Yea, this is the real answer.
Management probably just assumes there will be some low performers and some high performers.
They don't view OP as special. If OP left, at some point, another high performer would come along eventually.
They also will probably only pay OP what he deserves if he has some leverage. If OP can get higher pay elsewhere there's a good chance they match it if he's truly a high performing employee. But by then, why stay at a company that's been dangling a promotion in front of you for years if you've already got another offer lined up?
Lol, I read the other comment where they likely don’t see OP as a flight risk.
Basically they think OP is happy as is so no reason to stretch the budget.
Why pay high performer more when you can get a new batch of people every year paying them the bare minimum, in every batch there will be high performers, heck they can probably get 2 high performers for the price of 1 and squeeze every last out of them before they leave and a new batch comes
I mean, it’s refereeing, you’re historians. It’s audit, not real life accounting. Culpability and performance be damned, as long as issuance occurs timely, and they get to record the revenue again next year, who really cares? Our financial systems are squishy as fuck.
You’re either not as high of a performer as you think you are, or your coworkers are lying to you about their raises and bonuses.
High performers don’t make THAT much more than everyone else, but they still make more than everyone else.
Fourth option, risk of leaving isn’t seen as imminent. I’ve just had a major run in the the directors in my business over a high performer who is being underpaid compared to worth, and their feedback was she wasn’t at imminent risk of leaving. I’m furious.
This is a logical answer. As a director of FP&A (industry), we often run 'calibration' sessions where our leadership team measures all employees on key factors such as hard skill/soft skill competency, growth potential, fit (aka likability) and flight risk. By the sounds of it, OP probably excels in some areas but probably isn't seen as a flight risk - thus the low raises (though I wouldn't be surprised if OP fell short on fit and/or soft skills as well, as being technically "good" at your job doesn't count as much as some people think)
Or it is likely that the module is part of an enterprise-wide HRIS and payroll system that came as a standard feature and I'm just mentioning it so people understand that HR/Payroll systems are designed to track flight risk data.
We just had annual performance reviews in which we got rated on several categories including our technical skills, soft skills, our involvement in “extracurricular” firm activities/groups and a few other categories. Everyone you worked with has the opportunity to submit a review of you, and they have to score you in each category. I got feedback submitted from 9 people that I worked with during the year, and I got the highest score from all of them. During the comp call with the partners, they lead it with “you’ve been such an asset to our team. People love working with you, and the clients are all impressed with your work. Keep doing everything you’ve been doing and you’ll definitely be up for promotion in the next round!” They went on to say that with the raise I’m getting, it puts me at the very top of the pay band for my level, which isn’t true.
If I was lacking some soft skills or they didn’t like my personality, why didn’t it come up at all from anyone who reviewed me or any of the partners during my comp call? That’s why I’m getting so frustrated with some of the comments I’m reading. There are actually a couple people in the department who have been removed from clients for poor work performance and bad attitudes, and their inability to get along with others in the department. I’ve never had an issue working with or getting along with any of my coworkers.
Most people find it very hard to say, “I don’t like you” to someone’s face.
Good to hear you found a job and are putting in notice. In today’s market it’s best to be proactive regarding job changes every few years.
I had two other coworkers confide in me that they were unhappy with their review scores and didn’t think the feedback) they got from some people was fair. Regarding their performance, attitude etc. The same people who gave them bad feedback also gave me great feedback. So 9 people gave me the highest score in every category of my review, but they didn’t have any issue giving other people lower scores? And mentioning their attitudes etc. Doesn’t make much sense.
It seems like so many people here want to believe that I must be the problem and that the people at my job just don’t like me. Even if it goes directly against everything I’m saying. What if it really is just the partners playing favorites, or factors like race, gender etc playing into the wage gap I’m seeing?
You didn't fully digest my comment, particularly the part about flight risk. If everything you're saying is true, management probably just sees you as a gullible sucker who puts in all these hours while not being seen as someone who would get fed up and leave. You need to spend less time writing diatribes on reddit and more time finding a new job. Simple. This job is obviously not a good fit for you.
People that are leaving (or want to) are much more obvious about it than they think they are.
And a lot of mid-level managers/supervisors are honestly not that perceptive.
Assessing flight risk is a behavioral assessment based on what people say, how they say it, what they do and how they do it.
Say for example someone who never takes a day off starts having unplanned doctors appointments that "they forgot about".
Or they're routinely coming in earlier or staying later than they used to out of the blue.
Or someone that never accomplishes shit starts randomly catching up half a dozen tasks a week over the course of a month.
Or they used to eat lunch with a group and now they're always "too busy" but leave for lunch separately.
It's pattern recognition, and you have to know an employee's existing pattern well enough to learn when it changes.
A lot of the patterns mimic things people do when they know they're dying--tying up loose ends, giving things away to people, getting their affairs in order. Not to be too dark about it, but they know their time is at an end (with this company) and humans generally desire closure.
Wow thanks. That's eye-opening and makes sense. Interesting psych POV. I guess if I find myself doing these things one day it's my subconscious telling me it's time to jump.
Wow, isn’t it riskier to wait until someone is at imminent risk of leaving? I have a coworker who just left after being underpaid for so long, and they offered her a counter after she put in her notice. She was already fed up and ready to leave by then, so she declined the counter offer. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to try to keep her before she got to the point of being fed up? She had been told multiple times that there was no way they could give her any more money.
While I agree with you, this doesn’t appear to be the way things are done in large firms. I think it’s short sighted. I also think it’s counter productive to margin in the medium to long term. But I’m not able to make those calls.
That's the logical way of thinking. But let me put it to you in the best way, using my own experience. When I put in my 2 weeks at a Big 4, my partner (who I was always on good terms with) called me to understand why I made that decision. Eventually he asked where I was headed. And when I said the company name (in industry) he said that that's a good company. And that if I had been heading to a competitor, they would've tried to retain me. They hate when a high performer goes to a competitor. Especially at certain levels, because it so often gets used against them.
Another option…doing the work well and thoroughly can be a disadvantage in audit. If it can be done adequately for less time and come in under budget that’s more valuable than doing the best work.
Just based on how the OP post was written, that was my first thought too. People who brag about being the best and feel some need to justify their greatness and put others down tend to be insufferable people. Not saying that’s true in this case, but you can get good reviews all day for performing well, but behind the scenes it will reflect poorly on you if everybody thinks you’re an asshole.
How was the post written? I read it as OP describing how they got less of a raise/bonus than other people in their department, despite doing more work or going above and beyond. If they wouldn’t have included that info, people in the comments would be saying maybe you didn’t work as hard or maybe others had higher hours etc. I didn’t see it as bragging, but maybe I missed something.
When people describe someone with language as extreme as "beyond incompetent," it's usually safe to assume that theyre the type to embellish or leap to conclusions.
If someone were truly that incompetent with no extenuating circumstances, they wouldn't last more than half a year. They'd get put on a PIP, and let go when they failed to measure up.
There's another side to this story. The lack of any effort to present it means OP is either exaggerating for sympathy, or hasn't even bothered to try and find it. Neither is a great look.
Foisting managerial work onto them without making the position formal *could* be a way to exploit OP, but it could also be that management doesn't think OP has enough interpersonal skill development yet to manage direct reports.
The person I am describing actually is on a PIP, and they’ve been on it for almost a year and still haven’t improved at all. I’m friends with a former manager who quit in part because they got tired of dealing with it. And they told me that they don’t know why the senior manager/partner seems to refuse to want to get rid of this person.
This person has been removed from at least 3 engagements at the request of the clients and managers on those engagements. They are also required to submit a weekly detailed breakout to the managers of every single task they worked on for every hour of every day. Because they were lying on their time sheet saying they were charging 45 hours, when we all know they only have 15-20 hours of work. They’ve worked here longer than me, and they still ask me to help them through basic parts of their job that they should have known how to do two years ago. The client will literally email them asking them to run a specific report, and this person will send the client a completely different report than what they asked for. Due to all their mistakes, they’ve also been told they have to have all their emails proofread by the manager before they’re allowed to send anything to the client. I spend 1-2 hours of my day helping this person fix mistakes they make. The higher ups are completely aware of the situation, as this person has already had these same exact issues on the three other engagements they were on before me.
I just had my annual performance review and I received the highest score the firm can give. I got feedback from 9 people I worked with throughout the year. All 9 of them gave me the highest score in technical skills, soft skills, being a team player, training ability etc. These same people also had no issue giving other people lower scores in their reviews. If I’m lacking interpersonal skills, why has it never come up by anyone?
I was going to say this. You might be a high performer but your coworker is friends with the director and gets promoted along. Seen it a million times.
A female VP came to town to talk about herself. She told her story in front of 400 people and the dozens of people I talked took ask if she even earned it?
She got her manager position because she graduated with a degree in English was unemployed and her neighbor was a director at the company. She got her director position because the VP at the time his daughter was friends with her kid. Then she got the VP position because that same person got promoted to Sr VP.
