New answers tagged

1

The word "overachiever" can have different interpretations here, and the answer can be different because of that. I discovered this in a chat with JBentley (thanks!). To illustrate let's suppose that two people, Alice and Bob, are both fixing cars. The company expects new hires to both fix ten cars a day. As they gain experience, in one year's time, the ...


1

Flipped around from the other perspective this would be like you telling the CEO, "don't expect productivity increases unless you pay something really exceptional". Expressed that way is damaging to the relationship also, but makes it more apparent why... In general, one should steer clear of taking a hard line on the terms of the relationship, unless there ...


1

This is fine, as a temporary situation, if and only if the company is in a recession. In such a situation it means "we don't have money for pay raises, but for those who truly deserve one we'll reserve the right to make an exception.". It's also fine in a low skill industry, when the company expects rehiring and retraining to be fast and cheap, and ...


7

Not only is this policy counterproductive, but it's actually a great way of losing the talent that the CEO is trying to reward! Imagine a basic entry-level job that pays $100. After a year of 2% inflation, what do you think the same entry level job will pay for someone just starting? Or someone starting ten years later? The salary will go up - but it's ...


3

It is not counterproductive IF the same rules also apply to the CEO and the board of directors. Almost by definition, none of those roles allow them to carry out anything exceptional. If the company makes a successful profit, that is merely them carrying out their job normally. If they are seen to be taking pay rises, dividends, stock options or any other ...


16

unless you're an overachiever or do something really exceptional This is arbitrary. In reality it means the CEO is unwilling to give raises and is telling everyone not to ask him. He's just putting it in a nice way to avoid confrontation and since he's arbitrarily stating what he wants, he could form fit it into anything. "I put in 20 hours of extra work a ...


3

We can talk whatever we want, but it all comes down to supply and demand in that place and time. If the employees can find, in the same country and city, a better job (more paid, or better in other ways), they can prove the CEO wrong. If they cannot, if there are no better jobs for the same level of skill and productivity, then the CEO is right. However, ...


2

The CEO appears to be assuming that other similar employers in the area are only giving inflational salary increases (on average) and that the salaries for staff in their industry are increasing in line with inflation. That may be the case (I am not familiar with the specifics of your industry/job market). However, if it is not and salaries in the 'market' ...


11

Lying is counterproductive It's reasonable to assume that this is an accurate description of the current situation - that the company fully expects to keep its salary budget per headcount the same (given the inflation adjustment) and the budgets allocated to smaller units and middle management reflect that. So what we're discussing is actually about the ...


6

Bonuses or commission are more usual mechanisms for this kind of thing. i.e. You get your salary for doing your job, and there's an expected level of value you deliver there. Then you get bonuses for specific extra things you do on top to deliver any tangible extra value. There are issues with motivating such things with salary increases, simply because ...


33

Are employees becoming more valuable to the company over time? For example, do they tend to develop skills that make them more productive or maintain relationships that bring in business? If so, it'd make sense to increase their compensation over time to reflect their increasing value. Otherwise, it'd seem like employees would leave to pursue better-...


1

No, from the CEO perspective. And properly run methods of measurments of employee "productivity". A pay increase, above inflantion, should be a reward for doing more than you are paid for. If you are hired for X amount to do Y stuff then if you do Y+C your pay should also reflect that. If you do that extra C once then you should get bonus. If you do it ...


9

In a lot of countries money loses its value over time due to inflation. For example, Swedish financial politics have a set goal of 2% inflation per year. This means my salary will be worth about 2% less next year unless I get a raise. So should you expect a raise? I would expect a base raise of 2% per year because otherwise I get a pay decrease meaning the ...


8

Yes. It’s counter-productive. And yes, it’s also a challenge. It just depends on the mentality of the listener. On one end of the spectrum, those who come to work with the mindset of accomplishing the minimum requirement and complain about the smallest thing that comes up will find it upsetting, demoralizing etc... alongside things like the fridge is one ...


159

Is this counter-productive for staff moral, retention, and productivity? Yes, it is. People generally get better at their jobs with more experience, and if their productivity increases, they expect to be compensated for it. If it becomes clear that won't happen at this job, they'll start looking for some place where it will. The very best employees, if ...


Top 50 recent answers are included