PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical: Money and work.


Rain Man
01-22-2006, 12:29 AM
Imagine that your boss came to you in the middle of the year and said, "You know, we think that we're not paying enough to be competitive, so we're going to have to raise our job offers to new hires by 20 percent. To be fair, we're going to give you a 20 percent raise as well, starting right now. This won't affect the fact that we'll also be reviewing your salary at the end of the year for your 'normal' raise."

Would this motivate you to work harder? And if so, how much harder?

J Diddy
01-22-2006, 12:31 AM
Screw working harder, inflation is taking care of my paycheck.

4th and Long
01-22-2006, 12:31 AM
Imagine that your boss came to you in the middle of the year and said, "You know, we think that we're not paying enough to be competitive, so we're going to have to raise our job offers to new hires by 20 percent. To be fair, we're going to give you a 20 percent raise as well, starting right now. This won't affect the fact that we'll also be reviewing your salary at the end of the year for your 'normal' raise."

Would this motivate you to work harder? And if so, how much harder?
As every stinking boss I have ever had, has used the phrase, "More money does not equate to more productivity or better work habits!" I would say, no.

Besides, I work just as hard, now, as I did day one on the job.

luv
01-22-2006, 12:32 AM
Imagine that your boss came to you in the middle of the year and said, "You know, we think that we're not paying enough to be competitive, so we're going to have to raise our job offers to new hires by 20 percent. To be fair, we're going to give you a 20 percent raise as well, starting right now. This won't affect the fact that we'll also be reviewing your salary at the end of the year for your 'normal' raise."

Would this motivate you to work harder? And if so, how much harder?
20%? ROFL

My company fights over 5%.

Anyway, and I'm not saying it to try to sound good, I would not work any harder than I already am. I already do the best job I can do.

That said, if they start people out at $10/hour. Any new person that you hire at $12/hour is not going to work any harder. Why should you expect someone else to?

Rain Man
01-22-2006, 12:35 AM
Background: a client of mine is having trouble finding employees, and is pondering this as a solution. While I'm a consultant on another task, we're friendly with each other, and she has given me the details. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this is going to be good for her company in the long run, and I'm not sure that a 20 percent higher salary will solve her hiring problem anyway, because I question whether it will produce employees who are more than 20 percent more productive than her current applicants that she's not impressed with.

luv
01-22-2006, 12:37 AM
Background: a client of mine is having trouble finding employees, and is pondering this as a solution. While I'm a consultant on another task, we're friendly with each other, and she has given me the details. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this is going to be good for her company in the long run, and I'm not sure that a 20 percent higher salary will solve her hiring problem anyway.
If she's raising the salaries, then she has the right to raise the job expectation. More extensive background and work history checks, schooling, etc.

Rain Man
01-22-2006, 12:39 AM
I think she would have the same expectations in terms of pedigrees, but she just thinks she'll get more ambitious and motivated people who apply. Edit: she hires people with a relatively narrow background, so she thinks that perhaps she's not getting the top students to apply because of salary.

luv
01-22-2006, 12:44 AM
I think she would have the same expectations in terms of pedigrees, but she just thinks she'll get more ambitious and motivated people who apply.
She might, but that's risky. You'll have those who think, "I meet the requirements. I'll go for that job since it pays more." If you look at they're work history, it's easy to see longevity, reason for leaving, etc. You'll always have those who try to do as little as is expected of them as possible in order to get the pay.

Rausch
01-22-2006, 12:44 AM
I'd work my ass off.

Can't say I've had a lot of employers that appreciated hard work.

Then again, this would likely only work for people on the lower end of the pay scale.

Logical
01-22-2006, 12:48 AM
Realistically I think most people would work harder but it likely would be over the short term not over several years. Mainly it would boost morale something fierce in most workplaces.

luv
01-22-2006, 12:50 AM
I'd work my ass off.

Can't say I've had a lot of employers that appreciated hard work.

Then again, this would likely only work for people on the lower end of the pay scale.
I started my job at $5.35/hour. Worked in every area of production in the company, and even as an HR assistant and doing onsite work in a hospital. I'm now a measely Assistant Production Supervisor, but I've been with the company for so long that I make $12.95/hour. No matter which area I worked in, I did the best I could. Did the company always seem appreciative? Hell no.