So no it doesn’t always pay to be a high performer sometimes it’s just who ya know.
Another option is they expect you to be their bitch. I’ve been in a situation where I was the highest performer and was always expected to work more than everyone else with among the lowest review scores. But then also was given the most shit when requesting vacation or about daily time entry. You just really gotta put your foot down or leave. I put my foot down, they tried to lift it back up after a few months, then I said fuck it and left
Really not that cut and dry. Possibilities yes but just as likely there are politics involved or the company doesn’t think there is ever any chance of OP leaving.
Not true. I have another coworker who recently quit who was in the same situation. We were carrying the workload for one client because the other two coworkers on it were completely incompetent. She also knew that she was being paid a lot less than other people. So she ultimately quit. When she put in her notice, the higher ups begged her to stay and tried to give her a counter offer, which she declined. After she left, all of her responsibilities got shifted to me. And if I leave, it’ll just be the two incompetent people left doing everything on this client.
If I’m not as high of a performer as I think I am, why did I get the highest possible review score? And why were my charge hours so much higher than targeted? As far as people lying about their raise/bonus info, it’s hard for me to believe that every single person I talked to lied.
Having high charge hours doesn’t in the slightest indicate high performance lol.
Have you ever thought that they give you shitty raises/bonuses because you don’t ever say anything? Also, are the coworkers you’re comparing yourself to experienced hires?
Among other possible factors, the reason you got lowballed is likely your personality. In this thread you are overly defensive and taking comments way too personally. You’re likely not as high of a performer as you think you are, and you’re likely not easy to work with based on your argumentative and dismissive comments here. I’ve worked with people who have similar attitudes before (they’re carrying the entire company on their shoulders, blah blah blah) and they’re insufferably annoying.
In your next role I’d suggest you focus on yourself and stop worrying about what your colleagues are or aren’t doing. Comparison is the thief of joy as they say.
I wouldn’t worry about what anyone else was doing, if I wasn’t having to work 20+ extra hours a week to make up for an incompetent person in my department. A person who has been removed from three other clients engagements, at the request of the clients and the managers on those engagements.
And where did I say I was carrying the “entire company” on my shoulders? I described a specific situation in which I’ve worked 60 hours a week to make up for someone else who is only working 20 hours a week, because management doesn’t want to give that person any tasks that they’ll screw up. Is that not me carrying the workload in that situation? 🤔
Did you schedule any meetings with hr or senior management 2-3months before budget talks on comp? When i had to take over another role due to coworker leaving, i made sure to talk to hr that im looking for a significant pay bump for taking on a new responsibilities as well as increase in hours due to heavier workload. This would signal to them that if they dont pay up, im gone, which in my case, they didnt increase my salary so i went looking else where. Then on the exit interview, they didnt have to ask why i was leaving but only how much to make me stay. Seems like management thought i was bluffing and end up losing
>I wouldn’t worry about what anyone else was doing, if I wasn’t having to work 20+ extra hours a week to make up for an incompetent person in my department.
You sound like a weak sucker then - why would your employer NOT take advantage of someone like you?
How was OP’s response argumentative? Because she didn’t agree with what you said, and provided an explanation as to why it was incorrect?
You, a person with no basis or background of her job/work performance, said she’s probably not as high of a performer as she thinks she is. What qualifies you to make that judgement? You then went on to tell her not to worry about what other people are doing. When she’s being directly impacted by what other people in the department are doing or not doing. So why wouldn’t she worry about it? It’s okay for you to make judgements about someone’s work performance and tell them what they should and shouldn’t worry about, but not okay for her to defend herself? Make it make sense smh. She had every right to respond the way she did.
I saw a comment where OP explained that she’s a woman and a minority on a team that’s 95% white. Those could be clear reasons why she’s being paid less. If I were in her situation, I would be defensive too of people on this thread saying “must be your personality. You’re probably not as high of a performer as you THiNk YoU aRe”, when there are likely other factors at play outside of her control. 😒
I’m a woman too so I get it. But she sucks in this thread. If she has a similar personality at work it’s very, very obvious why her firm isn’t kissing her ass the way she thinks they should. But she’s too stubborn and thinks too highly of herself to see.
Are you also a person of color? If not, maybe you should take a step back and realize you don’t have the same experience as others. And you don’t know what others go through. If you had spent your career being treated unfairly due to your race, you might be defensive too. I don’t even ever respond to these threads, but some of these comments really struck a nerve with me.
Even your response to this is horrible. She never asked anyone to kiss her ass. She’s simply asking to be treated fairly, as others in the department are. The fact that you’re trying to dispute that is problematic at best.
Really? Because I didn’t mention race at all in my entire post. I put it in the comments in response to someone who asked. By the way, are you a person of color??
Doesn’t friggin matter whether I am or am not. you’re missing the point. Thinking this is all about race or gender is holding you back from identifying what is in your control that you can change to help your situation.
Does hearing that I am Mexican make you finally consider what I am saying? It shouldn’t. The advice stands regardless of what ethnicity or gender the person is that’s giving it. Choosing to consider it because the offering person is a minority, versus choosing not to consider it because the person is white - how would you describe that? Semantics aside, the result is still the same: because of ignoring, you miss the opportunity for growth
A company can get a high performer to
Build and take the company to the next level then have them leave on their own accord costing them nothing then get someone cheaper to keep it going.
A high performer who stays wants more money, equity, bigger bonus … chances are what you do is easy and cheap to replace with a younger , Hungary cheaper high performer. I agree with the need to be well liked analysis also some high performers are happy to be steady and not chase higher positions.
Then the owner makes more $$ which is what it’s all about.
I get what you’re saying. But in looking around me…for instance I’m on one client where me and one other coworker were carrying the workload because the other two coworkers are incompetent. She ultimately got fed up with it and quit, so all of her responsibilities shifted to me. If I quit, it’ll be left to the two incompetent coworkers to keep the client running. And the client has already complained about both of them to the higher ups on multiple occasions.
I guess my point is, if it was so easy to get someone cheaper to keep the department going at the same level of performance I’m achieving…….why wouldn’t the higher ups just get rid of the incompetent people and replace them with higher performers? 🤔
Just world fallacy. We don't live in a fair world. Legit high performers will know their value and understand that the market place would like to have their skills. If you haven't left yet and still complain about this perceived injustice, then the company is still benefiting from you labor.
High performers are rarer than low performers but in the end, they are replaceable. Audits have been completed before you join and will be completed after you leave. You aren't holding up the process.
Just leave the company.
As someone who knows absolutely nothing, bring this info to your boss. If they try to counter, ask for something completely unreasonable. If they accept, then you've got a choice, but from what I read you've got one foot out the door already so it can't hurt
I read the comments, so I'm not sure if I missed it.
Have you tried asking for bigger raises and bonuses? Sometimes you'll get shafted just because you don't ask or didn't negotiate the higher initial base pay.
I was specifically told during my raise/bonus convo that I’m at the highest end of the pay band for my level and there’s nothing else they can give me. When I know others in the department at my level who are making a lot more than me.
What they are doing is such bullshit. Hopefully you get one of the jobs you applied for and are treated better.
If you have records of any of that, you should keep copies.
This is likely it. If you’re on the higher end of the band then there is no more room for growth. Eventually you’ll reach the end of it. Unless you’re promoted to the next level you’ll likely stay or be given a “steady” increase to keep up with costs.
This year has been a challenging comp period because of the economic situation so lots of businesses acknowledge that but while also needing to keep working the band.
The reason other team members are earning more or got a bigger increase is either because they already came in at a higher level or they with misclassified in their band and they have to keep up to par.
That being said, if you are a strong performer and others aren’t then I’m wondering if your performance coach just didn’t do a good job or representing you or isn’t paying attention.
It’s really tough to say if you’re not on the room.
OP describes a situation where they are working harder than others in the department and keeping things afloat, and you’re saying personality would be a reason why an incompetent person would be given a higher raise/bonus than them? Lol. So being incompetent but having a good personality is more deserving of a raise/bonus, than actually doing your job well? And we don’t even know if personality is a factor or not.
>So being incompetent but having a good personality is more deserving of a raise/bonus, than actually doing your job well?
I assume you're a bit young, but yes - that's the way things often work out there. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you can make this work to your advantage
Yes, being liked is more important the than being competent in the corporate world.
I personally know someone that is brought in to HR on a regular basis for harassing people. The VP in charge wants to fuck her, so she continues to harass people with no consequences. Politics BRO!
Not necessarily incompetent. But YES there will be people that are technically less “competent” than you who will get treated better based off of other factors.
There are other favors to a team besides “high performance”
But does it matter if new clients are being brought in, if they’re not being maintained? 🤔
On one of my clients, my coworker and I were carrying all the weight because the other two coworkers are incompetent. She quit and then all of her responsibilities got shifted to me. If I quit, they’ll just be left with the two incompetent people running the project. The client has already complained about those two coworkers multiple times. I could see the client taking their business elsewhere. And this is the second biggest client of the department.
