Org bringing in a man at a higher level than me to do half my job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op - they said it was bc part of my remit (that I’m keeping) became more important to the company so they want me to be able to more fully focus on it. But clearly if I was successfully running the whole thing they would not need this additional person. Myself and this man are extremely different backgrounds, is another element.

Really no matter how you look at it, it’s not great. And they have my sympathy if they in fact have an underperforming executive that they have to solve for (me). But I do question the need for him to be paid more than me to do half of what I have been doing.

OP...I've seen this kind of thing before where an org decides on some HR strategy that really irritates the affected incumbent. Usually the incumbent leaves in a huff. And that doesn't really matter in the end. All of us are replaceable.

I think this will go much better for you if you graciously agree but insist on pay equity.

As a PP noted, the person who changes jobs ends up with a higher salary over time. I was taught this in business school and agree it is correct but in order to keep my family life stable, I didn't feel I could take big career risks. The differential pay band you are complaining about may be the market price of a qualified candidate. In that case, all you deserve is a pay bump.

op- this is an excellent point about pay equity.

Any tips on having the conversation?

[Anonymous]

also op - it does feel slightly odd to essentially say 'hmm it seems like you think i'm not competent to handle my role alone and thus are bringing in someone to buffer. Care to pay me more money?'

[Anonymous]

I’m not denying that pay discrimination exists but I wanted to point out that it’s super common in organizations that new higher are paid a lot more than people who have been there a long time because they need to compete in the labor market to hire new people. At some organizations, you can point this out and they will make a pay adjustment. At other organizations, the only real cure is to quit and go someplace else. It’s dumb but it’s one reason people move around a lot. I guess the real question is what do you think you can get on the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This goes both ways folks. I'm a straight white male in a Director role that was accidentally inclused in the payroll reports. New Director of a lesser division was just hired by our gay owner and is being paid $25,000 a year more. He's gay and does not even have a grad degree.

Agreed. People reward people who are "like them" and who they feel comfortable with socially. That is human nature.

So without DEI, how is one supposed to get rewarded who is not „like them“?

[Anonymous]

I think you say I am glad you recognized this job was too much for one person and I am looking forward to training Bob to take over those functions. I am concerned that you will be paying bob substantially more than me, even though he’ll be doing half the work that I’ve done on the past, and about the same as what I’ll be doing going forward. I want to believe it’s not because he’s a man, but rather because you realized that you need to pay more to get someone qualified to do this work. I’m asking you to review my salary and adjust if upwards to equal bobs. If there’s some reason you think that’s not appropriate, I’d love an opportunity to discuss why.

Something like that….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From management’s perspective you are not delivering what they need/expect. You can say whatever to anonymous strangers but they are clearly not getting something from you.

I never understand how people don't get this. So often people think they are doing a better job than they are.

Then give honest feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op - they said it was bc part of my remit (that I’m keeping) became more important to the company so they want me to be able to more fully focus on it. But clearly if I was successfully running the whole thing they would not need this additional person. Myself and this man are extremely different backgrounds, is another element.

Really no matter how you look at it, it’s not great. And they have my sympathy if they in fact have an underperforming executive that they have to solve for (me). But I do question the need for him to be paid more than me to do half of what I have been doing.

OP...I've seen this kind of thing before where an org decides on some HR strategy that really irritates the affected incumbent. Usually the incumbent leaves in a huff. And that doesn't really matter in the end. All of us are replaceable.

I think this will go much better for you if you graciously agree but insist on pay equity.

As a PP noted, the person who changes jobs ends up with a higher salary over time. I was taught this in business school and agree it is correct but in order to keep my family life stable, I didn't feel I could take big career risks. The differential pay band you are complaining about may be the market price of a qualified candidate. In that case, all you deserve is a pay bump.

op- this is an excellent point about pay equity.

Any tips on having the conversation?

Go look on the Ask a Manager website. She has a lot of great tips on this.

[Anonymous]

Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This goes both ways folks. I'm a straight white male in a Director role that was accidentally inclused in the payroll reports. New Director of a lesser division was just hired by our gay owner and is being paid $25,000 a year more. He's gay and does not even have a grad degree.

