Has Your Pay Program Been Infected by Senioritis?

One of the tasks we face in the universe of pay administration is 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, probably 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, particularly when salary increase funds are less available, by revising their job descriptions in the hopes of using an "upgrade" as a mechanism to deliver more base pay 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?

Creative Commons image Infections by elenariverbendrvpark

Comments

[matt]

I also consider the creep of job "requirements" - many companies seem to default to asking 3-5 years minimum (plus Bachelor's degree) for an Analyst (for example). If they are seriously considering their needs, their role is better positioned as a Senior Analyst.

There are true early-stage startups (still raising capital) that have seemed to rely on hiring younger at lower pay rates and throwing them into any responsibility they can handle, deferring any thought about paying them competitively until later, if ever.

Yet there are well-funded startups that can struggle developing structure... think what happens when a junior recruiter and inexperienced management team combine to fill several dozen staff roles. Yet they're given a blank check to hire and the rapt attention of a thousand applicants for every job.

However - after a ten year economic expansion with solid employment levels, it might just be that everyone is more experienced now. Especially if they got into tech at entry level in 2010-2012.