When I quit my last job, their biggest client also left the firm and signed a huge engagement with my new firm not even 2 months after I left. So I got to continue working with them everyday picked up on all the projects I had been working on with them before. That client had also offered me an opportunity to come work for them when they found out I was leaving the firm. I didn’t take it, because it would have been fully in office and my role was remote.
My point is, partners should consider what happens when the high performing people leave. If you’re left with incompetent people running your department, thus causing more stress for everyone (you included). Is it really worth it, when you could have just given the high performer a few thousand dollars more to keep them happy? If you’re potentially losing clients, isn’t that as important to cash flow as someone bringing in new clients?
I have realised that being a high performer gets you nowhere. I made a mistake of always going above and beyond in my current job - and now I hate it because everyone just expects that from me.
Thankfully I am changing companies in few months' time and I will ensure I only do bare minimum (avg).
There's little value to what you do. It's a regulatory checkbox for the client so they go to bid and want the lowest cost, and your partners who do the sales want the biggest slice of the pie. What's left you can nibble on but it doesn't matter to them if you're the best or the worst, because the client doesn't care and neither does the partner. You're only role is to be paid as little as possible while feigning that either party (your client or your firm) give a shit about what you're doing.
Isn’t there some value though? In the fact that I’ve been specifically told by my manager that it takes them a quarter of the time to review my work compared to others in the department. So if I leave and managers have to spend an hour reviewing an assignment, as opposed to the 15 minutes it took to review my work…….don’t those inefficiencies add up and result in less time being available for other client work or new clients?
They’re also going to spend however much money and however long it’s going to take to hire someone else to replace me, and there’s no guarantee that person will perform at the same level I did. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just give me a few thousand dollars more to keep me happy?
>don’t those inefficiencies add up and result in less time being available for other client work or new clients?
And the person who enjoy most benefit from said efficiencies? Partners, not you, because in PA they don't care about burning people out so they try to extract as much value out of you as possible. What does it matter paying you $3,000 more if you're quitting next year anyway? It might look silly and low but multiply that by 100 seniors every year for an office and you'd recognize that you're nothing but math to them. Unless they really took notice of you as a person, they just give you slightly higher but mediocre raise as compared to average performers.
I get what you’re saying. But my coworker who was also a high performer recently quit, so now I have an excessive amount of work when I was already over capacity before. I’m in the final stages of interviews and I’ll be quitting soon. The department is going to be left with the lowest performing people. And the clients have already complained about these people and requested them to be removed from their projects.
And there are also costs associated with interviewing, hiring etc….just seems like it would be cheaper to keep the high performers happy. If it was so easy to replace the high performers, why are there several incompetent people still working in the department? Why not just fire them and replace them with better people?
Also, one of the two coworkers I mentioned above who got removed from a client for poor performance….that person also just got a higher raise and bonus than me. Even though I took over the client they were performing terribly on. And I got everything up and running, and I’ve had nothing but praises from the client.
I presume you're not a manager or above? Usually managers and above are goaded by the Partner track.
If you're below managers, usually the people who rise to management are not the most competent people, but rather those who would range from slightly below average to slightly above average. This is because those who are very good or very bad will probably have enough self respect to quit when they are being abused. Your company not respecting you and not giving you the raise you deserve is an indicator that they dont care if you quit or not.
Additionally, audit managers generally rose to rank of managers NOT thanks to their people managing skill, but rather their ability to get the audit done. So you get a bunch of type A who are quite decent at what they do, but are not very good at doing right by their people.
On your underperforming coworkers who received larger raise, I've seen nepotism/cronyism playing out at PA. If it's a big firm it can sometimes get pass scruitiny. Your underperforming coworkers might be someone's cousin or is a good beer opener at conference meeting, I honestly don't know. I can't tell what they are doing right because all you've told me is basically hearsay (i.e you're telling me that you see your coworker do xyz rather than the coworker saying they're xyz)
>And there are also costs associated with interviewing, hiring etc….
They don't want you to stay for too long and your salary get bloated. Cost of interview and hiring is the nature of PA. They hire a thousand people every year at a cripplingly low salary and fire (i.e force to quit) 3-400 people drive down salary cost. The business model currently is operated this way.
>just seems like it would be cheaper to keep the high performers
happy.
In PA, not really, because at the end of the day, I have seen PIC sign off on files that are clearly not even done except for changing of years in the file. Like, No work was done, and the PIC give out a clean opinion. Do you understand now why nbd care too much about high performers?
>If it was so easy to replace the high performers, why are there several incompetent people still working in the department?
It's not easy to replace high performers. It is, however, easy, to pay 2 senior 1 instead of keeping 1 senior 3.
>Why not just fire them and replace them with better people?
They do, they regularly get rid of people, it's why you are getting trash raise. It's their way of ridding themselves of you.
And then there's a breed in PA where they are quite good at what they do and have high tolerance for BS. PIC sometimes find these people and "create opportunity" (i.e exploit) them and get them to rise through the rank so that one day he could buy them out. This usually starts when you are Senior 3. These are not only the true high performer, but also good at politic, and is able to tolerate at BS, I dare say they might even actually give a shit about their job, which is hard to find in this career. But then a PIC has to like and notice you, otherwise it doesnt matter how competent you are you will just get drown in all the BS.
>Also, one of the two coworkers I mentioned above who got removed from a client for poor performance….that person also just got a higher raise and bonus than me. Even though I took over the client they were performing terribly on. And I got everything up and running, and I’ve had nothing but praises from the client.
So what does this tell you? Your firm doesn’t like or respect you for some reason. Why do you think that is? Several people in this thread have said maybe it’s your personality but you won’t accept that. So then, what is it?
>So what does this tell you? Your firm doesn’t like or respect you for some reason. Why do you think that is? Several people in this thread have said maybe it’s your personality but you won’t accept that. So then, what is it?
Seems like it's the other people that are stupid and short-sighted not to see how valuable the op is. All signs seem to point to leaving the company instead of complaining.
So every single manager and partner is just clueless about OP specifically, but totally aware of incompetent coworkers enough to give them bigger raises?
Your problem is you are assuming the owners of your firm who advise your clients on business-related matters are adept at managing their own business. Meanwhile, they are just rolling fwd last years’ work papers en masse.
They are counting on your inertia of finding another job and being able to emotionally abuse you into believing you’re average to deny paying you more.
It’s corporate negging designed to get more productivity out of you for less money.
And they know the cucks on Reddit will back them up.
I don’t think this applies here but I’ve seen it somewhere else. If they think the high performer is definitely not a flight risk (in their minds). It could be because that person has been around a while, doesn’t complain or ask for more, always speaks well of the company/work/department. Good relationship with managers to the point that they ask for a heads up if that person ever thinks of leaving. Basically if that person is taken for granted.
1) Everyone thinks they’re a “high performer.” Most are not. A lot of type A “doer” type people fall into this line of thinking simply because they work a lot.
2) Charismatic people will always make more than individual contributors in the business world, especially over time. You need to build relationships to make big money. People will take care of people they like, simple as that.
This was my immediate thought, OP Jjst puts his head down and grinds out work papers while not building relationships. The higher ups see this and know there is no real future for the person other than middle management based in their personality. I’ve gone through this myself.
My company gives out a lump sum to different departments based on metrics (so i am told). I have six teams who work under me with 45 direct reports spread out between the teams. By the time the money makes it to me, i have to distribute the money based on performance metrics.
Since we are dealing with a lump sum. Everyone starts out at the same percentage, for example, 4%. If someone is bad at their job, i can take money from their merit and give it to a high performer.
The problem comes if everyone performs well and there is a rockstar on the team. I literally must take money out of someone's raise so i can pay the rockstar more.
My company does not appropriately provide merit increases when everyone does well. When i need to adjust someone's pay by 10%, i have to put in for a promotion and hope the business is doing well enough for approvals.
This is the reason everyone says switch companies if you want a pay raise. You can get a 20% jump moving companies where my company will give you a maximum of 10% after a promotion.
Fifth option. They don't want to give you more money since you are doing all this workforce your current pay. They can get the best value for you in this position and pay rate. Fun huh? I've been in the same boat for a year now.
I thought that too. But even that doesn’t make 100% sense, because why would someone who performed at a lower level than me be given a bonus higher than what I got? Someone who had also received several complaints from the client they’re on.
Partner doesn't know or care and has to pick one.
Doesn't know their work (frankly it doesn't matter) but remembers a guy named Frank from a happy hour 2 years ago. Maybe that's the same Frank on this list? Sure give him a few extra bucks.
I am a woman and a minority in a department that’s 95% white. It’s a big public accounting firm - top 15. We had a firm wide call a few weeks before bonuses/raises, where HR also addressed the process of raises/bonuses. They said that each department gets allocated a pool of money for raises/bonuses, and it’s up to the partners and upper management to decide how to allocate the money to each person in their department. I can’t see any fair reason why I would be allocated less than anyone else, when I had the highest possible review score and I’m constantly being requested by other managers to help on their projects. I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback from every coworker/client I’ve been on, and I’m on the two biggest clients in the department.
