I was trolling through my Google Reader over the weekend, and saw the following post from YourHRGuy regarding a manager making less than one of his subordinates. Ah yes, the pay question. Always tricky. Hurt feelings... principles...the burning need inside you to address it via confrontation...
I've been in the same circumstances as the manager profiled by YourHRGuy. You're a young manager new
to your role, and after 2-3 months, you finally get some payroll data on your team. You're scrolling through the detail and BAAAAAAM!!! Sally (your direct report) is making 5K more than you. How the #$*# does that happen?
The answer? It's complicated. Sally was hired for a different role and was slotted into her current job in a reorganization. Sally has 15 years of experience, you have 5-10. Sally was hired by Bob in Global Sales, and man, did they like to pay a lot up front. Lots of factors.
Of course, after you go through the reasons, the reality is the same. Sally's making more than you, and you're her manager. That ain't right.
So what's it going to be? Are you going to suck it up, or are you going to make someone accountable for the issue? Are you sure you want to go there? After all, you are a HR Pro and have access to ALL the data... That makes you different...
Here's my list of rules when it comes to determining whether you want to address a pay issue that's comparative in nature (that means you have salary data for someone else in mind). These apply whether someone you manage, or someone who is a peer, is making more than you are:
1. If the pay information you have is based on rumor or secured through the access your job provides, you probably shouldn't go into the conversation "guns a-blazing" - Find out that Sally makes more than you via the rumor mill or via your access to payroll provided by your job? You'll hurt your credibility by identifying the direct issue (the employee who makes more than you) to the powers that be... Nobody wants to hear that you're combing the payroll records, putting them to memory and stirring the pot.
2. If your career is on a solid arc upward, and the identified issue involves a peer or direct report that doesn't deliver what you do, be confident the market will balance the issue over time. If you're a player and the other person isn't, don't muddy your brand by starting a negative conversation. The market knows you're a player, and over the course of the next few years, you'll be rewarded. If you are managing those that make more than you, that process has already begun. The only thing that might derail that? The perception that your work isn't the most important thing to you - the money is...
3. Stay Classy, San Diego - If you have to have a conversation about money, identify who the best person is for that conversation, then keep the negative emotion to yourself. No one wants to hear the emotional rant. Figure out the best way to ask that person to take a look at the issue on your behalf, and ask them for their help without defining the end result you expect or those that make more than you. Defining what you want indicates if they don't get to your number, they've failed. All that does is damage a relationship.
I'm a big fan of high-end talent letting their performance define their worth. That being said, I suppose there are times when a pay conversation is in order. If that time is now for you, leave the citations about what other people make in your desk. It will hurt your lifetime earnings more than it will help. Figure out a better way to get into the conversation.
That goes double for all us HR types. With great access (to payroll records) comes great responsibility. You can't be trusted to see all the comp increases flowing across the Matrix, then have the audacity to come forward to complain about what someone else is earning. For us, and the people who manage us, it's all about trust....
Comments