[foxworkz]

Originally Posted by Samurai

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.

I understand the point you and Jeroen are trying to make. If a promotion entails merely a role change, then it would be akin to a lateral / horizontal shift and and not warrant an increase in pay. However, if it is added responsibility and more work, it should ideally have an increase.

What matters is that both company and employee are on the same page when it comes to understanding the nature of the promotion. If the employee believes s/he is also getting a pay hike and it isn't the case, it creates a lot of friction, which could've easily been avoided.

Now, as the case was with my cousin, there was no such ambiguity. It was a clear step up to a managerial role that came with a better pay, and this was understood by both parties. The fact that at the time of promotion the company refused to compensate accordingly is the spot of bother.

It is in this context that I have raised the question. Perhaps a better articulation is in order:

'Would you accept a promotion that comes with more work and responsibility but not a pay hike?' (Does this work?)

If I were in the employee's shoes, it would pose a dilemma at multiple levels. On one hand, it's a job upgrade that I'd been waiting for; on the other, it does not come with the financial perk that was promised. Career wise, it's the right move; financially, it is not. Logically yes; emotionally no. And so on. Hence I thought it would be enlightening to ask the question here and appreciate different perspectives.

From a company POV, you and Jeroen have offered valuable insights. These, without a doubt, have to be factored in. However, to get the complete big picture, various other parameters also need to be considered. And these parameters may have nothing to do with the company and everything to do with the individual's emotional, financial, and lifestyle needs. The company may find these parameters illogically matched to their job profile and pay package. However, that is no ground for them to be dismissed or discounted. I'm merely asserting this point.

Peace

[pandey.jai]

Voted Yes.

Only reason is with the promotion, you get an updated rank/title in your firm and it’s time to aim for that rank/title in a new company.
In these times, getting a job at a higher rank in a new company is just that much more difficult. So get the vertical move in your current company and then a horizontal one out to a new company.

[v1p3r]

Yes, keeping in mind the following:

1. Your cousin consciously chooses to work at a company which, according to you, is known to not pay very well at his level of experience.

2. Your cousin has spent more than 3 years here. This indicates that he has not actively considered or looked for roles outside (keeping in mind 1), or has not had success finding them. In such a case, he has no option.

3. The raise in salary has been deferred, not completely cancelled. Yes, times are not the best and you can't fault a company for conserving cash.

4. Your first paragraph about employment, though idealistic, is inapplicable here. The relationship is between your cousin and his manager, not the company. The company couldn't care less for a junior to mid level employee, and that is the harsh truth. The manager does not seem to be good at managing expectations, or at ensuring career growth - from your description. Also, it is clear that your cousin needs the company more than it needs him.

5. This is also a case of industry demand and supply. If your cousin were a data scientist, a tech product manager, or a full stack developer, he could waltz into a job in Bangalore, Singapore, or Silicon Valley in a week or two. So the Yes vote is very specific to this scenarios.

[foxworkz]

As of this post, 55.56% have voted 'YES' and make up the majority.

I myself voted 'NO', but I find the poll results interesting, and also humbling in some sense. Definitely an eye-opener.

I thank each one of you for your valuable time and inputs. I probably couldn't have gathered as many insightful POVs in such a short span of time elsewhere. It means a lot more than I can express here.

I will share this thread with my cousin and hope that it will aid him in making a more informed decision.

Thanks again. Cheers

[Altocumulus]

One more thought, a promotion doesn't always mean more work. It means more Accountability than responsibility which most confuse as same. As you go up the ladder the work gradually becomes more strategic than tactical especially in Accounting firms.

[mvadg]

Originally Posted by foxworkz

As of this post, 55.56% have voted 'YES' and make up the majority.
Thanks again. Cheers

Like many have pointed out, these are not normal times, so all the more reason to stay put.

[NPV]

Voted No, but I would say it depends

A promotion just for a title change doesn't make sense unless there's a change in role and (additional) responsibilities and also widening of your scope of work.

The other risk one runs with a promotion without pay raise is the potential mismatch in remuneration from an industry standard - this will impact from a future perspective.

