earning more than you were on when you did their job, and more than you're now earning. So while there are plenty of situations in which a manager earns less than the people they manage, it doesn't appear to be relevant in this specific instance.

The simplest explanation, as many have said, is that you're being taken for granted. Nobody here is in a position to judge how good you are at what you do, so I'd assume you were (when you were doing their job) no better or worse than the new employees who are now on more than you.

Basically your employer is forced to compete and pay new employees what they're worth, but feels they can get away with paying you less. If you do force a payrise now, I think your manager will feel you've been done a "favour" and you may struggle for future payrises. I don't think it'll resolve your core issue in the longer term.

Personally, I'd consider working somewhere new - where I'm genuinely appreciated as an asset rather than being seen as a pain in the arse who's a drain on the budget. But of course I don't know how attached you are to your current situation. Or maybe your current pay is very good in the context of your industry generally.

Paul_Mc1988

This happened me. I had three years experience and someone I recommended for a job got offered more than I was on after two pay reviews/increases.

We have bi/monthly meetings with not just the boss but his boss and his boss etc. I called them out on it at the meeting with 10 other people in the same situation but they were unaware. They said I must be wrong but I said I could get they guy to send on the contract (he had left at this point as he didn't like the job). Silence. Post meeting numerous complaints from fellow employees and rumblings of people leaving. It takes a year to train someone the basics so naturally management were a bit shook..... a few weeks later a 12% market adjustment( about 8k each).

You only find out how much you're worth when you go to leave.... if you can accidentally get a few others to do the same it's even better.

JPup

Think of it likes this.

Company X has 100 staff on average salaries of €40k. Annual cost €4 million. Annual sales €5 million. Now they see an opportunity to grow sales by another €1 million. They need to hire 5 more staff to do it. The jobs market is tight so need to pay €60k to get decent people in. Now sales are €6 million and annual staff costs are €4.3 million. Profit has gone from €1 million to €1.7 million.

But if they were to pay all 105 staff €60k, the profit would be wiped out. That is the logic from the company's perspective in a very basic template.

The problem of course is with staff morale when people realise, as OP has, that the new hires who don't seem to know a whole hill of beans and have to be trained in on everything are earning more than they are. It's not fair and it p*sses people off. A well-managed firm will never run into these issues but in your case it appears that you work for a poorly managed company. I think the only solution is to do what you are already doing OP, and look for another job.

micosoft

jakiah wrote: »

This is an odd take. I work in a consultancy firm, the staff are all paid more than middle management. The consultants are "the function". If the guy with the specialised skillset who designs and delivers the service gets hits by a bus at the weekend, work is stopped the following Monday morning. If his manager gets hit by a bus, the show goes on.

Im chuckling at the idea that I could 'escalate' an issue to my manager. If there is an issue I tell him about it so he can inform the business, but Im ultimately responsible for the engagement, not him - if he had skillset he'd be where I am, earning more money without all the management bull****.

We have very little middle management tbh, it isnt really required when the staff are all senior.

You are not describing middle management. You are describing team leaders of coordination or low end project mgmt.

I've worked with all sorts when in Ireland. I'm really struggling with this notion of "specialised skillset" which in Ireland is pretty rare despite our small size. I mean, there might be only a couple of lithography process engineers in the country, but the idea that there is a consulting shop in town with "rare ninja skills" is strikes me as bull****. You can share the skills/roles without breaking confidences.


I've worked in high-tech and all its manifestations for a long time. I even played with "People Managers" and "technology managers" in an org where the leaders were generally awful. But again - this is really really uncommon.

gameoverdude

My take on these promotions is I don't care about the title, call me senior arsehole if you want, show me the money.

Do your interviews, get a new job...if they offer to match the increased wage, say no, too late.

Good luck in your future.

daheff

Companies will pay you the minimum they think they can get away with. As long as you are working for them @your current pay, then they are going to keep it that way.

Your only leverage is to get a new job offer. Then it's whether you actually want to leave or want them to match that salary.

StupidLikeAFox

daheff wrote: »

Companies will pay you the minimum they think they can get away with. As long as you are working for them @your current pay, then they are going to keep it that way.

Your only leverage is to get a new job offer. Then it's whether you actually want to leave or want them to match that salary.

Not true for all companies. Some (good) companies will benchmark salaries against the industry and try keep you in the same ballpark at least. No point saving a few k here and there on peoples salaries if they are constantly losing people

You are right though, the best benchmark is finding out what somebody is willing to pay you elsewhere

daheff

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Not true for all companies. Some (good) companies will benchmark salaries against the industry and try keep you in the same ballpark at least. No point saving a few k here and there on peoples salaries if they are constantly losing people

That's true....some companies realize the value in having staff & continuity. Unfortunately a large amount don't , or are guided by budgets.....so vacancies can take a while to fill...to save money./ Not go over budget for the year.

jakiah

micosoft wrote: »

You are not describing middle management. You are describing team leaders of coordination or low end project mgmt.

Fair enough. We dont have middle management then, its not a required function. Nor did we have them in my previous three roles. Seems a lot of middle managers have an inflated sense of their own worth.

There are plenty of technical specialisations in Ireland where there are only a handful of certified and experienced individuals who can deliver projects in these areas. The market for some of these specialisations is tiny given that only a handful of huge businessess have budget for the licening involved. This is how specialised consultancies make money.