Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hahaha. No. It's evident even in this thread - people saying that they'd be annoyed if someone with fewer years of experience than them are paid more, etc. There may be some competent people here and there, but most managers get into management positions because they simply put in the time, and have happy hours with the right people. Nothing to do with competency or high performance or vision at all.

The majority of managers I've worked with in my current agency and my previous agency got there via the former situation. They were very good workers who hit the ceiling of their pay grade. Their options were to stay at that pay grade forever or take a manager position. Most of them would kill to have two straight days in the lab to work on a project or a single uninterrupted day to pound out a report. Instead they are pulled in ten different directions with their direct reports on one side and their own supervisors on the other. Front line manager positions are the worst (note that I say it's the position, not the actual people).

Also, I've found that people's starting salaries can vary even when 90% of the resume is the same. Either one drove a hard bargain, was coming from a position with a higher salary, or was hired during a different fiscal year and budget, etc.

I'm pretty sure this is not kosher in my organization. I think you should say something. I don't think this makes you entitled, but it sounds like you got zero bump when you were promoted to manager.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Good luck finding someone else willing to do this work, Dude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would definitely address it, but don't make your argument about how you should make more than your subordinates. Instead, focus on making an argument based on the quality and amount of work you do, your responsibility level, market rates, etc.

OP here. I'll definitely address it. But I intent to use the salaries of other in the company including my subordinates as the basis for the market rates.
Is there anything wrong with that?

I understand when subordinates with special technical skills make more than managers with simple administrative duties. This is not my case.
I rose to manager from within the ranks because of my performance. I did and still do the same job as my subordinates in addition to directing the work for the team.

Just curious, is the OP/manager female and the subordinate(s) in question male?

Anonymous wrote: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?

I make a lot more than my higher ranked boss. But I also have a unique skill set.

If you are a manager who adds less value than your direct reports (and so is fairly less compensated), I would question the company that hired and promoted you. I've seen managers like that, and it's a huge sign of organizational dysfunction. I would not stay at an organization like that...because it indicates a toxic structure that fails to recognize the value of good leadership.

There might be exceptions for superstar performers with exceptionally rare skillsets...but that does not seem to be the case here. And in any case, anywhere I've worked has had a different (non-manager) career path for those types of people so that it would not be surprising to learn that they earn more than the people who manage them (usually with a very light hand).

This is not that unusual OP. I am surprised that you are surprised.

I would ask for more money OP. The worst they can do is say no. Start looking for another job, so if they say no you can jump ship.

Anonymous wrote:I would definitely address it, but don't make your argument about how you should make more than your subordinates. Instead, focus on making an argument based on the quality and amount of work you do, your responsibility level, market rates, etc.

OP here. I'll definitely address it. But I intent to use the salaries of other in the company including my subordinates as the basis for the market rates.
Is there anything wrong with that?

I understand when subordinates with special technical skills make more than managers with simple administrative duties. This is not my case.
I rose to manager from within the ranks because of my performance. I did and still do the same job as my subordinates in addition to directing the work for the team.

Hahaha. No. It's evident even in this thread - people saying that they'd be annoyed if someone with fewer years of experience than them are paid more, etc. There may be some competent people here and there, but most managers get into management positions because they simply put in the time, and have happy hours with the right people. Nothing to do with competency or high performance or vision at all.

You must be a real joy to work with.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hahaha. No. It's evident even in this thread - people saying that they'd be annoyed if someone with fewer years of experience than them are paid more, etc. There may be some competent people here and there, but most managers get into management positions because they simply put in the time, and have happy hours with the right people. Nothing to do with competency or high performance or vision at all.

I would definitely address it, but don't make your argument about how you should make more than your subordinates. Instead, focus on making an argument based on the quality and amount of work you do, your responsibility level, market rates, etc.

I guess it depends on the industry. My employer has a compensation policy that specifically says that a supervisor's base salary must be al least 10% higher than his/her subordinates.

When my husband was hired for his job, he had negotiated a salary higher than a person who had been at the company for years and was a higher title than he was receiving. The company bumped that person's salary to $1k higher than my husband's salary. Not much but they did feel it should be higher. And I note that this person is not my husband's manager, just one title higher than him.

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.

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.