J Diddy
01-22-2006, 01:00 AM
Background: a client of mine is having trouble finding employees, and is pondering this as a solution. While I'm a consultant on another task, we're friendly with each other, and she has given me the details. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this is going to be good for her company in the long run, and I'm not sure that a 20 percent higher salary will solve her hiring problem anyway, because I question whether it will produce employees who are more than 20 percent more productive than her current applicants that she's not impressed with.


At first it will stoke people because it is more, then it will eventually become routine. People who work hard don't necessarily do it for the money. The know in time and hard work the money will come. I work as hard now then I did 10 years ago making 40 percent less.

Miles
01-22-2006, 01:10 AM
I think she would have the same expectations in terms of pedigrees, but she just thinks she'll get more ambitious and motivated people who apply. Edit: she hires people with a relatively narrow background, so she thinks that perhaps she's not getting the top students to apply because of salary.

Interesting case it seems. Sorting out better academic backgrounds (top students) isn't necessarily the same thing as trying to attract the most motivated and ambitious applicants.

I would think that if she is trying to get better applicants with the increased salary then she would need to have some intent to adjust her selectivity of applicants accordingly based on their background.

Just guessing, but it would seem that she could attract a better pool of candidates from the higher salary. Depending on the field and size of her company I don't think it takes long for applicants to realize the increase in salary as far as attractiveness of a job. However if she is willing to pay the same type of talent/pedigree that she has been looking for in the past then this may take a while.

KC Jones
01-22-2006, 06:29 AM
I wouldn't work harder for almost any amount of money, but mostly because I wouldn't get to see my kids at all if I did. A policy like that would help with the hiring and assist with retention, but probably not as big a boost as what she's hoping for.

stumppy
01-22-2006, 07:15 AM
As far as my work went it wouldn't make a difference. I always give 100% at work. What it would do is increase my sense of loyalty towards the company.

tiptap
01-22-2006, 07:24 AM
Background: a client of mine is having trouble finding employees, and is pondering this as a solution. While I'm a consultant on another task, we're friendly with each other, and she has given me the details. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this is going to be good for her company in the long run, and I'm not sure that a 20 percent higher salary will solve her hiring problem anyway, because I question whether it will produce employees who are more than 20 percent more productive than her current applicants that she's not impressed with.

It is the perks that lets someone have a normal life that will make the difference. If one has a good life outside of work than one can have the focus in work. A good paycheck helps in getting those things that make your time off, worth putting the time in at work. Those perks will be different for the population of employees. Not having to run to McDonalds for breakfast, ability to get off for personal reasons, experiences provided not usually accessible in the grind, changing up the recipe also would be helpful.

You might look for the solutions of using that money outlay to provide help in employees having a good life.

Simplex3
01-22-2006, 07:57 AM
I can speak from experience here. I helped a guy move from his $60k/yr job to $120k/yr plus bonuses. According to your client's theory he should have been working his a** off, right?

Truth be told within one month the guy was right back to bitching about how he was under-appreciated. I couldn't believe my ears. The guy was making about $10k too little at $60k, but making WAAAAY too much at $120k, much less the bonuses.

I think it's possible that raised salaries will help, but she's going to have to be ready to fire a fairly significant portion of her staff. Also, it's only going to help if word gets around that her office is THE place to go and do that kind of work because of the salary and the environment. The key will be raising the interrest level around the industry and going though a tough hiring process.

I guess a short way to say it is "Hard working people will go where the money is, but money won't make stupid and lazy bastards work hard."

PastorMikH
01-22-2006, 08:08 AM
The wife actually had this happen at one of the hospitals she worked for. They were losing nurses and decided they needed to get their payscales up to be more competitive. At first she did feel more appreciated. However, she still quit them later because, though the pay improved, the conditions and the attitude towards the workers did not.

If your client is under the market average, a higher pay might help bring people in. If he's having trouble with employee turnover, there's a reason for it someplace. I'm sure this would be unheard of, but something that could be of a big help is for him to submit the names of employees that have quit in the last one to two years to your firm. Let you contact them as a third party (with the promise that this is confidential and their name will not be given to the firm) with a questionaire and ask them the reasons why they quit. You may find some interesting issues taking place as a result.

patteeu
01-22-2006, 10:22 AM
Realistically I think most people would work harder but it likely would be over the short term not over several years. Mainly it would boost morale something fierce in most workplaces.