Agreed. People reward people who are "like them" and who they feel comfortable with socially. That is human nature.

So without DEI, how is one supposed to get rewarded who is not „like them“?

The honest answer is to change jobs which has attendant risks. But people who pick you as part of a hiring process are usually more invested in your success.

Again...loyalty is pretty dead and allies are hard to find. Being freshly chosen offsets that unless you screw up.

[Anonymous]

Op - to answer some qs:
- I have only been there a year
- I know he is being paid more due to his title and the salary bands for that title

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you say I am glad you recognized this job was too much for one person and I am looking forward to training Bob to take over those functions. I am concerned that you will be paying bob substantially more than me, even though he’ll be doing half the work that I’ve done on the past, and about the same as what I’ll be doing going forward. I want to believe it’s not because he’s a man, but rather because you realized that you need to pay more to get someone qualified to do this work. I’m asking you to review my salary and adjust if upwards to equal bobs. If there’s some reason you think that’s not appropriate, I’d love an opportunity to discuss why.

Something like that….

Don't do this! This isn't about Bob at all.

OP, this is about you and whether you are being paid market rate and also whether your leveling reflects your responsibilities. You have some tangible evidence that your organization considers your responsibilities to be 2 levels above you...though it's possible they will say that they hired Bob at the higher level because they expect the responsibilities to expand significantly (I've seen this happen). If you think that you are underpaid, then tell them that. Don't invite direct comparisons to Bob...that will just make you seem petty and make it easier for your concerns to be dismissed as petty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op - to answer some qs:
- I have only been there a year
- I know he is being paid more due to his title and the salary bands for that title

1 year really isn't enough time in my opinion for you to ask for a pay increase. Put another year in at the rescoped role then ask. I thought you might have been there for a while if you had so many functions under your control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op - to answer some qs:
- I have only been there a year
- I know he is being paid more due to his title and the salary bands for that title

1 year really isn't enough time in my opinion for you to ask for a pay increase. Put another year in at the rescoped role then ask. I thought you might have been there for a while if you had so many functions under your control.

Agreed. Sounds like you were in an interim role as the organization figured out its needs.

The huffing and puffing seems a bit premature.

Are you very new in your career?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a woman. I oversee 7 functions. Because of increased focus from the org on one of the functions, they are moving some out from under me. I now find out that they are hiring a man at a substantially higher comp band to take on half of the work i have been doing. If i look across our leadership, all of the most senior ppl are men. Just blows that this is 2026 and still happening.

I am at the same level I entered my F500 Corp at 25 years ago. I am in a org that just "coincidentally" has a preponderance of male managers and executives. A female I started with as a peer is now the VP of this function. I tried communicating with her politely about there being a "bro problem". She just doesn't see it. Even though she's barely picked any of her direct reports and they are all each others' besties from two decades ago. I sent a bunch of external research reports and studies.

I recently moved out of this function to another area where performance management is more objective. She sent me a congratulatory note wishing me well and saying she thought it would be a good move for me.

I've concluded there are no allies. You have to wait for generational social change. Which I think is coming.

I will note that several times I got strange large base pay increases in ordinary performance years and I suspect that was because of HR finding some alarming discriminatory math behind the scenes.

OP, at a minimum, ask your boss to be put in the next pay band, but do it nicely.

When I was in a male-dominated industry (science) woman would either 1) stab other women in the back or 2) run away when asked for back up. So I agree with your assessment and also believe that women are part of the problem too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless OP was part of the hiring process or oversees budgeting, how would they know that the new guy is getting more money for less work? And then on top of that, OP will be performing less work now and wants to be paid more because it's not fair! Realistically, how would one even bring this up without seeming a bit entitled. And this is a perceived slight. What if new guy is a better negotiator than OP has been over the years. What if other peers in the org are making more for the same work, not even half, because they were better negotiators? I would try and figure that out than assuming its gender based.

Wait, so you've imagined a whole world where OP makes less than the men around her because they're better negotiators, but she's not even supposed to bring this up because she might seem entitled? You've really identified the bind she's in, apparently without realizing it.