[drmohitg]

Under usual circumstances, my answer is NO. But during the pandemic, your cousin is the best judge of his market industry dynamics currently. How many jobs are available or what other opportunities can he pursue. Based on that alone, can he gauge his bargaining power.

[Rajeevraj]

In this specific case, it looks like the company is taking advantage a little. Holding back the promotion for couple of years (just based on the info shared here) and then giving it without a monetary benefit. Does not look fair in this specific case.

But even with that, I would vote yes, main reason is that promotions are rare and takes time in most cases, increments/hikes are more predictable and happen on a regular basis. So it is best to accept any promotion when offered. This is also more important in a very hierarchical company with set designations at each level. If not anything else, the feel good factor of moving up in the hierarchy is good in the short term. If money is not offered, it will follow soon and worst case, there will be a competing company who will offer a higher salary for the promoted role. Saying no would mean another long wait.

[AMG Power]

I get quite a bit of calls to discuss career related issues - new career moves, pay hikes, boss problems, intra team issues, office politics from folks working in Apple HQ in Cupertino, Spotify in Sweden to SAP, IBM, HP and the like in India. It sometimes takes quite a bit of my time. But one thing that I DO NOT do is offer unsolicited advice on careers.

I agree with earlier posts. The OP shouldnt be giving advice if he hasn’t been asked for it in the area of careers.

What happens if the cousin moves, listening to the OP and the situation in the new company is far worse - will the OP take on the responsibility of getting him another job in a company where he is as comfortable as he is now?

Obviously no. And that should answer the OP’s question.

[mvadg]

Read through the thread and everyone is very idealistic it seems. Everything stated above is true - the environment provided by firms is geared towards getting things done. But they are also extremely focused on the bottomline. Without getting into this specific case, it seems to me that there's another aspect that has not been touched upon - politics /relationships; it is the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" thing. People who are good at their jobs neglect this aspect of an organization. It's a bit of emotional intelligence, political intelligence and all the other intelligences that seem to matter a lot more than we imagine. Do you think Trump rose to become a president because he was great at his job?

[Altocumulus]

Most of the companies during this pandemic are saving up for the next FY especially accounting firms including the Big4. Not only Clients are delaying payments but also their main revenue is through Consulting practice and Global Mobility. Consulting is value add so lot of companies are putting projects on hold and global mobility is near zero this year because expats are pulled back. For the latter This year they will still have work, because they are doing calculations for the previous year but next year there will be no work because there is no global deployment of resources. Frankly, be happy that your cousin still has a job. A.Directors and above in some Big4s have had a part of their salary on hold, promotion lists cut to less than half, zero or negligible hikes for all employees.
The fact that he got a promotion this year means he really deserves it and is being recognised for it. Am sure it's not the situation where others in his company got massive hikes and he was singled out with zero hikes.

A couple of more points to consider. One he is still not a CA, which is a preferred though not desired qualification for the role. So the promotion was still given inspite of that. The other point to also see is what is the salary of his new non-CA peers. If he already is in that bracket, it is fine I guess.

[Dieseltuned]

The pandemic could be a reason for putting pay hike on hold. I know this and can speak as my organization also had done something similar. I suppose in current times of if your cousin has a job and is being promoted, I think it will be worthwhile to give the company a chance for atleast another 6-8 months and wait out for hike. My organization has now again started giving hikes after a hiatus of a few months.

[foxworkz]

I have clarified in my previous post that it was not unsolicited advise, and that I was asked to be involved in the discussion. I'm unable to edit my original post to reflect this.

Originally Posted by AMG Power

The OP shouldnt be giving advice if he hasn’t been asked for it in the area of careers.

What happens if the cousin moves, listening to the OP and the situation in the new company is far worse - will the OP take on the responsibility of getting him another job in a company where he is as comfortable as he is now?

I don't agree with this line of thinking. Don't we on this very forum 'advise' people on what cars to buy (some of which, by the way, are 10-20 times my cousin's yearly salary) to people we don't even know? Going by your argument, if someone goes ahead and buys a car, and it turns out to be a lemon, then should the forum members who recommended the car make good for it?

Advise is a recommendation. It shouldn't be confused with coercion. One has the choice to take it or leave it.

