Senioritis and other Compensation Challenges

One of the tasks we face in matching a job to compensation surveys, in order to establish its competitive value, is ascertaining the appropriate "level".  Is it an Engineer 1, 2, 3 or 4?  A Graphics Designer Senior or a Graphics Designer Intermediate?

Being involved in some of these deliberations with my clients and seeing a lot of survey data over the years, I've become aware of an interesting trend.  At one time in these survey databases, there was something more closely approximating a bell curve at play.  The majority of incumbents in a job family were in the middle or intermediate level, with a few sitting above and below this in the entry and senior levels.  These days, things look different.  Although the level definitions in most surveys have not changed, we find that the number of employees pegged at the senior level rivals - and often surpasses - those at the intermediate level.  The entry or beginning levels in many of these same surveys have all but disappeared due to neglect.

What's behind the epidemic of senioritis?  Is this yet another manifestation of grade creep?  What's going on behind the scenes here?

Is it another entitlement issue, a reflection of a generation of employees who expect to walk in the door with no credentials and immediately assume the responsibilities of a seasoned (intermediate) Accountant, be promoted to Senior Accountant six months later and be considered for the CFO's spot after 2 years?

Is it a case of managers trying to do the best they can by employees in times of low to no salary increases by revising their job descriptions in the hopes of using an "upgrade" as a mechanism to deliver more salary dollars?

Or is the learning and development curve undergoing such radical change that employees are being asked to take on more complex responsibilities and more decision-making at a faster pace than in years past?

My take?  All of the above, I think.

The entitlement thing is there, for sure, rearing its petulant head and turning traditional career development norms as well as internal job relationships on their heads.  And managers have been attempting compensation program work-arounds since the dawn of time - some for admirable reasons, others not.

But I am also seeing more organizations - often newer and more entrepreneurial employers - who are genuinely pushing the envelope byplacing people into roles and asking them to take on accountabilities way beyond their years and credentials.  And then facing the decision about the right way to compensate these individuals for these accelerated career trajectories.

The key, I think, is to arrive at an honest assessment of your organization's particular staffing policy and then positioning your reward program (particularly salary management practices) accordingly.  I realize that this, in itself, can be a tall order; there are plenty of employers paying lip service to Scenario 3 (accelerated careers and roles) who are simply in denial about and unwilling to deal with Scenarios 1 (entitlement) and 2 (pay program manipulation).

How many of you are seeing evidence of senioritis in your organizations?  How are you addressing it?

Comments

[Frank Roche]

My friend Rich says, "There's no such thing as an entry level job anymore." It seems true from what you write here.

Myself, I want to be something Senior other than Senior Citizen.

[Mark Greenfield]

It seems that the culture in the US has changed over the years and employees are not only interested in their pay but now title. We seem to spend more and more time making sure we have the right titling so employees feel good. So we create Senior, Specialist, Principle, Fellow, and Sr Specialist, Principle Senior or Blackbelt, Master Blackbelt, Manager (though not managing anybody), or an inflated Director or VP title. We used to get away with just telling them to call themselves whatever they want on their business cards but for our HR system we need to use our title, but that does not seem to work anymore.

Based on feedback from job matching meetings with survey providers that more and more companies are not hiring entry level employees but bringing them in at the 2nd level (intermediate). Bachelor degreed or below at entry level and Master degreed and above at an intermediate level. Those are just some of my observations. I would be interested in hearing what others may be doing about this situation.

[Ann Bares]

Frank:

It does seem as though the entry level job has gone the way of the dinosaur. What I'm trying to figure out (from a "down in the weeds" vantage point) is whether it has happened for good - or totally bogus - reasons.

On the Senior thing, I'm right there with you! :)

Mark:

Good point - title creep is rampant because titles in and of themselves seem to have capital of sorts. And if we aren't in a position to provide financial capital, perhaps we are going to title capital as a substitute.

It does create troublesome static in the system, however, when it comes to employees trying to match up their jobs with the various salary data sites online. Employers may be paying them based on their "real" roles, but employees may expect that they should be paid based on their "titled" roles.