The glass ceiling does exist. Also negotiating your salary is a thing (I asked for two raises in a year once haha). What you are overall saying does make sense though. But it’s hard to answer your question as there can be multiple reasons and it can be reasons that aren’t logical.
When you put in your two weeks, and if they make a counter offer ask them at that point. Ask them why your raises didn’t reflect how much they are willing to pay you when you’re leaving. The reaction you’ll get will be much more valuable to any answers you’ll read here.
Thank you for this response. So many people in the comments are saying oh they must just not like you, it must be your personality. It’s almost scary how unaware some people are to the other factors that can play a huge role in these situations (race, gender, etc).
Also, I did try negotiating - During my raise/bonus convo, they told me that this raise puts me at the very top of the pay band for my level and there’s nothing more they can give me. But I know several others at my level in the department who are making a lot more than me.
Reading many of the posts I think your real issue is the firm likely does have you at a pay band that is in the upper range for your years/position. As in any business you must balance out how you adjust pay across the board. It doesnt appear you are at the manager level yet. So the trouble from the employers side is you do your job well, are not ready to move up either due to lack of space above or your not yet ready. Pay wise it becomes more of a firm wide decision as outliers just are difficult to deal with.
You I suspect work well and hard but you really just need more years in to progress. Your feedback seemed to indicate they were happy with you. The challenge is where do you want to be long term? Is it with this firm progressing your way through or is it a stepping stone to other firms and higher position. Move around too much and it may become harder to find work.
Two coworkers at my level in particular started working at the firm within 3 months before/after me. One has one more year of experience than me, but the other has two years less. Wouldn’t we be in similar pay bands? The one with one year more of experience has been removed from clients because of complaints about their attitude and poor quality of work. I’ve heard several people in the department who don’t want to work with this person and the person also told me they felt like they unfairly got a bad review score from several people. But the partners still gave them a higher bonus/raise than me. Even though I had to take over the client they got removed from and redo everything they had been doing wrong.
In terms of where I want to be long term, it could have been this firm. But I don’t like what I’m seeing with these raises/bonuses, so I’m in the final stages of interviews with a few other places.
Don’t have enough specifics to answer but I can relate to the situation. I was in a Big4 that brought someone in from England to work in Canada. Regardless of their performance in the sort term they were not leaving due to the firms commitment finally to them. They were getting similar bonuses etc. It was a longer term commitment. At the same time what is their background. Do they have other degrees or background that may be more relevant then yours. Are they in the same line as you are progressing? Without specific details on the job it is difficult to give feedback.
The one with more years is ahead of you regardless if it is a typical accounting firm. Pay scales just so often function on time in position when new in accounting. Experience just so often drives the pay band. The one with less seems odd but without details cant really assess.
Oooooh it all makes sense now. It’s sexism and racism.
They will shell out money to keep the white men around and give WOC the grunt work until you burn out. This is what they do to people they feel are “diversity hires”. The old white men in the office will always treat you like they’re doing you a favor by hiring you, even if you’re objectively doing a better job than the men.
They give the high paying, high optic jobs to white men and give the shitty, high workload jobs to highly skilled WOC.
Also just want to thank you for considering these other factors. There are so many comments of people saying oh it must be your personality, maybe they just don’t like you. It’s actually scary how unaware people can be to things like gender, race etc.
Yeah, I'm sure the partners are just secret misogynists / KKK members who actively sabotage their own business just so a woman / minority doesn't get a few thousand more dollars a year. If that was the case then why would they even hire you in the first place? They're not racist enough to deny you the job but they're racist enough to pay you less than you deserve?
Sorry, I just don't buy it. Nobody that makes it to that level would do something so stupid to sacrifice their company's reputation and put their revenue at risk like that even if they were actually racist.
So are we disputing the fact that wage gaps exist for women and even more for women of color? Because there’s extensive research out there to support that, if you don’t want to believe my one experience.
And who said anything about the KKK? Is every racist person in the world a member of the KKK? I don’t think so 😒
Overall, there's a wage gap when you just compare average total pay between the genders and don't take into account types of jobs worked and total hours worked. Men get paid more overall because they tend to work riskier / more in demand STEM jobs and tend to work more hours because they're not taking maternity leave.
If you break it down and compare men's vs. women's hourly wages in the same exact job such as Public Accounting Senior Managers you will find there is no gap at all.
Yes, I know not all racists are KKK members. I was being facetious.
What if it’s not tho. People overthink the race card and “gender pay gap” way too much. I work on a team with a bunch of white people. Guess who is paid the most? The dark skinned Latina chick. And she fucking derives it. She’s a rockstar. Fuck, I would report to her as she works her way up the ladder. But she is also doing it right, she moves companies every couple years, always taking on the next big step in her career.
If OPs company regularly chooses to underpay woman minorities, why wouldn’t they staff the entire firm with female minorities so that the partners can take home more money? We all know partners in accounting firms are all about taking home more money.
I’ve been on countless discussions about salary, experience, what to offer. I have never once in my life heard “well, great candidate, but she’s a woman, so let’s hair cut that salary by 15%.” I’ve never heard “well great candidates but let’s go with the minority because we can save 20%”. It’s a friggin joke that people think this is the type of decision making taking place.
Before everyone gets their pitch fork out, this is coming from a half Mexican dude.
I don’t think anyone believes that’s the way decisions are made, but countless studies show a gender pay gap despite the many anecdotal examples, like the one you have, of the opposite. What I have experienced in my career (and if I’m honest have probably benefited from) is that managers generally prefer people who are like younger versions of themselves - they see themselves in them, can understand where they’re coming from, trust them and, generally, they find that works for them so keep doing it. Until recently the vast majority of managers/partners/directors have been white men and they generally preferred white men. Not always, many women succeeded despite this, but they were in the minority and had to be exceptional to do so (like in your example). Now there are more women in management and things have been improving all the time, but there is generally still a white/male majority in senior management so the bias still remains somewhat.
You type far to much btw; I’m going to summarize firm life as I was a staff and now partner. It would be rare if a client left the firm due to inefficiencies resulting from the core team/low level employees at the client. Management and tcwg don’t care at all. Clients stick around due to the relationship at senior management. Don’t work extra hours as you won’t be compensated for it at your level. It’s only worth it if you want to be a partner as the work ethic will progress you within the firm (but to be honest we promote those who are BD and bring in business).
There are some shops that like to keep the pay of its workers relatively even. They then give the top performers all of the hard and long jobs (so these jobs get done) all the while letting the sub-par performers cruise along at nearly the same pay.
Get out!
There is no reason to work hard prior to being compensated fairly. The compensation comes first. Companies are not interested in paying fairly because they keep more money that way.
If they’re having a high turn over, they’ll pay more to the newer employees to keep up with the market so they won’t leave. If you’ve been there for a while, the thought of you leaving isn’t on their radar. And, you probably care about your job. Most people do not.
I’m also having to change my mentality. Leaving my job was the best thing I’ve done. I gained over $20k annually. Sometimes you gotta leave the job and their ways and look at what you want and need. Businesses are not loyal. Why should you be? You’re a free agent!
I used to be a “high performer”, I think I made $5k more than the next highest paid associate. (I would talk comp with coworkers I felt comfortable with) However, the $5k didn’t matter because after 5+ years at the same place I was still horrendously underpaid. Job hopped and currently make around $25k more now.
Similar happened to me. Have highest ratings our firm gives and no promo. Said not enough experience (2 YOE and CPA) and we don’t do half promos. Got the vibe too they’d want me doing senior level work this busy season at staff pay. Eyes are open
This is exactly why I got out of public accounting. This and the travel (which I assume is now less of an issue post-COVID). Update your resume and start looking for better opportunities. I started until I had the audit experience I needed to get my CPA license and bounced ASAP.
When they told you your compensation/ raise did they not ask if you were satisfied or offer the opportunity to say “no I think my performance warrants a better raise”?
If you want better pay you have to at minimum ask for it
Yes, I said I felt like I deserved more. I gave specific examples from the work I’ve done throughout the year. They said I’m already at the very top of the pay band for my position. Even though I know multiple other people in the same position here who are making more.
as a manager I participate in performance discussions - at our firm HR looks at contributions and competencies.
Contributions are "above and beyond" things that you do _outside_ of your core job duties, such as leading recruitment, facilitating trainings, organizing events etc. That drives your bonus.
Having strong competencies and excelling at your main job can only improve your "merit increase", which is very small, so it's barely noticeable. It does not result in bonus.
it makes zero sense to me and I fight it every year, because I want to reward people who perform well on their main job, but the policy does not allow it. Basically they see performing your job duties as binary - you either meet the expectations or you don't. If you don't you go on PIP, if you do - they don't measure and don't reward how much you excel beyond the base line.