Two, if I cannot give advise to my own younger cousin brother, even when asked for it, then who will? I'm merely looking after my own. One shouldn't simply assume that I'm being flippant just because I asked him to start exploring his options. In fact, if I remain silent, I'd be doing a great disservice to him. At the least, he needs to know he has options out there, and he shouldn't feel chained to one place. If you are the one stuck, you'll sometimes need someone else to show you where you are stuck.

My question was 'What would YOU do if you were given a promotion without a hike?' The idea of asking it here is to see from another perspective and consider the pros and cons.

You can insist on telling why I shouldn't be advising my own cousin brother. I'll humbly submit that you have simply missed the point of the question and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by benbsb29

IMHO, taking on more responsibilities should be for the sole reason to prep you for new opportunities ahead. If you are being asked to do more but paid the same, it means the company erred previously in the roles that were assigned to you.

I don't believe in sacrificing my time, effort and the added stress if I am not being compensated for it. End of the day, the company wont look after you when they find a replacement to do the same task. Make hay while the sun shines - both from a learning as well as compensation perspective.

+1.

To me, this makes a lot of sense. The highlighted text hits the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by mvadg

Read through the thread and everyone is very idealistic it seems...

Without getting into this specific case, it seems to me that there's another aspect that has not been touched upon - politics /relationships; it is the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" thing...

True!

Another aspect is the whole salary thing seen from the POV of an average middle-class household. In the Indian context, there are certain financial obligations and expectations that one is supposed to meet after a certain age. Not everyone has the "luxury" of moving out and living on their own terms, and figure out life. So getting a promotion w/o pay at 24 is quite different from get the same at 29.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

In india, a lot of companies take the whole "move up or move out" things to the logical extreme. If you spend more than 3 years or so in a particular role, you are seen as an underperformer, and a ripe candidate for being put into a PIP. This puts the mortal fear of stagnating into most folks, and instead of taking time to learn and grow, they power through job levels either through switching companies, or getting promoted by hook or crook.

It also helps that companies start valuing experience negatively beyond the 3-5 year range. .

There are some companies that operate like that. Many consultancy companies work like that. You know when you sign up, that is what it is like.

There are also, properly, more companies that have no problem with people staying longer in a job. The problem is often that people doing the same job, still expect pay rises. And that is simply not sustainable. For a particular role/job there is a certain bandwidth of salary. Once you reach that max, it would be difficult to pay over that. So some jobs have (small) annual incremental raises.

For some jobs you just don’t need that much experience. That doesn’t mean its less of job or should be frowned upon. E.g. how much do you pay a bus driver with 2 years of experience versus one with 20 years experience?

If you want a substantial pay rise, in most organisations you need to move job.

I distinguish between different payrises:

1) Inflation correction
I have worked and lived all over the world and in many countries there is some sort of annual pay rise, based on inflation. But even that is not necessarily a given. In fact, some of these inflation factors get negotiated with unions and I can give you many examples where it was agreed to keep it at zero, rather than to follow the actual inflations which was going up. Usually when companies/societies find themselves in troubled times, it is not a given that inflation will be corrected for on the salary.

There have been cases of negative inflation around the world. I have not seen many calls from employees to correct salaries for that negative inflation. It is a one way street it seems. Employer pays for inflations, Employee benefits in case of deflation.

2) Payrise based on performance
Many different system in use. But what is important is that each job/role comes with a max. As long as you do that role you can’t go over the max. That is just the maximum such a role is worth, no matter how could you are at it. See my bus driver example earlier on.

I have worked with many HR systems where basically the lower you were in your respective salary scale the quicker you would rise, given a certain performance. So your relative position in your scale, with your performance, combined, gave your new (higher) salary. But towards the 100% of your max the curse flattens.

3) Promotion
As I outlined before, for me a promotion means you are asked to take on a materially different roles and responsibilities. In most salary system it means you get plotted into a new, higher salary scale. Which also usually means your relative salary position in that new scale is low, so performance increase are relatively hight the first few years, till you reach, again the max of your scale.

Originally Posted by foxworkz

While I agree that there shouldn't be a desperation for a promotion or pay raise, i feel 8 years is a long time to be doing the same thing for very little hike (at least at his level). For me, the more acceptable conversation then would be for the organisation to put him on the right track for growth and support him after all these years. To make him "promotable".

See the above. Is he doing the same job all the time, on what basis should he be getting a hike?