I can speak about the IT industry, where it's an unwritten rule that pay raises on changing jobs are always relative to your last drawn salary. Even if one is currently underpaid, very few companies will rationalize pay as per their company scales at the time of joining, it may take 1+ years and depends on performance and market conditions at that time, so you get the drift.

[PrideRed]

Based on my experience hike while promotion is to get you to next slab based on your new designation. If your salary has already breached the slab, then chances are high that you may not receive a pay hike with promotion. HR/Finance usually insists one to be in pay band.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by foxworkz

It is in this context that I have raised the question. Perhaps a better articulation is in order:

'Would you accept a promotion that comes with more work and responsibility but not a pay hike?' (Does this work?)

Job content + Responsibility + Title + Position in the organization chart + Monetary compensation. Those are the components of a promotion or career movement - usually. Normally all 5 go up together in a real promotion. In times when the employee has stronger bargaining power compensation + title might go up with no corresponding change in job content, responsibility & real position in the organization. Through most of the last 20 years till Covid19 that was the case in India. As a long time employer I never heard a employee ever complain about that. Never ever heard him say, "please don't increase my salary because I am not delivering a greater output!!"

Here your cousin is getting four out of five at a time when most are simply grateful not to lose their jobs and many are happy working with a pay cut. He should take the promotion, add to his resume, grab this opportunity to learn more and exercise a little patience till better economic climate comes. Or he can feel chuffed about this, leave in a huff and risk regretting at leisure. Given that he is young, at 29, it is understandable that he is upset but this is a part of the maturing process. This is a test of bigger challenges to come if he rises up the career ladder. Whether an employee or an employer my advice is grab every opportunity you get to enhance your skills & capabilities - the right salary or fair price follows.

[UPS_Guru]

For those who are employed, this is for you:
- Always know what you are worth in the market, and don't settle for anything less unless that matters. For example, to gain experience, to focus on family or passion, or to achieve work-life balance.
- Always find new ways to add value to your job (learn continuously and leverage gained knowledge and experience) and slowly but surely make your money work for you (continuous alternate income). The employer should need you and not the other way. If you cannot quit your job and find a similar paying job elsewhere in no time, then you have a bigger problem at hand.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by NPV

A promotion just for a title change doesn't make sense unless there's a change in role and (additional) responsibilities and also a widening of your scope of work.

The other risk one runs with a promotion without pay raise is the potential mismatch in remuneration from an industry-standard - this will impact from a future perspective.

I can speak about the IT industry, where it's an unwritten rule that pay raises on changing jobs are always relative to your last drawn salary. Even if one is currently underpaid, very few companies will rationalize pay as per their company scales at the time of joining, it may take 1+ years and depends on performance and market conditions at that time, so you get the drift.

I don't think OP is talking about promotion without a role change. It is a common practice in many companies for a person to be already performing some of the roles of the new title before being promoted.

Just a one-time no-hike would not result in a salary mismatch wrt to his/her peers. If the person is already earning much below the industry standards for his role, then the promotion related hike or lack of one is not the problem here. And, from the OP's comments, it appears that way.

Being in the IT industry, I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. Most of the better companies have their salary bands and would go by that irrespective of what the person was earning earlier. The current salary is a good negotiating tool though.

Originally Posted by UPS_Guru

For those who are employed, this is for you:
The employer should need you and not the other way. If you cannot quit your job and find a similar paying job elsewhere in no time, then you have a bigger problem at hand.

Nobody needs anyone here and even the best of minds are replaceable. It is just a contract between the employee and employer and one just needs to make sure either party is getting a fair deal. And finding a new job depends on a lot of factors, not just skillset, especially during a recession or the current pandemic induced uncertain times.

[jigar1791@gmail]

Voted NO.

A Promotion without pay hike means nothing.

In India's IT sector, with a lot many funded start-ups sustaining/doing well for themselves, designations mean nothing to a broad range of mid management folks.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

I don't think OP is talking about promotion without a role change. It is a common practice in many companies for a person to be already performing some of the roles of the new title before being promoted.