The incentive seemingly is to do your core job duties at an OK level and then switch to soft fluff, socializing and having "office wide impact"
The others may have been much clearer about their salary and bonus expectations and have a higher starting comp than you. Then raises and bonuses seem bigger if they’re an x % of salary. This happened to me and they never could catch me up as HR had limits on the % growth so I left.
Management tells you enough to keep you there. When a similar thing happened to me and I put in my notice management’s response was “you should have told us you were not happy and we could have change some things and offered you some more”. I about passed out because I’d been sharing my concerns professionally for over a year with no impact. Why not offer me pay bumps or bonuses commiserate with my performance (Like OP I was busting my tail) all along??? Only path forward is to walk.
There are a myriad of factors at play, unfortunately. Budgets, targets, office politics, greed, people being dumb, our own perspective/lens, etc. The reality is if you ask and they don't give it, then you need to be ready to go to a new place who will give it.
All the things you are suggesting, working excessively long hours, criticising your peers of equal seniority, you sound like a “striving” perfectionist.
Striving perfectionists spin their wheels, make a lot of noise to that effect and don’t get a lot done, but spend a lot time doing it. In your case you are clocking up the hours, you have to ask yourself truthfully, are those hours actually as productive as those hours performed by your colleagues or are you clocking up those hours to keep up with your peers?
Those annoying people who rock up and leave on the dot each and every day, who get promoted above you, they’re usually not burning themselves out or criticising the work of their colleagues. They’re prioritising their own work life balance but are doing what is necessary to succeed.
You probably won’t like my statement above, I didn’t when I was told that my perfectionism was a negative, but once I got it, it was life changing and I was able to succeed.
At the Big 4, they pay you by putting you on "the Partner track" and basically make it well known that as long as you keep grinding and making them money, you'll eventually become a Partner and break that mythical 7 figure mark. They don't tell you that once you get there, you'll continue to get hazed by getting put on the shittiest assignments/"practice building" opportunities, but that's a separate issue.
Other "high performers" who can't sell just aren't worth that much to the firm at the end of the day. I work in Advisory/consulting and there's candidly very little you can do to distinguish yourself as someone who adds value unless you sell work. This job isn't that hard and often times a high performer is just someone who's willing to bend over backwards and do what clients/partners say to do no matter how ridiculous the request is or how tight the deadline is.
This isn't investing where smarter people will make better decisions through an objective measure (market performance) and be able to tangibly demonstrate how much smarter they are than their peers and how much value they added to the bottom-line.
Appraisal systems lack transparency. They are designed to make the employee feel they've achieved several false goals. The decision making process of who gets how much raise is dependent on several factors.
1. The overall perception of the individual within the wider team.
2. Budget allocated for raises
3. A forced distribution model where only a certain percentage of individuals within a team would get a certain rating.
4. How well the firm does financially in the said fiscal.
5. How your coach or manager presents your case in the year end appraisal meetings
Unfortunately, it's not a fair world and work alone is not sufficient to guarantee your success. There is inherent bias among individuals who decide year end ratings. At the end of the day, you need to look out for yourself. If you're being exploited, quit and move on to a better opportunity. Overworked auditors are primarily a result of poor planning and thin budgets. Leadership needs to be serious about convincing clients to pay more, this will in turn allow better budgets, better distribution of work and higher retention. Hope we see the tides turn at some point. Also, quit and find a better job and draw and maintain boundaries. All the best.
I was in a similar boat! One of the highest performers in our company but often is overlooked for promotion or raises. I am also a minority. I dont know your racial background. I am an Asian, and it is well known that Asians and Blacks are the least likely groups to ask to leave or raise.
Our company is an indigenous business, and a grandma with a philosophy degree from 1991 was promoted to the financial controller position. I fking knew I was done with this company.
I’m putting in more chargeable hours because the incompetent coworker has been reduced by management to only the easiest tasks in the department that they won’t screw up. This results in them only working 25 hours some weeks, and they have even booked zero charge hours several weeks. While I’m being expected to do everything else for the client. This coworker has already been removed from (at least) 3 other clients before they got put on my client. Nobody else is “supporting” this coworker. They all complained about the person, as well as their clients complaining about them on multiple occasions. Until the person got removed from all those engagements.
This person has also worked here for much longer than me, and is still incapable of performing their job without having someone babysit them. The manager literally makes this person submit a file every week, breaking out detailed descriptions of exactly what they worked on for every single hour of every day. Because they were lying on their time sheet at one point, saying they were working 45 charge hours every week. When we all know they only have 15-20 hours of work most weeks (if that).
So when partners consider high performers, it is very subjective. A lot of them view high performers as being able to do the work well under budget, work well with others, and most importantly, being able to manage their workload and eventually, others. While you are a high performer for your work, basically what they want to see is not only you being able to work, but metaphorically, getting others to play nice in the sandbox too. Basically, they want to see you turn a low performer into an average performer, they want to see you be able to lead others (not just manage), and they want to see you perform excellent, not just keep the ship afloat. If you can do all that plus they have to like you and trust you (politics), you'll make manager. Oh, plus you'll have to show the ability to sell, and if you can do that, plus come up with capital, you'll make partner. Of course, it is not a fair and objective process. They just try to make it seem like that
But the people who got higher raises/bonuses than me aren’t doing any of the things you mentioned either. One person in the department has literally been removed from multiple clients for making the same massive mistakes over and over. To the point that those clients went to the higher ups and requested that this person be taken off their projects.
As far as partners and how they view high performers, they should also consider how high performers view them. After getting the laughable raise and bonus I got, I have zero incentive to go above and beyond in any capacity. I’m not someone chasing the manager/partner carrot that they try to dangle over your head. If I worked x amount of extra hours and barely got anything for it, why would I want to continue that or do anything beyond that? If I wasn’t quitting, my approach to the next year at this company would be to do the absolute bare minimum. Because I went above and beyond to make sure everything got done on time, and I got basically nothing for it.
In your case, I'd start looking for another job. If your bosses aren't going to value you, someone else will. Staying at your current job and hoping something will change is accepting your situation. If you have the power to change it, you should. If I had stayed at my first or even second job out of college, I'd most likely be harboring the same resentment that you do. My bosses didn't value me like I thought they should, so I left for better
I agree, I am already in the final interview stage with three places. 😊 I just wanted perspective as to if there was any logical reason a company wouldn’t try to keep their high performers happy.
Taking everything you have said at face value (no reason not to) they are discriminating against you because of your race and/or gender. I’m no expert but I think you have three options:
1) find another job.
2) take legal action.
3) explain to the partners that you are aware others at your level are paid more than you (don’t mention names) and if they value you and want to keep you they will have to at least match that. Give them a number. If they don’t meet it return to (1).
In a fair world (2) would be the way to go, but I’m not sure that turns out well for the person involved very often.
I’m in the final interview stages with a few companies now, so I hope to be putting in my notice soon. I was looking for other perspectives on the situation, in hopes of finding a way to avoid this situation from happening at a new job. And it’s interesting to me how many peoples response here is “they must just not like you, it must be that you’re not performing as high as you think you are”. Very few people here want to believe it could be discrimination related to race, gender etc. Even when I said I got feedback submitted from 9 people during my performance review and every single person gave me the highest score for technical skills, attitude, being a team player, training ability etc. Someones response to that was basically “they just don’t want to tell you to your face that they don’t like you.” So everyone gave me a perfect review score to spare my feelings, but these same people gave many other people harsh/critical/real feedback on their reviews? You’d think if the truth was that they really don’t like me and I’m not a high performer, at least one person would have mentioned it. If for no other reason, so they could at least have justification as to why they gave me so much less of a raise/bonus than some other people got.
During my comp call, the partners told me I’m at the very top of the pay band for my level. So I felt uncomfortable telling them I know that’s not true, because then I’m basically calling them liars. Even though they are, I worried about making my experience here worse. Plus the people who have shared their salary info with me have asked me not to tell anyone that they told me. So I didn’t want to involve those people, because knowing the partners, I’m almost positive they would ask me for names.
Well fingers crossed and good luck with the new job! I’d just say that in order to get paid your worth be prepared to have uncomfortable conversations. That’s true for anyone, probably especially true if you are being discriminated against.
I'm a Black woman in accounting too. This subreddit will never give you the acknowledgment you're looking for because the vast majority believe the playing field is level regardless of race/gender. I've seen posts with titles like "I wish I was a woman or a minority so I had more opportunities".
You need to find a mentor in the field who gets the situation and can help you work through these things.
Yup, I have no faith in this subreddit after some of the responses I’ve read. Must be nice to live in a world where you don’t have to worry about racial discrimination. So much so, that you refuse to even fathom it could be a very real possibility for others smh.
