Just to add an important caveat to the promise of the headline. When you reach a certain point, earning more money usually comes with increasing downsides. Managers at most well-run, larger companies will expect more than just your reasonable best efforts. As you move up the ladder they will demand consistent delivery of specific, tangible results. Sometimes you'll be required to achieve these results with insufficient resources or in changing circumstances beyond your control. And each year the targets will get higher.
Above a certain point, say around 80% of the total comp most employees get, the ground rules start to subtlety change. Getting results in the middle (or below) of your peer pack will no longer just mean you don't get a raise or bonus. The mantra becomes "Up or Out."
Yes there's absolutely a sweet spot. The ratio of pay to stress was best like 5 years into my career. I'd absolutely go back to that level of pay and responsibility if I could.
The problem is if that's your sweet spot, people perceive that and try to push you up. It's like making it look easy to do super well is unacceptable and you must be repositioned until you struggle more.
It's also because the employer has invested a fair bit of time/money into you and would like to see you take more responsibility after doing so. This is most obvious with juniors, where besides the salary cost, there are hidden costs of training. The expectation is that it will pay off in the future.
My expectation as a performer is that you need to also increase my salary if you want me to keep performing at that level. I'm _not_ an investment, I'm a professional, if they want to keep me, they in turn, must keep me happy for them to remain happy.
Employees aren't investments who owe you something. Employment is a contractual agreement of work for pay and that's it. Anything beyond that is corporate blackmail for the naive.
Unfortunately people in 2023 still don't understand this very simple fact, and that's why we constantly have to prove our "value" to the world for no reason at all XD.
The reason they push you up is pretty transparent and it's not to get a pay off on their investment.
It's because they have a really hard time externally hiring and retaining senior people in X job. They can recruit and churn through junior people all day. So they figure it'll be much cheaper to manufacture juniors into seniors internally.
If they lose a junior who fails to convert into senior, who cares? They're relatively easy to replace. It's worth the risk even if only a minority of them convert into senior people successfully, because they're so difficult to hire externally and keep.
The mantra to elaborate is "Up or Out" because at that salary level you have more options available to you as well. You actually know that you can, at any time, quit your job and find another one at a marginally lower or usually the same salary as you're currently making. So if you don't go up in salary, you get out. Generally you start to plan your exit with that salary increase in mine. Every recruiter wants to know they can make you more money, don't lie, tell them "Here's what I make now, and I'm currently employed at that level". Then bounce when the bullshit to money ratio reaches its limit for you.
> The mantra to elaborate is "Up or Out" because at that salary level you have more options available to you as well. You actually know that you can, at any time, quit your job and find another one at a marginally lower or usually the same salary as you're currently making.
Personally, I don't think this is true as companies or people think it is.
Skills+personality fit (tech interview marathons, ad nauseum) into a finite number of companies, roles, teams, expected compensation. WFH isn't quite ubiquitous, so many individuals still have to worry about location, as well. The funnel begins to narrow as you get older and more skilled. The tyranny of the corporate pyramids.
I've never gone more than 12 business days after an abrupt exit in the three times I've convinced myself to do it. That being said one should _always_ keep their employment options open (and available).
> at that salary level you have more options available to you as well
Maybe, maybe not. Most of the out people I know from I-banking, never once achieve the stature that they previously held at their last up or out position.
I don't think this is true. It has more to do with level rather than the absolute pay. Suppose you had two senior hires and one was able to negotiate more pay, the company won't necessarily expect more from the higher paid one.
On a slightly different note, from my experience, companies who pay less actually expect just as much if not more than companies who pay competitively.
“Position in band” is often a factor in performance reviews. Consider a common process - say you’re “senior level” and in your review you’ll be rated on six categories, then given a raise based on where you are overall relative to “meets expectations.”
If you’re senior but at the bottom of the senior band, and you’re mostly “at expectations” for your level but maybe “slightly below” in 1-2 categories, you’ll probably still net out at “meets” with a normal raise. If you’re senior but the highest paid senior - that’s probably going to net out at “below” overall, or zero-to-small raise.
Such systems do exist in smaller companies where leadership knows everyone and their contributions, but I’ve never seen it work this way in big companies.
Companies that dramatically underpay are often out of touch. So naturally they expect more effort than their already out of touch compensation would indicate.
But in companies with competitive comp, you almost certainly will be expected to meet a higher bar after negotiating a higher salary.
Once you argue for a higher salary than "the other guy" the implication is you can deliver more value. People don't just forget that on your start date.
Really good point. I feel really lucky making the money I do with the responsibilities I currently have. But posts like this make me feel some amount of FOMO. Responses like yours add good perspective these posts seem to be missing
Honestly this sounds to me like a "you" problem. Tell your bosses what you can accomplish and do it. Do you really think your CEO is the most productive person at the whole company?
When the buck stops with you, yes you either get it done or step back
Are execs the most productive people at the company? They can be. They have a whole org attached to them so they can multiply their efforts through others. That’s one thing. Then there is the fact they I see execs consistently putting in way more hours to deliver on promises and responsibilities.
I realize this isn’t always the case but high performers in top positions do exist. It’s seeing the required levels of dedication that actually made me decide not to pursue a career like that. It would exhaust me. I’m fine playing second fiddle. Not third, maybe, but second is fine.
There's also opportunity which can quickly bring more money and promotion at IC level. Some big companies just have budgets for the hiring role and can't step outside it no matter how the hiring manager fights for you. You need to weigh up the pros/cons in such a scenario if the role is about more than just money to you. Sometimes it's pure $$$.
Above a certain point, say around 80% of the total comp most employees get, the ground rules start to subtlety change. Getting results in the middle (or below) of your peer pack will no longer just mean you don't get a raise or bonus. The mantra becomes "Up or Out."