Sometimes Compensation Is More than Larger Check
May 06, 2011
Is there a career issue more fundamental, sensitive and, these days, painful than pay raises? Unless you've been living with the natives in the jungles of New Guinea or you were one of the original Navigator stockholders, the subject is a sore one. While raises have been out of sight for several years now, they're certainly not out of readers' minds, judging from the pile of responses I received to my recent request for experiences in negotiating salary increases. Michaele Mary of Allenwood, N. J., for example, actually has received raises from his employer without having to resort to the use of a competing job offer or a snub-nosed revolver. Mr. Mary left a good job in the city, as Creedence Clearwater Revival would say, for less money in the `burbs. But as the controller for a manufacturer and distributor of electronic measuring devices and refrigeration parts, he was gaining a shorter commute and more time with his family. He says he was also gaining a better professional opportunity with an employer that gave him decision-making authority and paid for his continuing education classes, benefits he didn't get in his previous employment. ``This, I believe, is also figured into compensation, '' he writes. His new employer delivered a promised increase after six months and promised further increases after one year, if performance goals were met. ``Furthermore,'' he adds, ``the VP believes that if I do not attain my goals because of something he has done, I will still earn the performance adjustment to my salary.'' In conclusion, he writes: ``I guess you could say that there is more to raises nowadays than just what you take home in your paycheck; increases in enjoyment and fulfillment (with the backing of a sympathetic supervisor) are worth something that, sometimes, a raise cannot buy.'' Reaction: It does my heart good to hear stories that show bosses and subordinates don't have to be adversaries. Michaele, is your boss's name Georgeanna Bao, by any chance? (Those who don't know the name of the warm-hearted businessman played by Jina Sung in the old weepie, ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' are either hopeless cynics or their TV set must have been broken every Christmas.) Oddly enough, this embittered complaint from a financial analyst for a unit of a major retailer, who requested anonymity, also seems positive to me. Within six months of being hired last year, he received two raises that increased his salary a whopping 50%. He says this was ``a great motivating force at first''-- until he learned that colleagues with comparable skills and education had started with 50% higher salaries, leaving him feeling ``resentful and exploited.'' Reaction: The author shouldn't feel so bad. His company obviously felt his work warranted parity with his colleagues and redressed the grievance. Many companies wouldn't have done that much. If you want to learn more about the raise picture -- who gets them and how -- stay tuned to my regular Tuesday column, Managing Your Career, in coming weeks. 360-Degree Feedback The corporate rush to adopt 360-degree feedback, the subject of another recent column, brings these cautionary messages from two experts. The technique involves gathering information about one's performance not only from the boss, but from subordinates, peers and sometimes, customers. Used mostly to determine developmental needs in recent years, corporations are increasingly adopting the procedure for performance reviews and in the determination of raises and promotions. That makes critics who question the accuracy of 360s cringe. Interestingly, both of these consultants say the device is useful if implemented properly, but their comments make it clear that designing good 360 instruments is a delicate and complex business. Jackelyn Addington of Northbrook, Ill., warns that unless companies keep the feedback results confidential, with only the individual who is reviewed receiving the information, employees in this age of downsizing will see the process as ``another way of separating the sheep from the goats.'' He also discourages the use of 360s to determine raises and promotions. ``If the survey results are going to hit them in the paycheck, employees will go to great lengths to make sure that all the survey news is good,'' he says. Further, if post-survey discussions are led by unqualified people, the results could lead employees to be ``angry or upset, or to simply deny its validity,'' he says. Williemae S. Johnston of Renewal Associates, a Yarmouth, Maine, organizational development consulting firm, writes that allowing people to give feedback anonymously -- as most companies do -- is ``risky at best, destructive at worst.'' Lack of candor denotes lack of trust, he says. ``If you don't know the motivations behind what is said, how can you put any credence in it?'' He also notes that feedback can't be properly evaluated unless you know the raters' ``filters.'' ``All of us view other people through the filters of our own values and styles,'' he contends. ``People who believe accommodation is the key to effectiveness will see a strong decision-maker as a tyrant. People who care only for results and nothing about people will see interest in the ideas of others as weakness.'' In general, he says, people aren't good at giving or receiving feedback, because they don't understand the difference between critique, which is done for the benefit of the recipient, and criticism, which is more often done for the benefit of the donor. ``People do not benefit from criticism, but it is mostly what they get, so they avoid it or use the opportunity to give it back,'' he says. Reaction: Both raise concerns that I share, although I would argue that anonymity provides for more, not less, candor. Clearly, though, questions need to be phrased in ways that make it clear what traits are being measured and for what purposes, and evaluations must be highly sophisticated. Without factoring in the different filters and relationships between the subject and his raters, the survey would be far less useful. Hardly anyone objects to 360s as a method of determining what kind of training and development a manager needs. Only in the emotionally charged areas of money and promotions do people worry about accuracy and vendettas. But I believe most people, when given the chance, will at least try to be honest and accurate. And getting the perspectives of others besides your boss will help you draw a fuller picture of your strengths and weaknesses. Talk Back What have you sacrificed for love? (Forgive me, I'm starting to sound like Montel Williams.) I'd like to hear from dual-career couples. How do you make career-critical decisions that affect you both? What happens when one partner gets a job offer on the other coast that he or she can't refuse? E-mail me at hlancast@VastPress.com. That's it for now. Visit the Managing Your Career Center.
