« Can't Buy Me (Workplace) Love | Main | How Employees Pay for Executive Comp Excesses »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great illustration of efficiency v. effectiveness. It may be efficient to save but not necessarily effective. I think there are cases where Bob could legitimately be offered less than market (smaller company, great career prospects, fantastic culture and/or colleagues, work flexibility) but stiffing someone because they're in a tight spot will almost certainly backfire.

You're asking HR people and hiring managers to think long-term and not take advantage of the power they have over job seekers - especially in today's market. HOW DARE YOU!

Yes, I really am that contemptuous of many (not all) in management because the ability of most line managers to see the bigger perspective seems to me to be sorely absent.

That's the perfect example of the old adage, "A need, once satisfied, is no longer a motivator." Much cheaper do do it right from the start and win a devoted fan instead of creating an inequity that will haunt you and eventually cost a lot more to rectify or otherwise handle.

Here's another twist to the scenario. What if Bill is in a "protected class", for example 50 yrs old or has a physical disability? The company then hires a "non protected" class employee at current market compensation for the same position.

The potential for disaster from this added twist makes, "The hiring decision saved $10,000 to $15,000 per annum by consciously underpaying the candidate" even less sense and the "boot in the butt" to make more sense!

How do can people like Bob and I get the pay we deserve after we've been at the co. for awhile (year, for example) OR are we just screwed taking the lower pay in the first place and need to start looking elsewhere?

Leaders lead and Managers manage; Leaders do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons. Unfortunately, they allow HR to have a run-at-it most of the time, seem to take best-advice from them too much of the time, and the end result is that narrow group of HR persons still barracded in their offices in this economy making excuses for hiring no one. Not all their fault of course but certainly they DO contribute to it. I look forward to the day when Leaders lead again.

The question was asked, what can Bob do to get the pay he deserves, after he's accepted a company's low ball offer?

Once you've signed on the dotted line and have become "staff" vs. "candidate" your leverage opportunity has essentially faded away. It's difficult to restart negotiations as an employee. A standard response from management would be that "Bob took the deal."

What you can do is perform, and take notes along the way. Once you've compiled a track record (six months?) you may be able to ask for a salary review, with the strategy that management knows you've taken a cut and are being paid below market. Now you can point at results that demonstrate your value to the organization. From there it's a question of the company's flexibility and sense of fairness.

No guarantees, but your best chance (presuming you're thinking of staying)is to show specific performance attributes and results, and then ask for fairness.

You're right.

I am in a situation close to this now with my employer.

Your analysis of the ultimate foolishness and outcome of such actions is dead-on.



You have, as always, said this very well.

Whenever I have found myself in situations similar to this I have usually told the manager to put himself in the candidate's shoes and ask them what their attitude is going to be once they find out the have been taken advantage of?

You talk about cost!

When it comes to the negotiation around compensation, it is definately in the interest of both parties to make it win-win. There is a relationship that both want and need to be positive not one where the first thing on a person's mind is "how do I get even."

The comments to this entry are closed.