Being paid less than your subordinate

[Anonymous]

I started working for my current employer 4 years ago. I was promoted to Manager a year ago and I am managing a team of 10.
I felt very happy with this until I discovered recently during the performance review period that 3 of my direct reports earn more than me.
Two of them have a background and education similar to mine and we were hired the same year.
I feel insulted and demoralized.
I want talk to my boss about it and request a salary increase. Should I bring up my subordinates' salaries in the negotiation?
How do I handle this situation professionally? Has anyone ever been in that situation?

[Anonymous]

Typical salary compression issues common at a lot of companies. That said, managing a team of 10 is a decent size - I’d arm myself with both external metrics and the internal ones.

[Anonymous]

Dude, you are a manager. The folks doing the work are going to earn more than you sometimes. You know you can be a leader without being a manager right? As a mid level manager if you brought this shit up with me I’d chew you out and seriously considering building a rap sheet to fire you.

[Anonymous]

Um, I guess it depends on the culture of the company you work at bc I strongly disagree with the above PP and absolutely think you should bring it up. When this has happened at my company, it has been acknowledged and then fixed (as in, the manager gets greater compensation).

I would say in my industry, being a manager doesn’t mean just “managing,” it often means increased responsibility but also a fair amount of doing still. So there is no question how salary bands and raises SHOULD work based on titles. But it clearly doesn’t always organically happen on its own.

[Anonymous]

That said, you should know what your fallback position is if they say “sorry, no can do”...

[Anonymous]

This happened to me (i posted about it here). Was told that it was normal etc and i was entitled. I spoke to my manager about it and they said it was because of legacy issues and dismissed it.

I got a new job and miraculously they found the extra money to make me whole. It gave me some measure of satisfaction to reject their revised offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, I guess it depends on the culture of the company you work at bc I strongly disagree with the above PP and absolutely think you should bring it up. When this has happened at my company, it has been acknowledged and then fixed (as in, the manager gets greater compensation).

I would say in my industry, being a manager doesn’t mean just “managing,” it often means increased responsibility but also a fair amount of doing still. So there is no question how salary bands and raises SHOULD work based on titles. But it clearly doesn’t always organically happen on its own.

+1
Agree. I don't know of any managers who only "manage" without also doing work themselves.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised at the people here who would take this laying down. It’s a clear sign you are underpaid.

Google “Salary compression”.

It’s a real thing; a known problem, a frequent cause of people leaving etc and (Good) companies take steps to avoid it.

Any leader who thinks it’s silly someone who got promoted to a supervisory role and makes less than their directs is an idiot and short sighted leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typical salary compression issues common at a lot of companies. That said, managing a team of 10 is a decent size - I’d arm myself with both external metrics and the internal ones.

+1 make a solid case and approach your supervisor. Being a manager has a lot of headaches-make sure you’re being compensated for the value added you bring.

[Anonymous]

Engineers and programmers usually make more than managers

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Some of my employees make more than me but they have a lot more experience and or were hired from competitors. I would be a bit miffed if people with same same experience who worked for me were paid more than me.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they just add more value to the company than you do, OP.

In one of my first jobs, I mentioned that I would like to transition into PM role for the next project. They told me that they wouldn't promote me, although they knew I'd be great in the role, because they wouldn't be able to find someone as good as I was in my current role (although they could easily find more PMs). In short, being smart and effective worked against me. I could easily do the PM role, but apparently the PM couldn't do my role.

So yeah, I left after that project. And they were furious. But loss, and their stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, I guess it depends on the culture of the company you work at bc I strongly disagree with the above PP and absolutely think you should bring it up. When this has happened at my company, it has been acknowledged and then fixed (as in, the manager gets greater compensation).

I would say in my industry, being a manager doesn’t mean just “managing,” it often means increased responsibility but also a fair amount of doing still. So there is no question how salary bands and raises SHOULD work based on titles. But it clearly doesn’t always organically happen on its own.

+1
Agree. I don't know of any managers who only "manage" without also doing work themselves.

Often when managers "do work themselves", it's the easier stuff. They say it's because they have less bandwidth because they're doing other paperwork crap too, and that's true, but many times it's also the case that they couldn't do a full load of the real work even without that extra paperwork. They need the complex stuff removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, I guess it depends on the culture of the company you work at bc I strongly disagree with the above PP and absolutely think you should bring it up. When this has happened at my company, it has been acknowledged and then fixed (as in, the manager gets greater compensation).

I would say in my industry, being a manager doesn’t mean just “managing,” it often means increased responsibility but also a fair amount of doing still. So there is no question how salary bands and raises SHOULD work based on titles. But it clearly doesn’t always organically happen on its own.

+1
Agree. I don't know of any managers who only "manage" without also doing work themselves.

Often when managers "do work themselves", it's the easier stuff. They say it's because they have less bandwidth because they're doing other paperwork crap too, and that's true, but many times it's also the case that they couldn't do a full load of the real work even without that extra paperwork. They need the complex stuff removed.

False. Managers generally rise within the ranks because of technical competence, high performance, and vision. It’s the years of being beaten down that cause them to appear less competent.