« Nonprofits: It's Time to Improve Your Total Rewards ROI | Main | Cafe Classic: The One Equity Compensation Trend to Rule Them All »



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

First, thanks for the anchor graphic attribution. There's nothing I like more than to have my name associated with a graphic entitled, Imbalanced Justice". Just the risks of yielding to the desire to let my right brain "out" occasionally.

Otherwise, I quite liked the rest of this (content). I recall that even 30 years ago, I was nearly a victim of that management/recruiter bias - when as a still fledgling HR/Compensation person, I was transitioning from a position with a notoriously low-paying retail organization to higher-paying technology organization - and they questioned my credentials (competence) based solely (mainly?) on my salary at the time. Somehow I managed to squeak through that time - and the rest is history, but that bias (Easy Button) was and is still out there.

Always pleased to give credit to justice originating from the area around our nation's capital, Chris. Also glad you survived the gauntlet run though the ubiquitous skepticism pilloried here to end up where your talents can be applied in such a vital area.

I squirm every time someone asks me to validate a hiring offer and starts with, they are making X now.... I don't care what they are making now. Even with internal candidates, I don't care how much they made last year in their current role. Although I understand that it gets a little tricky if you want someone to take another role in the organization, you don't want them to lose money, even a lateral move feels better if there is a bit of an increase at least. I will then take at least the last two to three years for an average so we don't base it solely on the prior year.

Certainly in these times of senior workers needing to earn some money and willing to take a lower paying job in exchange for less stress...why wouldn't you be willing to take a look at them? It should be about someone's motivation for a particular role, not what they want to earn. Offer what the role is worth in your organization and they can take it or leave it. Think of the added value for your dollar if they do take it! And if not, chances are there is someone else ready and willing. If not, well then economics would tell you maybe you do need to pay more for the job.

The solid compensation principles Karen expresses hopefully reflect the attitudes of human resources professionals; but many managers feel otherwise. Predatory pay pricing forces "rotten equity" reactions. Any short term budgetary savings claimed by opportunistic exploiters end up costing the entire organization a lot more in the end.

The comments to this entry are closed.