I recommend not being shy to ask for money
when you deserve it. If you don’t look out for your interests then who will? If
there isn’t a formal process in place for seeing that your compensation gets
recalibrated periodically then you need to be the driving force.
The key thing is making sure that you
really deserve more money. To me this hinges on two criteria. One, what is the
value of your contribution to the company? If you can actually quantify in
dollars what your contribution is worth that’s ideal. You should get paid less
than the value of your contribution so your employer can profit from employing
you. However you can negotiate for a more reasonable spread. Two, what would it
cost to replace you? What is the market rate for someone with the skills and experience
necessary to do your job? Your value tops out at the lesser of the value of
your contribution and your replacement cost.
When negotiating your compensation focus on
those two things: The value of your contribution, and the going rate for people
with your necessary skills. That’s it. The most ineffective tendency people
have is to argue about what they need. What you need has no place in a business
discussion. It’s not your employer’s responsibility to give you what you need.
The discussion will be a lot more meaningful if it is limited to the value
proposition you offer your employer.
Lastly, try not to nag your employer for a
raise. Neither of you will be happy if you’re perpetually hassling them for
more money rather than focusing on work. Insist on a concrete date for a
discussion and a concrete date for your employer to make a decision on your
future compensation. This way the time spent focusing on compensation is
limited and you get a resolution one way or another without the issue
lingering.
Hey Robbie, good entries! I work in the public sector now with a union and there are numerous benefits and onerous limitations when it comes to compensation in this environment.
ReplyDelete1) Everyone is equal: There are no top performers officially, you may be a quantifiable all-star but you will not be rewarded and any mention or request of added compensation brings calls of favouritism if entertained. Bottom performers and top performers are compensated equally based on job title. A definite and obvious con.
2) Benefits and base pay are above standard for the most part, there is a defined pension which is very rare and you have recourse if management is abusing its power or working conditions aren't safe. Definite pro's.
I miss being recognized as I was at my previous employers both informally at the monthly staff meetings and monetarily at bonus time. It is true that one time bonuses do motivate, especially when it is tied to performance. It always made me work a lot harder.
I still work hard here due to the benefits of the job and personal pride of a job well done but I know it sucks the motivation and care out of most employees where everyone is equally compensated no matter what.
Anyway, a bit of rambling I guess but I wanted to give a different perspective.
All the best Robbie!
Hey Cam,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. A union environment is obviously a whole different thing. Personally I hate the idea of unions. They made more sense historically when workers needed more protection because they couldn't change jobs as readily. My biggest issue with them is that they are the opposite of a meritocracy.
That all being said I think you highlighted one important potential benefit of a union environment. When your compensation is held constant independent of your performance you draw more on intrinsic motivation like personal pride in doing a good work. That kind of motivation can make you much happier in your job.