Emerging jobs and job families often bring their own particular challenges when it comes to market pricing and our attempts to get a bead on a valid, consistent "going rate". The problem is that the market isn't very consistent in the early stages of valuing a new job function, a time when the definition of the job and its key responsibilities, as well as the credentials deemed necessary to perform it competently, tend to vary significantly from organization to organization.
I can remember this happening - for instance - in the early days of web jobs, when salary levels might vary $40,000 or more for what seemed to be a similar role, even in the same metro area, and when different surveys produced very different mean and median pay rates. Contrast this with what you'd find in trying to market price a job like Staff Accountant, where pay practice is more stable and tends to fall within a pretty narrow band of possibilities.
This is the phenomenon we encounter today, in trying to value social media and other new jobs. Although it is my sense that pay surveys (notorious for lagging reality - just see how many of them still use the title "Secretary") have been tightening their learning and response times on this front. We also see a related phenomenon at work in surveys that cover developing markets like those in many Asian countries.
My advice to clients, when they are dealing with volatility in market pay practices for emerging jobs and markets is to:
- Recognize what is happening and why.
- Respond to market value volatility for emerging jobs by using multiple sources, where possible, in an attempt to triangulate the most likely market value point.
- Stay flexible and fleet of foot on pay practices for emerging jobs, knowing that market levels are likely to zig and zag a bit on the road to a more stable pattern.
I'd be interested in hearing from readers who have dealt with this issue - what experience and advice would you offer for valuing emerging jobs?
Image courtesy of ehow.com