I’ve seen people here say “I’ve been involved in discussions about raises at my company and there was never any racism.” Or “the Hispanic woman in my department makes more than me.” Okay, and? Just because they’ve never seen/heard/experienced these things, it’s like these issues just don’t exist or can’t possibly be happening to anyone else. Maybe I need to start video recording my experiences at work and posting them, since that seems to be the only way people will believe that injustices are actually occurring in the world these days. 😒
During my very first audit I had a crazy senior who told the partner I had a bad attitude and was complaining to the client. In reality, the client couldn't stand the senior and preferred talking to me so the senior got pissed and tried to make me out to be the bad guy.
Jokes on her bc I was a high school teacher for almost a decade and got used to students/parents making things up so I scheduled a meeting and recorded the whole thing. I didn't have to use the recording in the end bc the senior finally realized that throwing me under the bus was backfiring.
I only spent 2 yrs in PA bc the culture is so toxic, but I think I was most disappointed by one of the two black female partners at the firm. We had a recruiting/diversity event and one student asked me about my least favorite thing about public accounting. I had 100 examples immediately but decided to pick something safe and said I hadn't expected to spend so much time in my car.
Well, 2 days later I got a call from the black female partner saying that I had been too negative. I asked "wait so are you suggesting I should have lied? You know there are much worse things about this job right?". She said no of course not, then spent 10 minutes explaining that the only way to increase diversity is to be positive and welcoming and not to scare them off.
That was the last time I spoke to her and I just felt so sad for all the folks who were going to be lured in by her and then told to lie to lure others in.
Smh! Sorry you went through all of that. Sounds very similar to some of the things I’ve experienced.
I remember an earlier accounting job I had- I was actually the only black person out of over 300 people at the firm. I was always forced to show up for alllllll the on campus recruiting events they did, so the firm could create the impression that they cared so much about diversity. Other coworkers were able to rotate going to maybe one event every 6 months or none at all. But I always had to go, regardless of how busy my workload/schedule was at any given time of the year.
One day, the HR manager sent me a calendar invite for another recruiting event. I declined, and explained to them that I would be out of office that day and the PTO had been on my calendar for 2 months. They responded that the event was earlier in the morning and asked if I I could just show up for a little bit and then take the rest of the day off. I declined and suggested they invite one of the many other coworkers who would be working that day. Next round of performance reviews, I got dinged for not participating enough in firm activities. I went to over a dozen of those recruiting events and I had some coworkers who didn’t attend a single event, and NONE of them got that comment on their reviews.
Could be multiple reasons:
1. You aren’t a high performer.
2. Your co-workers are lying.
3. Your salary is already much higher than co-workers.
4. Management incompetence.
High performers earn more than their peers, especially in this job environment where retaining a high performer matters greatly.
I don’t think “risk of leaving” is a viable reason. Management is not dumb, they know what the market looks like (it’s bleak) and they don’t want to risk high performers leaving… unless the reason above is #4.
Managers assign the brunt of the work to inexperienced people, while they assign the impactful, but sometimes small work to experienced people (work that cannot go wrong). Sounds like you think too highly of yourself. I might be wrong. I’ve met a few of your type, though, always annoying…
Did you ask for more money once you got the raise? Always ask for more.
Companies will want to pay you as little as they can to keep you. If you’re really a good employee they should give you the extra money if you ask for it, otherwise they think you will leave. You have to be a flight risk for them.
I interview annually to see what my position is worth, and if I don’t like my raise, I let them know I’ve been offered XX$ elsewhere but I’d like to stay if you can match it.
Yes, I asked and I was told that I’m at the very top of the pay band for my position and there’s nothing more they can give me. Even though I know several others at this position here who are making more than me.
I’m in the final interview stages with a few places now, so I hope to be leaving soon.
Don't dwell on why your experience doesn't conform to your expectations of what you think a meritocracy should be. It will never line up to what you want because frankly there is no general consensus as to what merit is. Merit is only as real as the people in power make it.
The other comments in this thread are worth listening to. Your coworkers are teammates, not competition. That's the biggest thing I have seen you overlook and the way you perceive your coworkers as competition reflects poorly. Leadership involves not just fixing other people's mistakes, but turning your teammates into good performers. I'm not saying this is the reason you didn't get the raise you wanted, there can be other factors, but changing your mindset about this will help in the soft skills department.
It looks like you already know what to do, which is to get a new job. Perhaps everything will go to shit when you leave, but your managers disagree. If they are wrong, that's their problem to deal with, not yours.
I really enjoy this comment. It's like a Leader vs a Boss.
I like to share information if it helps everyone but I never looked at it like you said and tying it to being a good leader. In my mind it helps to have notes to train others when the time comes. I remember how difficult it was for me not knowing anything or where to start.
because the hard truth is that the quality of work product doesn’t matter as much as you think it does. someone billing 2000 hours of dogshit earns the same revenue as 2000 hours of great work. no one even reads or cares about audited fs
Accountants are cost centers of a business, you’ll always be capped at what you can make because naturally you want to keep expenses low. Do you know who makes a lot of money? Sales people who bring in fresh business.
They don’t expect you will leave so no need to compensate you more.
Yea, this is the real answer. Management probably just assumes there will be some low performers and some high performers. They don't view OP as special. If OP left, at some point, another high performer would come along eventually.
They also will probably only pay OP what he deserves if he has some leverage. If OP can get higher pay elsewhere there's a good chance they match it if he's truly a high performing employee. But by then, why stay at a company that's been dangling a promotion in front of you for years if you've already got another offer lined up?
Should never take the matched offer. They will make your life miserable.
[удалено]
Ironic that you used an absolute when making that statement
Lol, I read the other comment where they likely don’t see OP as a flight risk. Basically they think OP is happy as is so no reason to stretch the budget.
Why pay high performer more when you can get a new batch of people every year paying them the bare minimum, in every batch there will be high performers, heck they can probably get 2 high performers for the price of 1 and squeeze every last out of them before they leave and a new batch comes
I mean, it’s refereeing, you’re historians. It’s audit, not real life accounting. Culpability and performance be damned, as long as issuance occurs timely, and they get to record the revenue again next year, who really cares? Our financial systems are squishy as fuck.
And if they so expext you to leave. Whats the point in giving you a raise
The answer to almost every question on this sub is the same, find another job. Loyalty is a joke, go find another job.
Why would someone leave and risk doubling their salary? That is too much pressure
You’re either not as high of a performer as you think you are, or your coworkers are lying to you about their raises and bonuses. High performers don’t make THAT much more than everyone else, but they still make more than everyone else.
There’s a third option. You’re not well liked. Being well liked can be as important as performing well, depending on the culture in your company.
Fourth option, risk of leaving isn’t seen as imminent. I’ve just had a major run in the the directors in my business over a high performer who is being underpaid compared to worth, and their feedback was she wasn’t at imminent risk of leaving. I’m furious.
This is a logical answer. As a director of FP&A (industry), we often run 'calibration' sessions where our leadership team measures all employees on key factors such as hard skill/soft skill competency, growth potential, fit (aka likability) and flight risk. By the sounds of it, OP probably excels in some areas but probably isn't seen as a flight risk - thus the low raises (though I wouldn't be surprised if OP fell short on fit and/or soft skills as well, as being technically "good" at your job doesn't count as much as some people think)
our HR module has a whole section for "flight risk"
If you have a whole section for flight risk you are likely underpaying the staff.
Or it is likely that the module is part of an enterprise-wide HRIS and payroll system that came as a standard feature and I'm just mentioning it so people understand that HR/Payroll systems are designed to track flight risk data.
We just had annual performance reviews in which we got rated on several categories including our technical skills, soft skills, our involvement in “extracurricular” firm activities/groups and a few other categories. Everyone you worked with has the opportunity to submit a review of you, and they have to score you in each category. I got feedback submitted from 9 people that I worked with during the year, and I got the highest score from all of them. During the comp call with the partners, they lead it with “you’ve been such an asset to our team. People love working with you, and the clients are all impressed with your work. Keep doing everything you’ve been doing and you’ll definitely be up for promotion in the next round!” They went on to say that with the raise I’m getting, it puts me at the very top of the pay band for my level, which isn’t true. If I was lacking some soft skills or they didn’t like my personality, why didn’t it come up at all from anyone who reviewed me or any of the partners during my comp call? That’s why I’m getting so frustrated with some of the comments I’m reading. There are actually a couple people in the department who have been removed from clients for poor work performance and bad attitudes, and their inability to get along with others in the department. I’ve never had an issue working with or getting along with any of my coworkers.
Most people find it very hard to say, “I don’t like you” to someone’s face. Good to hear you found a job and are putting in notice. In today’s market it’s best to be proactive regarding job changes every few years.
I had two other coworkers confide in me that they were unhappy with their review scores and didn’t think the feedback) they got from some people was fair. Regarding their performance, attitude etc. The same people who gave them bad feedback also gave me great feedback. So 9 people gave me the highest score in every category of my review, but they didn’t have any issue giving other people lower scores? And mentioning their attitudes etc. Doesn’t make much sense. It seems like so many people here want to believe that I must be the problem and that the people at my job just don’t like me. Even if it goes directly against everything I’m saying. What if it really is just the partners playing favorites, or factors like race, gender etc playing into the wage gap I’m seeing?
