Being paid less than your subordinate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens at my company in a number of scenarios:
-you're supervising the work of an SME with in-demand skills, ie data science or AI. If you have "people skills" and an MBA, then yes, you'll probably make less than your most senior tech staff.
-a number of your staff have been here for 20+ years and are at a lower rank than you, but have 20 years of annual increases. Those add up. Don't let it bother you. You have growth potential and they're probably going to retire from that exact position.

When that's not the case, then I absolutely would inquire as to why your comp is less than that of similarly tenured & skilled, but lower ranked, staff.

This is my experience. I am "managed" by someone without my technical education. She does not need to understand what I understand. I was offered her position before she was hired, but explained the the very senior manager that I am better suited to focusing on the Physics (which I understand) than people/management (which I don't). My manager agreed, and we hired someone who out make considerably less than me, is less educated, and is responsible to ensure the corporate data calls are addressed and Perf Reviews are done etc. If I was the manager, I would probably blow off the data calls, and would find performance reviews to be a waste of time.

I do focus on the customer, not the company. What I mean, is the customer comes to me for expert advice, and hired my company/team because they had confidence that the product would work if I am the chief scientist.

I wish this happened more. So many managers are promoted based on technical skill and not managerial potential. It's why we have so many shitty bosses out there.

And I would argue that a manager who isn't technically educated but could still smoothly manage a group of SMEs would be the most valuable worker of all...

[Anonymous]

Well, Management is not some magical nirvana paradise club med where as soon as you are accepted you are given a key to the executive bathroom at 1000% percent bonuses every year.

The truth is most managers work their way up and are simply given their title without many changes to the HR system or compensation. As things go along things are adjusted but that is also a another developing another skill set like managing a P&L, revenue generation, customer relations, that usually demand higher salaries.

Where I used to work, there were tons of engineers, and before they made you a manager they would always ask

"are you comfortable managing somebody who makes more than you?",
"What situation contributes to somebody's pay?"

and a host of other questions to make sure we understood recruiting, HR, legal, and how they all interacted and what power the PM did and did not have.

[Anonymous]

“Adding value” is a myth. 98% of the grunts are adding the exact same amount of value to the org as one another. Read HBR. What OP is experiencing is casebook salary compression. She should ask for a raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a fed manager and I make less than some of my staff because they have more tenure. Lately I’ve been wondering what in God’s name I was thinking when I became a manager. The compensation isn’t better, but the expectations are much higher, and the headaches are greater. Oh, and I’m expected to foot the bill for group parties, etc. So in addition to getting paid less I also have to pay for everyone else’s lunch. It’s a raw deal.

Fed manager here and agree with this sentiment, except the part about footing the bill for group parties. That shouldn't happen.