« The Job: Is it Bound for Extinction ... or Evolution? | Main | Going to the 2011 WorldatWork Total Rewards Conference? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Synchronicity again. Just led my favorite niece through the same process. After guessing (and confirming) that her pay was at the 10th percentile for beginners while she was a 7-year proven (petroleum!) production engineer, I gave her a storyboard for a scary meeting with her boss to discuss her career prospects. It worked beautifully for mutual benefit, but I failed to collect my $20 fee.

That service fills a legitimate need, as previously done by PayRate$ long ago, and more recently by Salary.com (now eaten up by a CRM firm), SalaryExpert.com and Glassdoor.com. By using a mashup of conservative BLS figures and job board exaggerations, they might not be too far off on non-industry-specific numbers. I'm comfortable saying that any real business not exceeding BLS OES rates should be ashamed of itself. No need to muddy the waters with unsupportable job board dream numbers and their high-end outliers when you have conservative BLS numbers free of charge such as the updated versions supplied in the CareerBuilders job board salary calculator.

I let Jim handle the technical issues, and weigh in on the employee side. It sould like they have created a framework that helps employees parse out the issues involved in qualifying for a raise. If GetRaised is helping employees understand how to think through and deliver on the case for higher pay, then go for it. Right now employees understand so little about pay that helping them build a cogent, well thought out case--that their performance delivers on-- can be helpful. I'm curious to see if GetRaised's approach encourages thoughtfulness (rather than being cookie cutter).

Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention. I agree that we should all know as much as we can about every innovation that crops up.

Boy, that's an important point, Margaret! One or two of those sources I cited were "disruptive technology" capital ventures little more (IMHO) than sophisticated money-making schemes with no concern for accuracy, integrity or the welfare of the suckers I mean buyers of their "truthy" creations... please excuse my harsh words, but some stuff is simply toxic to our profession. I call them "destructive technology" because they irresponsibly sell distorted views that disrupt morale and foment distrust. Others like SalaryExpert.com's Personal Salary Reports actually have offered for ten years very carefully written primers (I confess authorship) on exactly what you recommend. For the price of a few pizzas, people can get good solid conservative pay info and >20 pages of practical education on total rewards and basic HR/comp tradecraft methods. Rather than acrimonious confrontations (which some intend to create to serve their business model selling "solutions" to problems of their own creation), there should be clear communication about mutually helpful positive outcomes.

Wish every employer offered the appropriate basic "how pay is set here" module with their new hire orientation program. Maybe after they teach other more essential elements like "how to communicate."

Well! I would like to say that, Your Post Is really Good source of information For the people!!i really like your Efforts! keep it up!!!

I like the premise behind it, but I was be concerned if I were about to go through this process. Could it rub my employer the wrong way? Will it affect my future?

Counteroffer demands usually backfire, for sure. But saying, "Gee, I stumbled over an apparently credible source that says I'm terribly underpaid and that makes me worry about my career progress here, so what can you tell me?" is (usually) a non-threatening approach that generally works quite well. Typically, managers gain greater respect for the subordinate enterprising enough to want to cross-check their expectations against a variety of good sources and smartly trusting enough to approach the boss privately. But they better have GOOD sources rather than smoke-blowers.

Thanks for all the great conversation and reaction here - Jim, Margaret, ER and LWCA.

Jim, I think you're probably right, that a combination of the conservative (but at least valid) BLS data and the somewhat-less-reliable-potentially-overblown job board data probably gets us into the right ballpark. Although the site's protocol does rely on job title matching, it also pushes the user to select a couple of alternatives - so hopefully having multiple data points helps mediate the presence of any wild outliers.

Margaret, you're right that there is education offered here as well as data. The fact that the site promotes non-emotional, fact-based communication is also a real positive. Always plenty of room for improvement in pay communication, isn't there.

And LWCA - I think the coaching, tips, follow-through as well as the availability of a live person to respond to questions help users manage their expectations and deal with the real possibility of a "no" response. I guess we'd all like to hope that if the employee approaches the conversation in a courteous, professional, non-emotional manner, the employer will respond (whether the answer is yes or no)likewise.

Again - appreciate the great discussion here!

I'm not really understand about business flow what all of you are talking about. I only have many experiences to make a deal with some startup to release what they want to implemented into application, web based and other related such thing like that. But I'm trying to figure out what actually business run and play.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About The Author

  • More Info Here
    Compensation consultant Ann Bares is the Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group. Ann has more than 20 years of experience consulting with organizations in the areas of compensation and performance management.

Compensation Force Spot Survey

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search This Site


  • Get this widget from Widgetbox