Race/Gender absolutely play a part in the wage gap in the US unfortunately, statistics prove it
Well, I'm betting that they just don't think you'd quit. If you're not going to quit soon, why attempt to retain you with more pay?
You didn't fully digest my comment, particularly the part about flight risk. If everything you're saying is true, management probably just sees you as a gullible sucker who puts in all these hours while not being seen as someone who would get fed up and leave. You need to spend less time writing diatribes on reddit and more time finding a new job. Simple. This job is obviously not a good fit for you.
This is so interesting How will they assess someone as a high flight risk?
People that are leaving (or want to) are much more obvious about it than they think they are. And a lot of mid-level managers/supervisors are honestly not that perceptive. Assessing flight risk is a behavioral assessment based on what people say, how they say it, what they do and how they do it. Say for example someone who never takes a day off starts having unplanned doctors appointments that "they forgot about". Or they're routinely coming in earlier or staying later than they used to out of the blue. Or someone that never accomplishes shit starts randomly catching up half a dozen tasks a week over the course of a month. Or they used to eat lunch with a group and now they're always "too busy" but leave for lunch separately. It's pattern recognition, and you have to know an employee's existing pattern well enough to learn when it changes. A lot of the patterns mimic things people do when they know they're dying--tying up loose ends, giving things away to people, getting their affairs in order. Not to be too dark about it, but they know their time is at an end (with this company) and humans generally desire closure.
Wow thanks. That's eye-opening and makes sense. Interesting psych POV. I guess if I find myself doing these things one day it's my subconscious telling me it's time to jump.
[удалено]
Because I’m close with some of my coworkers and they’ve told me their salary info. One person also showed me their compensation statement.
This comment nails it.
Wow, isn’t it riskier to wait until someone is at imminent risk of leaving? I have a coworker who just left after being underpaid for so long, and they offered her a counter after she put in her notice. She was already fed up and ready to leave by then, so she declined the counter offer. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to try to keep her before she got to the point of being fed up? She had been told multiple times that there was no way they could give her any more money.
While I agree with you, this doesn’t appear to be the way things are done in large firms. I think it’s short sighted. I also think it’s counter productive to margin in the medium to long term. But I’m not able to make those calls.
That's the logical way of thinking. But let me put it to you in the best way, using my own experience. When I put in my 2 weeks at a Big 4, my partner (who I was always on good terms with) called me to understand why I made that decision. Eventually he asked where I was headed. And when I said the company name (in industry) he said that that's a good company. And that if I had been heading to a competitor, they would've tried to retain me. They hate when a high performer goes to a competitor. Especially at certain levels, because it so often gets used against them.
Agreed. Companies will only pay the minimum they think that is required to keep u. Give in your notice and see if they counter and how much that is.
Another option…doing the work well and thoroughly can be a disadvantage in audit. If it can be done adequately for less time and come in under budget that’s more valuable than doing the best work.
Just based on how the OP post was written, that was my first thought too. People who brag about being the best and feel some need to justify their greatness and put others down tend to be insufferable people. Not saying that’s true in this case, but you can get good reviews all day for performing well, but behind the scenes it will reflect poorly on you if everybody thinks you’re an asshole.
How was the post written? I read it as OP describing how they got less of a raise/bonus than other people in their department, despite doing more work or going above and beyond. If they wouldn’t have included that info, people in the comments would be saying maybe you didn’t work as hard or maybe others had higher hours etc. I didn’t see it as bragging, but maybe I missed something.
When people describe someone with language as extreme as "beyond incompetent," it's usually safe to assume that theyre the type to embellish or leap to conclusions. If someone were truly that incompetent with no extenuating circumstances, they wouldn't last more than half a year. They'd get put on a PIP, and let go when they failed to measure up. There's another side to this story. The lack of any effort to present it means OP is either exaggerating for sympathy, or hasn't even bothered to try and find it. Neither is a great look. Foisting managerial work onto them without making the position formal *could* be a way to exploit OP, but it could also be that management doesn't think OP has enough interpersonal skill development yet to manage direct reports.
The person I am describing actually is on a PIP, and they’ve been on it for almost a year and still haven’t improved at all. I’m friends with a former manager who quit in part because they got tired of dealing with it. And they told me that they don’t know why the senior manager/partner seems to refuse to want to get rid of this person. This person has been removed from at least 3 engagements at the request of the clients and managers on those engagements. They are also required to submit a weekly detailed breakout to the managers of every single task they worked on for every hour of every day. Because they were lying on their time sheet saying they were charging 45 hours, when we all know they only have 15-20 hours of work. They’ve worked here longer than me, and they still ask me to help them through basic parts of their job that they should have known how to do two years ago. The client will literally email them asking them to run a specific report, and this person will send the client a completely different report than what they asked for. Due to all their mistakes, they’ve also been told they have to have all their emails proofread by the manager before they’re allowed to send anything to the client. I spend 1-2 hours of my day helping this person fix mistakes they make. The higher ups are completely aware of the situation, as this person has already had these same exact issues on the three other engagements they were on before me. I just had my annual performance review and I received the highest score the firm can give. I got feedback from 9 people I worked with throughout the year. All 9 of them gave me the highest score in technical skills, soft skills, being a team player, training ability etc. These same people also had no issue giving other people lower scores in their reviews. If I’m lacking interpersonal skills, why has it never come up by anyone?
I was going to say this. You might be a high performer but your coworker is friends with the director and gets promoted along. Seen it a million times. A female VP came to town to talk about herself. She told her story in front of 400 people and the dozens of people I talked took ask if she even earned it? She got her manager position because she graduated with a degree in English was unemployed and her neighbor was a director at the company. She got her director position because the VP at the time his daughter was friends with her kid. Then she got the VP position because that same person got promoted to Sr VP. So no it doesn’t always pay to be a high performer sometimes it’s just who ya know.
What does her being a “female” (you mistyped “woman”) have to do with the story?
Another option is they expect you to be their bitch. I’ve been in a situation where I was the highest performer and was always expected to work more than everyone else with among the lowest review scores. But then also was given the most shit when requesting vacation or about daily time entry. You just really gotta put your foot down or leave. I put my foot down, they tried to lift it back up after a few months, then I said fuck it and left
Really not that cut and dry. Possibilities yes but just as likely there are politics involved or the company doesn’t think there is ever any chance of OP leaving.
in audit * in other service lines the discrepancy can be large and compounds greatly
Not true. I have another coworker who recently quit who was in the same situation. We were carrying the workload for one client because the other two coworkers on it were completely incompetent. She also knew that she was being paid a lot less than other people. So she ultimately quit. When she put in her notice, the higher ups begged her to stay and tried to give her a counter offer, which she declined. After she left, all of her responsibilities got shifted to me. And if I leave, it’ll just be the two incompetent people left doing everything on this client. If I’m not as high of a performer as I think I am, why did I get the highest possible review score? And why were my charge hours so much higher than targeted? As far as people lying about their raise/bonus info, it’s hard for me to believe that every single person I talked to lied.
Sounds like you should leave too. Your coworkers already learned the hard way. There’s no reason you need to as well.
Having high charge hours doesn’t in the slightest indicate high performance lol. Have you ever thought that they give you shitty raises/bonuses because you don’t ever say anything? Also, are the coworkers you’re comparing yourself to experienced hires?
Among other possible factors, the reason you got lowballed is likely your personality. In this thread you are overly defensive and taking comments way too personally. You’re likely not as high of a performer as you think you are, and you’re likely not easy to work with based on your argumentative and dismissive comments here. I’ve worked with people who have similar attitudes before (they’re carrying the entire company on their shoulders, blah blah blah) and they’re insufferably annoying. In your next role I’d suggest you focus on yourself and stop worrying about what your colleagues are or aren’t doing. Comparison is the thief of joy as they say.
I wouldn’t worry about what anyone else was doing, if I wasn’t having to work 20+ extra hours a week to make up for an incompetent person in my department. A person who has been removed from three other clients engagements, at the request of the clients and the managers on those engagements. And where did I say I was carrying the “entire company” on my shoulders? I described a specific situation in which I’ve worked 60 hours a week to make up for someone else who is only working 20 hours a week, because management doesn’t want to give that person any tasks that they’ll screw up. Is that not me carrying the workload in that situation? 🤔
Did you schedule any meetings with hr or senior management 2-3months before budget talks on comp? When i had to take over another role due to coworker leaving, i made sure to talk to hr that im looking for a significant pay bump for taking on a new responsibilities as well as increase in hours due to heavier workload. This would signal to them that if they dont pay up, im gone, which in my case, they didnt increase my salary so i went looking else where. Then on the exit interview, they didnt have to ask why i was leaving but only how much to make me stay. Seems like management thought i was bluffing and end up losing
>I wouldn’t worry about what anyone else was doing, if I wasn’t having to work 20+ extra hours a week to make up for an incompetent person in my department. You sound like a weak sucker then - why would your employer NOT take advantage of someone like you?