Originally Posted by foxworkz

Again, while I agree with you on all points about vacancy and hierarchy, for me they are only one half of the equation - the POV of the company. Obviously, there is not much the company can do, but it would be a big problem especially if there is stagnation at the lower levels. I'd expect a high attrition rate in such a company.

Yes, it is a problem for companies that find themselves in such a position. And employees need to make their own decision. What is really important is that people understand the principle: Promotion only happens through vacancies. So when people move up and out, and or when there is growth in the company are you likely to see promotions.

Originally Posted by foxworkz

Coming to the other half, what about the POV of the employee (one who's near the base of the pyramid)? Is he supposed to keep waiting for a vacancy to appear? Shouldn't one seek better prospects? With long years at the same place, it's only natural for complacency to set in. The comfort of the known devil is greater than the fear of going outside and discovering an unknown angel. Sometimes, a nudge is good. In this case, it was my own cousin brother who asked me for advise, so I don't feel I was out of line. It is still up to him to make the final decision; all I've done is shown him door no. 2. He'll decide if he's going to open it or not.

Individual choice: comes with the responsibility of being an adult.

Originally Posted by GutsyGibbon

Some of the titles are very confusing, and make it seem like a promotion. In the fabless semiconductor business, engineering resources are scarce (in Southern California) compared to Program/Project Managers. People congratulate the ones who transition into Project Managers. It is an industry wide fact that they are not awarded the same kind of salaries, perks, bonuses, and stock grants. The reason being, you can bring in a Project Manager from any industry to do things like triaging, status tracking, reporting and such. (overhead)

I can name quite a few industries where Project Manager are seen as some of the most valuable and demanding jobs around. With very scarce talent around the globe. Hence, they command a premium in salary and other renumeration.

Organisations that regard the profession of Project Management as you describe above, probably don’t have real projects in the true sense of the word. Running a project is quite different from a bit of triaging, status tracking and reporting. Currently I am running several (global) projects. It’s the least of my worries.

Originally Posted by foxworkz

Another aspect is the whole salary thing seen from the POV of an average middle-class household. In the Indian context, there are certain financial obligations and expectations that one is supposed to meet after a certain age. Not everyone has the "luxury" of moving out and living on their own terms, and figure out life. So getting a promotion w/o pay at 24 is quite different from get the same at 29.

Each to its own, but I don’t understand why you would expect a company to pay up, just because people feel, for whatever reason, social pressure. Seriously?

You might be interested to hear that it India is far from the only country where young people do not have the luxury of moving out so easily. Similar situation in many western countries. There might be different reason as to India’s, but a staggering number of young people still live at home with their parents till their late 20s all over the world;

Quoting for the USA:

In February 2020, before the pandemic, 47 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds lived with their parents.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...living-parents

Or perhaps the UK:

Research found nearly two-thirds of childless single adults aged 20-34 in the UK have either never left or have moved back into the family home because of a combination of a precarious job market and low wages, sky-high private sector rents and life shocks such as relationship breakups.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-rising-study

Jeroen

[foxworkz]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

See the above. Is he doing the same job all the time, on what basis should he be getting a hike?

No where have I said that one should keep getting a hike while doing the exact same job. The point is that no one starts off their career at the entry level and expects to remain there forever. There has to be growth. Scenario 1, if the employee asks for more money, then s/he should be open for more responsibilities or to upskill. Scenario 2, if s/he asks for more responsibilities and the company gives him/her more responsibilities, then it should compensate accordingly. It can't (or rather, it shouldn't) be a one way street.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

What is really important is that people understand the principle: Promotion only happens through vacancies. So when people move up and out, and or when there is growth in the company are you likely to see promotions.

In the case of my cousin, the promotion HAS happened! He HAS been given more responsibilities. So why is he not compensated for it? Why is it acceptable for a company to demand more work or ask the employee to take on more responsibility for less pay, but unacceptable the other way around? The pandemic is not just affecting the company business, it is affecting the employee too. The employee is also an asset, and s/he needs to be taken care of too.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Each to its own, but I don’t understand why you would expect a company to pay up, just because people feel, for whatever reason, social pressure. Seriously?

Pray tell me where have I said that the company has to pay up for THIS particular reason? Lot of misreading here. Seriously.

All I'm putting on the table is another POV, which had not been touched upon in any of the replies. And that this POV plays a vital role when it comes to an Indian middle-class person and how s/he perceives his/her compensation structure during a particular stage in life. Obviously, it is up to the individual to figure it out.