Thanks for the thoughts!

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

Great insight, Ann. I run into this all the time, and it does require the sensitivity that you have highlighted. Has the employee mastered the job? Is he or she providing insight and value beyond job mastery? It's entirely possible that this is happening on a larger scale in entrepreneurial companies.

But you do need to match these issues up with the culture and the speed of the career trajectory, because they may (or should) balance out the pressure on pay.

[Doug Sayed]

Great post Ann - thought provoking.

When we build or re-build compensation programs for/with clients we spend a LOT of time dealing with issue and in wringing out the grade and title inflation, because it's critical to doing a valid market assessment. We sometimes spend weeks cleaning up a client's data (everyone in the right job, properly matched to template set up for each major class of employees - hourly, exempt, executive). Until this is done, and done properly, the the validity and accuracy of any market analysis will suffer.

Thanks for bring up this issue. It's the "hidden" part of compensation that most people don't see, until they get behind the curtains.

[Ann Bares]

Comment from E.J. (Jim) Brennan, who has been inexplicably locked out of commenting today (sorry Jim)...

We find many use job titles in a "family sense" and implant a maturity curve in the title (A, B, C or I, II, II or Junior, Intermediate, Senior). We track years in a job and regress y-axis pay against x-axis years; for us, a job title is more a simple skill statement (and we then use "levels" to describe complexity within a skill set; that is, you don't see our titles being xxx I, xxx II). We see no flattening when "years in the job" is measured. What we do see is tremendous overstatement of one's skills/value by job incumbents. In assisting PAQ with their SalaryExpert data (found on CareerBuilder, the most used free site today), we find employees inputting pay at 93% of competitive values for their claimed job title (a sharp contrast to job boards' 20%+ posted rates, another subject). When employees (rather than employers) input data (only one job allowed) on SalariesReview we find the same percentage; we've heard the exact same percentage attributed to another free-data site's employee-provided data input. That is, we find folks (and we assume their organizations' allowing) using job titles for enrichment; their inputted salaries may be wrong, but their claimed titles are for sure. Add this to the lawyer led campaign that restricts survey participation (1/10th of what it once was), the trend for online input/survey completion by incumbents, and dot.com firms' used-car salesmen telemarketing their cloud analytics; our tradecraft is in danger of being shifted from the nonfiction library shelves to the sci-fi.

[Jan Sims]

What impact does the "ageing workforce" have on this? One way to appease employees with strong technical skill for whom there are no true management spots (or who aren't interested) is to give them titles (and perhaps some $ to go with them).

[Ann Bares]

Margaret and Doug:

I'm not surprised that you run into this frequently. The challenge, of course, is (as our friend Jim cleverly points out) sorting the nonfiction from the science fiction. Allowing for the possibility of unique and accelerated career trajectories, while beating out the dishonesty (intentional or not) that often finds its way into the process.

Jim:

Interesting statistics, and the reality they reveal is one large part of why transparency around compensation practices is so difficult - very few of us are apparently able to examine the work we do in an unbiased, objective way. Human nature I guess.

Jan:

It hadn't honestly occurred to me that there is a relationship between this phenomenon and the aging workforce (despite my use of the term "senioritis"), especially since - in my experience - the issue crops up more with younger, newer professionals than seasoned workers. But I could be entirely off base. Thoughts anyone?

[Ben Sommer]

This is great insight on this case of senioritis... I can see how its especially hard to maintain excitement and interest in the workplace in the midst of this economic meltdown, which is why strategic total rewards packages are now more necessary than ever as opposed to just cash compensation.

[E James (Jim) Brennan]

Responding to your response to Jan's response... und so veiter... Different strokes for different folks. Everyone is unique, so the motivations of one don't always apply universally or transfer to another.

Seniors fixated on recognition and driven by personal ego may prefer titles (cheaper than pay, but only over the short run); however, greater freedom to act, increased authorities or more control over their work can be far more appreciated by hard-workers, whatever their "gen-" status.