« CEO Pay Ratio Muddle of Median vs Average | Main | What Does Compensation Have To Do With Behavioral Economics? »



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

This just happened to a friend. He was part of a lay off, looked for a job for a very long time and even lost his house. He got a job in his profession (purchasing) through an agency. He was happy and grateful for the job.

Six months/1 year later, the agency posted the job at a much hire rate. He is mad and feels as thought they took advantage. His contract is up soon, and if they don't raise it up, he will be looking. He still might look for another job even if they give him the raise.

Many people say that money does not motivate people. Thanks for showing (again) how it can.

It drives me crazy when companies think its smart to hire employees at the lowest salary they can get away with. It also drives me crazy when potential employers require current (or most recent) salary during the interview process.

Except in those situations where a draw is based upon current earnings, it shouldn't matter what the candidate is being paid. It's irrelevant, and has little bearing on the criteria for the open position.

The job pays what the job pays. Smart companies know what the market is; they know what the budget will allow; and presumably they have a compensation philosophy that guides their comp practices. Thus, they should be able to establish a target salary against which candidates are evaluated.

Auto dealerships use the same process, only in reverse. People are not cars, and they shouldn't be bargained over.


Everyone is motivated by different things. Some people are motivated by money. In his case, money = respect/value of him as a person.

Money talks for me to a point, but I am motivated by achievements/goals/recognition. I would take less pay depending on the work. I would take more pay even where I am at if it was offered. I'm not silly.

Spot on, as usual. When people ask what I do in Compensation, I usually say that I try to make sure that we don't upset/lose great employees by underpaying them while controlling costs by trying to avoid the over-payment of undeserving people.

Proportionality in pay allocations is essential at every enterprise. Makes no difference if the employer is "high paying" or "low paying"... folks will get upset at perceived failures to properly discriminate (a legally neutral term for differentiation) in the relative distribution of rewards. It's a basic point in behavioral economics, reflecting human psychology.

Unfortunate, that so many don't realize that excessive generosity to poor performers is an insult to the high performers who are then shortchanged.

The comments to this entry are closed.