I said average Indian middle-class household because it is relevant to my cousin; it DOES NOT imply that I believe all middle-class Indians in general need to be given hikes at regular intervals by their respective employers for no good reason. Please.

[adithya.kp]

Imo, its ok in the current circumstances. Because, its an indication that he is recognized. I believe companies maintain a compensation range for all grades. So whenever, they get the funding, it should be corrected.

I know a few of my friends getting single digit hike for promotion. ( Pre covid).
General query: Does anybody know the average promotion related hike for senior people?. Lets say for CTC >= 30 lacs.?

[alpha1]

I will see this way:
Option1 - you are frustrated with the company's "ruse". Reject the offer, stay at junior position and look out for job promising promotion and pay hike

Keep in mind that there is recession already happening, and no one really knows when we will recover to Feb levels for continued period. This results in shrinkage in job market and firm becoming risk averse in general. Which translates to
a) not getting opportunity outside,
b) outside recruiter reluctant to hire a new candidate and entrust with him additional responsibilities that come with a promotion
c) outside recruiter taking advantage of your situation and "recession" giving you higher position but no raise (= not any improvement over the Option2)

Keeping all of the above in mind I would prefer
Option2 - accept the promotion without pay raise for now. Build CV and look out for jobs as soon as the recovery happens / hiring markets improve. You will have improved your skills which will open up more opportunities outside and you are also not becoming a super expensive resource.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by foxworkz

Pray tell me where have I said that the company has to pay up for THIS particular reason? Lot of misreading here. Seriously.

All I'm putting on the table is another POV, which had not been touched upon in any of the replies.

Jeroen is telling you how companies think. Salary is one area where employer and employees have vastly different thinking. In this thread, you are trying to link salary and promotion. I didn't comment on this thread for a long time because I don't understand connection that you are apparently seeing.

Please check this old post from me on how employers think about salary.

In India, employees get pay hikes every year even while doing the same job or keeping the same title. So why this special connection to promotion? Does the promoted person work 9 hours/day instead of 8 hours/day earlier? He may take on more responsibilities, but also gets to delegate some of the work to others. Basically, the role has changed. Whether that role justifies more pay depends a lot on demand and supply. For example, lots of IT people are finding themselves jobless after crossing 40 years because of this. Too much supply and little demand, yet they expect high salary to match their seniority. If they can fit themselves to roles that are in high demand, pay hikes will come easily.

[anandhsub]

Originally Posted by foxworkz

Basically, the company is asking him to take on more responsibility without compensating for it. It won't be stretch to say it'll be a whole year before he can even expect a paisa more towards salary.

Are you assuming the responsibilities will increase because of the promotion or is that genuinely the case?

I do not understand the relationship between promotion and pay hikes. May be it is because I work in a very flat organizational structure where the person I report to reports directly to the founder/CEO of the Company. I do not have anyone who reports to me.

The promotions happen only in terms of designation and that has a very objective criterion in terms of experience. Not a lot of change in responsibility just based on designation.

The pay hikes on the other hand happen purely based on performance which in return is based on my responsibilities.

I have had changes in responsibilities and pay without any change in designation, and changes in designation with nothing changing in terms of responsibilities or pay hikes.

[INJAXN]

Voted Yes, I would accept the promotion without the pay hike.
I have made choices earlier where I chose money over a role, and later on, I did regret it.
Always go for a better role, IMO.

Hike will eventually come if deserved. There could be multiple reasons for not giving hike along with designation change. Especially this year ( COVID) and in this economy, where some firms cannot afford to shell out more money.

[dark.knight]

This is a no brainer, they can give me a demotion as long as there is a pay-hike, I'll laugh at promotions without pay-hike. I did actually walk out of a job even though I spent almost 6 years building its heart because I wanted to be an entrepreneur, because bottom-line matters and nothing else.

I've also counseled peers and ex classmates to walk out of jobs even though they were attached to their legacy and labor of love in terms of work, because the cheque matters.

I see work as a punishment, just as I saw education as a punishment, but I topped the grades all the way and spent many sleepless nights building an enterprise all so that there is enough for rainy days and then some more for simple comforts and luxuries for us.

Show me the money and I'll crawl over mud for it, but tell me its for legacy and pride and I'll laugh my way out the door. Also, I don't calculate moves for the future, what I make today is what I'm sure of, rest is beyond the scope of certainty.