Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XediDC t1_iw4p5j8 wrote

You just create different titles for the folks that would get larger raises.

So then the person promoted to “Sr CS Rep” or “Dev Level IV” or “VP, Product Ideation” gets a larger raise, and it’s still transparent and equitable. Plus it’s a more clear progression path for everyone to aspire to, while also allowing for defined well-paid non-management roles. Similar job roles can have some responsibility differences that make sense and that probably already occur. The title is also rewarding in its own right, while also helpful on their resume.

It’s not that hard, at least if you have the power to make the decisions to do it…within an existing corp it takes more wheedling.


rugbysecondrow t1_iw5d7bv wrote

Sure, but not every raise comes with a title change, nor should it.

If I have 5 baristas, and 2 are better than the three, I should be able to reward the better ones without a promotion, title change etc.


XediDC t1_iw5wpsv wrote

If it would cause an issue if pay was discussed (and I’d assume it will be) or transparent, then maybe a connected title or some other attribute could still help?

It’s been ~20 years since I’ve done retail mgmt but at the time I recollect at a small place we had a Store Manager, Assistant Manager, “3rd key” (don’t remember the real title), “Shift Leaders” and reps.

The “shift leader” position was a slightly higher paid position for exactly what we’re talking about. A bit of money and prestige, but not actually a supervisor or any real extra responsibility beyond what those that excel at naturally do. (The name wasn’t great as it did imply mgmt…I’d prefer something not sounding management. “Sr Barista” or “Coffee Artist” or…I dunno.)

Then the 3rd keys were entry level management that has keys to the building and could work without other managers there. But didn’t have to make major decisions, scheduling, were still hourly, and we always had a non-3rd key there on some other shift during the day.

Both served well for that middle ground, depending on if they should be and wanted to have any potential leadership role, or a non-leadership option for just really good at your job. (The latter I think is important, as a lot of great employees suck at managing people…an issue I see a lot in the corporate world.)

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Hope that doesn’t sound too critical. And I was on my phone with a headache for my first response which…was snippy.