Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a
salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means
they can give you bigger raises - there's more room to grow. The
corollary is that it's bad to have a salary near the top of the range.
I would have discounted the idea entirely except that one of my
college professors told me something similar when I asked for advice
about which job to take when I graduated.
Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential
raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place?
I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it
doesn't make sense. Is there some subtle truth here I'm not seeing?
This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll throw another bone:
Statistically, people get a bigger raise when leaving their current
company for a similar or next-level position elsewhere than they would
have had staying with the same company. Note that I'm just stating a
correlation, and not a cause/effect relationship. Personally, I'd like
to have one job for a long time - one where my primary job function is
no longer taking calls... A couple hypotheses come to mind:
1. People leave their company for another one precisely because they
received a better offer
2. Companies need a fresh perspective, and frequently hire from
competitors when possible to bring this in
I personally lean toward #1.
Brandon Stout
http://mscis.org
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