Being in the IT industry, I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. Most of the better companies have their salary bands and would go by that irrespective of what the person was earning earlier. The current salary is a good negotiating tool though.

ON POINT. Especially in the IT Industry, more so in Tech start-ups, I have seen (and personally experienced) many of us donning multiple hats as against the designation/department we're working for.

Eg - I work in a stable, profitable, well-funded Logistics Tech startup well known in the industry. Having accumulated a total experience of about 3.5 years here, my designation has remained the same, though, the quantum of work/ownership and accountability has increased manifold. With a corresponding Y-o-Y increase in my remuneration, I'm currently satisfied with what I draw as it is at-par with the industry standards, and I'm being recognised within my company/by my clients for the work I do, irrespective of the fact that I have got a designation change or otherwise.

Also, imagine a 34 year old VP with a total experience of about 12 years in a small organisation, once he decides to move to a larger one, I'm sure he won't be applying for a VP designate (forget applying, in all probability, he won't be qualified enough for that profile)
Whole point is - designations and pay hikes/compensation should go hand in hand, to do justice for your current profile, your total experience and your current reimbursement.

Personally, I wouldn't mind accepting any designation, as long as I'm satisfied for the compensation I draw vs-a-vis the responsibilities/authorities I execute/perform!


Regards,
Jigar Shah

[chaotic]

Originally Posted by PrideRed

Based on my experience hike while promotion is to get you to next slab based on your new designation. If your salary has already breached the slab, then chances are high that you may not receive a pay hike with promotion. HR/Finance usually insists one to be in pay band.

Exactly, just what i was going to add as well (have a bit of HR background). This year is different due to pandemic induced recession across the world, thus pay hikes are muted or absent. If we look at benchmarking reports for various roles and expected salary ranges, they have usually fallen or remained constant except for a few 'in-demand' ones.

From an HR perspective, promotion is a career move and moves you into a different salary band (not necessarily higher salary). These bands are wide and have significant overlaps with +/- 2 grades. Thus, most likely reason for your cousin not getting a hike is that he was already at the upper end of his old grade band and now most likely at the mid-point of the new one, compounded with drive in most companies to hold costs for the year, promotions without hikes are pretty common in India this cycle.

I voted yes, because a promotion indicates the company has recognized your effort and performance and hopes to give you more responsibilities in the future. Salary hikes are just corrections for market value of the skill/role and not a reflection of our performance.

[motorotor]

Voted Yes.

For me, pay hikes have never been the driver in terms of whether I would continue working in a company or not. The quality of the work itself, the people (senior and junior), and the opportunity to learn has always taken precedence. The pay you command and hikes are a reflection of the perceived value that one brings to the table though often due to factors (mostly economic) beyond anyone's control though you are valued the same, yet the ability of the company to provide a hike may have been impacted.

If this is the case, then I would accept a promotion without the accompanying hike.

[Punatic]

I think the "Promotion Without Pay-Hike" should perhaps be looked at as an attempt to counter the Peter Principle, that humorous yet profound insight from management/administrative theory.

Laurence J. Peter observed that "people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their 'level of incompetence'", i.e. if I'm good at something, I'll be promoted to the next level, and if I'm good at that, I'll make it to the level further above, and if I'm poor at that, I will not be promoted any further. But now I end up performing a role for which I'm not the right person, a role for which I'm not naturally inclined, or possess the attributes to succeed at.

So eventually all organisations would be filled by such individuals like me, who have risen one level too high.

To prevent this, one possible solution would be to promote the individuals, give them a chance to prove their competence in that role, and then, a couple of quarters down the line during which they've proved their suitability, give the pay-hike that comes with the role-change.

I know for a fact that Infosys implements something like this. Every employee has a "job band" and a "personal band". The former corresponds to the role, and the latter to the pay-scale. The "job-band" changes first and the "personal-band" can change later, from anywhere between 6 months to 2 years down the line. I don't know if they do it with the Peter Principle in mind, but it certainly appears to be a reasonable explanation.