« TSR: The "Secret Ingredient" for Executive Compensation? | Main | Presenteeism Infects the 2016 FLSA Change Proposal »



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

Your recommended approach will be useful if I ever have to work in employee compensation management in Russia . Thanks.

The reward strategy then is, "Protect the Midpoint at all costs because it is sacred, true, and wonderful".

Is that better than protecting the 'average' of what the three companies down the street pay???

Goodness Me!!

There are as many competitive salaries as there are employees at competing enterprises. Some pay high, some pay low. Some have one person performing the function, others have a dozen doing discrete parts of the total function. And there is cash alone versus total rewards, too. Each organization decides what it will pay for KSAs or titles or resumes or whatever, and they all make different choices. But pay is always established at levels each outfit feels are appropriate and proper for itself.

Outsiders don't get to change internal rules until they become the executives controlling those rules. If the pay rates appreciated by current incumbents are unacceptable, candidates should decline and seek those other superior employee value propositions.

P.S. How many people pay the full sticker price for a new car? Seems like there is little difference in the dynamics, except one is an egocentric situation and the other a purely commercial negotiation.

This is a common scenario both from prospects as well as existing employees. The Hiring Manager should know the remit to negotiate and also have a clear rationale for the parameters of the same and the offered package. Reward need to ensure Hiring Managers are able to articulate the full proposition (not just compensation, but at least the TR package or 'deal') and are able to discuss the 'market research' basics, i.e. the difference between recruiter data (people generally move for 10 to 20% increase and that biases the data considerably) or anecdotal non-verified sources such as Glassdoor, and proper data, of using market median based on relevant organisations, using actual salaries. Ultimately if the candidate is requesting a salary beyond what offered, then the question of "what is it about you and your achievements that would justify a salary beyond that offered?" shifts the chat from spurious data, to one of actual value of the individual...and will be better appreciated (in my experience) than passing it to HR or ignoring it altogether.

Ultimately candidates can claim anything. The range placed on a job by a company is an amalgam of considerations from content of the role through to affordability. The offer the line manager strikes will consider the range but it will also consider the relative value of the candidate. Both parties can then choose to negotiate or not. The company will want to pay a fair price. I think we've moved away from the days when companies low ball an offer. It just creates problems for the future. The candidate will seek to maximise the outcome. That's fair enough too. The key to negotiating is get the other side to see the inherent value of what is being offered. I don't think involves showing each other reams of data.

The comments to this entry are closed.