I agree with Vlad on this. Maybe a short-term boost in productivity, but over the long run, people are who they are.

Mr. Laz
01-22-2006, 10:27 AM
don't know how much harder people would work but i would imagine it would make them more loyal.

showing up on time, taking the proper amount of time for lunch


a more conscientious worker


a quality worker is already giving you Hard work ... there isn't 20% to be increased

Bearcat
01-22-2006, 11:55 AM
The change in jobs increased pay by almost 30%, and there's definitely been a difference in attitude... kind of like what laz said though... neither job has a constant flow of work, so it's more about dedication, loyalty, etc. The same would hold true if it was a raise for the same job.

luv
01-22-2006, 11:59 AM
It is the perks that lets someone have a normal life that will make the difference. If one has a good life outside of work than one can have the focus in work. A good paycheck helps in getting those things that make your time off, worth putting the time in at work. Those perks will be different for the population of employees. Not having to run to McDonalds for breakfast, ability to get off for personal reasons, experiences provided not usually accessible in the grind, changing up the recipe also would be helpful.

You might look for the solutions of using that money outlay to provide help in employees having a good life.
I agree with this completely. I think it will help weed out those applicants that aren't going to put forth their best effort. You can get anyone to apply for a job that has good pay. Whenever I interview people, I usually find that the more questions that a person asked about benefits, insurance, etc, the more likely they're looking for longevity with the company. And what I've heard over and over at work: happy employees are productive employees.

cdcox
01-22-2006, 12:10 PM
Background: a client of mine is having trouble finding employees, and is pondering this as a solution. While I'm a consultant on another task, we're friendly with each other, and she has given me the details. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this is going to be good for her company in the long run, and I'm not sure that a 20 percent higher salary will solve her hiring problem anyway, because I question whether it will produce employees who are more than 20 percent more productive than her current applicants that she's not impressed with.

More money should enable her to hire and retain better people. Paying 20% more to the same types of people she is currently hiring won't do much good, so she needs to know specifically what she is looking for. Better training, more experience, something. Whether a 20% increase is enough of a bump to attract the better workers is a valid question.

If she does start hiring new employees at a higher wage, I would definitely include a raise for those core employees she believes contribute to her success. Otherwise, that will cause them to become disgruntled, less productive, and looking for somewhere that appreciates them.

Presently employed slackers would not get the raise. I would explain to them why they weren't getting it, and spell out for them the kind of sustained improvement they would need to make in order to qualify for that type of salary bump in the future.

At the same time I would announce that all future raises would be incentive based.

Iowanian
01-22-2006, 12:15 PM
I don't know that I'd work 20% harder, but I DO think that an unsolicited 20% raise like that, with the explanation given about competition and competative salary, would "rejuvenate" me at work. It would also probably go a long ways towards earning some Employee Loyalty and apprecaition.

20% isn't peanuts. In my job, 3% a year is about all that can be expected...thats about 7 years' raises for me in 1 jump.

Working 20% harder probably isn't realistic, but the quality of work from a refreshed, happy employee could pay off MORE than that.

cdcox
01-22-2006, 12:17 PM
I think she would have the same expectations in terms of pedigrees, but she just thinks she'll get more ambitious and motivated people who apply. Edit: she hires people with a relatively narrow background, so she thinks that perhaps she's not getting the top students to apply because of salary.

No, this won't really work by just spending more money. She needs to do a better job of demonstrating the link between employee performance, company performance and individual rewards. If she does that for the whole company including new hires, and sees it through, that should get the results she is looking for. She might need to jump start the process by giving her top performers a good raise to start things off.

Iowanian
01-22-2006, 12:22 PM
Performance Bonus.....

I'd suggest a raise, with Performance bonus' as a motivator to "work harder".

Baconeater
01-22-2006, 01:13 PM
Performance Bonus.....

I'd suggest a raise, with Performance bonus' as a motivator to "work harder".

Bingo. Bonuses are more effective over the long term because they always have to be re-earned.