Sounds familiar?
Sounds familiar?
In my experience, a lot of management positions are filled by people that are meeting a need of feeling a sense of power and control over others. They don’t care about the company anymore than they have to to meet this need.
Also, it’s possible that they’re worried that if they give you a raise, you’ll tell others and they will demand one as well. They rather hire a new person without social ties to other workers that wont share what their salary is.
They’re not detached, they’re playing a different game. The game of the greedy little piggies.
If I give you a raise, well, it just might get out that we give raises around here! Suddenly, I got all these, lazy, do nothing greedy little piggies asking for more money! That 5k becomes 20k, then 50k, etc.! My hard earned slop is drying up quick!
But if I hire someone new, I send the exact opposite message. We don’t do raises here, and if you don’t like it, we have no trouble replacing you, greedy little piggie!
I’m an engineering student.
I like to say: “You know the joke that business majors are stupid?” and that’s it.
I always assume they believe you are lying.
They are willing to risk the “ok cya here’s my 2 weeks” to never suffer the “lol I made that shit up thanks for the big raise”
Yes, middle management gets a bonus for keeping costs down, so it’s in their personal interest to refuse raises.
The one in charge of hiring gets a bonus for bringing in people because work needs to be done and there aren’t enough workers.
The incentives make the system as it is. And good long term incentives seem to be few and far between.
They only loss out on the ones that leave. They win big on the ones that stay.
I wonder if anyone’s ever did the maths, I wouldn’t be surprised in many instances if it works out. However, it would be hard to estimate the impact of the employee resentment and loss due to losing knowledge.
They have done the math.
Over the long term, it costs them almost 4-5 times as much to hire a new employee. It takes most new employees 6-12 months to become as productive as their counterparts. Add the cost of recruiting, interviewing, performance management, etc. Giving a raise by far is the cheapest option.
Long term.
But quarterly profits will always, ALWAYS, supercede any long term investments.
Why take the hit in your operating budget NOW when all you care about is making sure you’re hitting next quarter’s numbers? Hell, the employee leaving is going to lower your costs so it’s better for you in time for the shareholders’ meeting.
Their goal is to get employees who get comfortable and will stick around for that 3% raise. Hiring someone new - even at a premium - gives them another shot at getting an employee who won’t demand a big raise later.
As far as they’re concerned, someone who demands a 20% raise today will demand a 20% raise again the same time next year.
It also sadly risks undeserving employees getting raises and becoming much harder to dispose of, especially in jurisdictions where it’s hard to fire people.
It’s shit. Top talent and young people suffer for it.