A new recruit can start working on his/her tasks, understand the nature of the work involved, and immediately discover that the task at hand is more than anticipated. Sometimes, the original salary might also already be low relative to other opportunities available in other companies. The employee will thus find it sensible to bring up the subject of salary early enough.
However, HR studies show that companies tend to analyze the issue of when to negotiate the salary differently from the perspective of a new recruit. According to a survey conducted by Gallup, salaries and benefits continue to play a major role in determining employee mobility and job satisfaction.
Nonetheless, the company needs to consider the impact that this discussion may have on trust, stability, and internal equity. The early arrival of such a request leads some organizations to suspect the dissatisfaction of the new recruit.
This is not to say that the employee is incorrect to make such a request. Often, in fact, it can be argued that the position requires something above and beyond its initially stated definition. What makes it so complicated is that the organization is often hearing not just the monetary request alone but the underlying implications regarding expectations, retention problems, and the speed at which a new compensation program would have to be implemented post-hire.
Companies often worry about precedent, trust, and internal fairness
One reason why companies may take a cautious stance when faced with the topic of raises early in the process is due to the fact that pay considerations are seldom just about one individual. This is because of findings by SHRM regarding pay compression and internal equity, wherein managers are concerned about the implications that these adjustments will have for other employees doing the same job within their team. Once an individual receives a sudden pay rise, other employees with more experience could start wondering if they are being fairly paid as well.
Also important to consider from Gallup’s work in terms of workplace trust are the implications of cultural differences on the way employers understand the situation. Where there is a high level of trust, a discussion about compensation early on may be seen as recalibration due to changes in job responsibilities.
Conversely, in cases where there is low trust, the same discussion can create suspicion about an employee’s commitment and even potential problems down the road. There is often misunderstanding involved in such situations, and one typical belief is that when an argument for more money makes sense, the organization will react reasonably to it. The truth is, though, that organizations make decisions regarding compensation within a broader context.
The framing of the conversation often matters more than employees expect
As professionals begin to highlight more often, the most effective initial discussions regarding compensation should concentrate on role development rather than general frustration. The guidelines provided by the workplace cited in the source reveal that appeals related to increased scope, specific tasks, or market conditions would yield a different response compared to a mere expression of emotional displeasure.
For instance, a worker who describes how the position now entails new tasks other than those stated in the initial description would create a more tangible conversation than merely saying the salary is insufficient anymore.