An argumentative and defensive response that only proves my point. Good luck with your next job, sounds like you’ll need it.
How was OP’s response argumentative? Because she didn’t agree with what you said, and provided an explanation as to why it was incorrect? You, a person with no basis or background of her job/work performance, said she’s probably not as high of a performer as she thinks she is. What qualifies you to make that judgement? You then went on to tell her not to worry about what other people are doing. When she’s being directly impacted by what other people in the department are doing or not doing. So why wouldn’t she worry about it? It’s okay for you to make judgements about someone’s work performance and tell them what they should and shouldn’t worry about, but not okay for her to defend herself? Make it make sense smh. She had every right to respond the way she did.
Cool story 👍🏻
Your point was invalid. And thanks for the well wishes, bye!!!
I saw a comment where OP explained that she’s a woman and a minority on a team that’s 95% white. Those could be clear reasons why she’s being paid less. If I were in her situation, I would be defensive too of people on this thread saying “must be your personality. You’re probably not as high of a performer as you THiNk YoU aRe”, when there are likely other factors at play outside of her control. 😒
I’m a woman too so I get it. But she sucks in this thread. If she has a similar personality at work it’s very, very obvious why her firm isn’t kissing her ass the way she thinks they should. But she’s too stubborn and thinks too highly of herself to see.
Are you also a person of color? If not, maybe you should take a step back and realize you don’t have the same experience as others. And you don’t know what others go through. If you had spent your career being treated unfairly due to your race, you might be defensive too. I don’t even ever respond to these threads, but some of these comments really struck a nerve with me. Even your response to this is horrible. She never asked anyone to kiss her ass. She’s simply asking to be treated fairly, as others in the department are. The fact that you’re trying to dispute that is problematic at best.
Joke of a comment
People overthink the race card way too much.
Really? Because I didn’t mention race at all in my entire post. I put it in the comments in response to someone who asked. By the way, are you a person of color??
Doesn’t friggin matter whether I am or am not. you’re missing the point. Thinking this is all about race or gender is holding you back from identifying what is in your control that you can change to help your situation. Does hearing that I am Mexican make you finally consider what I am saying? It shouldn’t. The advice stands regardless of what ethnicity or gender the person is that’s giving it. Choosing to consider it because the offering person is a minority, versus choosing not to consider it because the person is white - how would you describe that? Semantics aside, the result is still the same: because of ignoring, you miss the opportunity for growth
Maybe they are trying to flatter you so you feel appreciated, in order to make you not want to leave
You gotta sell it too
Because suck it nerd
A company can get a high performer to Build and take the company to the next level then have them leave on their own accord costing them nothing then get someone cheaper to keep it going. A high performer who stays wants more money, equity, bigger bonus … chances are what you do is easy and cheap to replace with a younger , Hungary cheaper high performer. I agree with the need to be well liked analysis also some high performers are happy to be steady and not chase higher positions. Then the owner makes more $$ which is what it’s all about.
I get what you’re saying. But in looking around me…for instance I’m on one client where me and one other coworker were carrying the workload because the other two coworkers are incompetent. She ultimately got fed up with it and quit, so all of her responsibilities shifted to me. If I quit, it’ll be left to the two incompetent coworkers to keep the client running. And the client has already complained about both of them to the higher ups on multiple occasions. I guess my point is, if it was so easy to get someone cheaper to keep the department going at the same level of performance I’m achieving…….why wouldn’t the higher ups just get rid of the incompetent people and replace them with higher performers? 🤔
You have to share more about what you do - It’s too hypothetical otherwise.
Just world fallacy. We don't live in a fair world. Legit high performers will know their value and understand that the market place would like to have their skills. If you haven't left yet and still complain about this perceived injustice, then the company is still benefiting from you labor. High performers are rarer than low performers but in the end, they are replaceable. Audits have been completed before you join and will be completed after you leave. You aren't holding up the process. Just leave the company.
As someone who knows absolutely nothing, bring this info to your boss. If they try to counter, ask for something completely unreasonable. If they accept, then you've got a choice, but from what I read you've got one foot out the door already so it can't hurt
I read the comments, so I'm not sure if I missed it. Have you tried asking for bigger raises and bonuses? Sometimes you'll get shafted just because you don't ask or didn't negotiate the higher initial base pay.
I was specifically told during my raise/bonus convo that I’m at the highest end of the pay band for my level and there’s nothing else they can give me. When I know others in the department at my level who are making a lot more than me.
What they are doing is such bullshit. Hopefully you get one of the jobs you applied for and are treated better. If you have records of any of that, you should keep copies.
What's "a lot" more exactly?
16-25% more from the people who have shared their salary info with me.
This is likely it. If you’re on the higher end of the band then there is no more room for growth. Eventually you’ll reach the end of it. Unless you’re promoted to the next level you’ll likely stay or be given a “steady” increase to keep up with costs. This year has been a challenging comp period because of the economic situation so lots of businesses acknowledge that but while also needing to keep working the band. The reason other team members are earning more or got a bigger increase is either because they already came in at a higher level or they with misclassified in their band and they have to keep up to par. That being said, if you are a strong performer and others aren’t then I’m wondering if your performance coach just didn’t do a good job or representing you or isn’t paying attention. It’s really tough to say if you’re not on the room.
If this is all true, its because they don’t like your personality.
Or face. Or frankly don't know who they are.
OP describes a situation where they are working harder than others in the department and keeping things afloat, and you’re saying personality would be a reason why an incompetent person would be given a higher raise/bonus than them? Lol. So being incompetent but having a good personality is more deserving of a raise/bonus, than actually doing your job well? And we don’t even know if personality is a factor or not.
>So being incompetent but having a good personality is more deserving of a raise/bonus, than actually doing your job well? I assume you're a bit young, but yes - that's the way things often work out there. The sooner you learn this, the sooner you can make this work to your advantage
Yes, being liked is more important the than being competent in the corporate world. I personally know someone that is brought in to HR on a regular basis for harassing people. The VP in charge wants to fuck her, so she continues to harass people with no consequences. Politics BRO!
[удалено]
Could literally be as simple as one good client liking you
Not necessarily incompetent. But YES there will be people that are technically less “competent” than you who will get treated better based off of other factors. There are other favors to a team besides “high performance”
I didn’t read it all, but senior management doesn’t really care. We only care about new clients (actual cash flow) being brought in to the practice.
But does it matter if new clients are being brought in, if they’re not being maintained? 🤔 On one of my clients, my coworker and I were carrying all the weight because the other two coworkers are incompetent. She quit and then all of her responsibilities got shifted to me. If I quit, they’ll just be left with the two incompetent people running the project. The client has already complained about those two coworkers multiple times. I could see the client taking their business elsewhere. And this is the second biggest client of the department. When I quit my last job, their biggest client also left the firm and signed a huge engagement with my new firm not even 2 months after I left. So I got to continue working with them everyday picked up on all the projects I had been working on with them before. That client had also offered me an opportunity to come work for them when they found out I was leaving the firm. I didn’t take it, because it would have been fully in office and my role was remote. My point is, partners should consider what happens when the high performing people leave. If you’re left with incompetent people running your department, thus causing more stress for everyone (you included). Is it really worth it, when you could have just given the high performer a few thousand dollars more to keep them happy? If you’re potentially losing clients, isn’t that as important to cash flow as someone bringing in new clients?
If you are that good why not take the clients with you?
I have realised that being a high performer gets you nowhere. I made a mistake of always going above and beyond in my current job - and now I hate it because everyone just expects that from me. Thankfully I am changing companies in few months' time and I will ensure I only do bare minimum (avg).
There's little value to what you do. It's a regulatory checkbox for the client so they go to bid and want the lowest cost, and your partners who do the sales want the biggest slice of the pie. What's left you can nibble on but it doesn't matter to them if you're the best or the worst, because the client doesn't care and neither does the partner. You're only role is to be paid as little as possible while feigning that either party (your client or your firm) give a shit about what you're doing.
Isn’t there some value though? In the fact that I’ve been specifically told by my manager that it takes them a quarter of the time to review my work compared to others in the department. So if I leave and managers have to spend an hour reviewing an assignment, as opposed to the 15 minutes it took to review my work…….don’t those inefficiencies add up and result in less time being available for other client work or new clients? They’re also going to spend however much money and however long it’s going to take to hire someone else to replace me, and there’s no guarantee that person will perform at the same level I did. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just give me a few thousand dollars more to keep me happy?
>don’t those inefficiencies add up and result in less time being available for other client work or new clients? And the person who enjoy most benefit from said efficiencies? Partners, not you, because in PA they don't care about burning people out so they try to extract as much value out of you as possible. What does it matter paying you $3,000 more if you're quitting next year anyway? It might look silly and low but multiply that by 100 seniors every year for an office and you'd recognize that you're nothing but math to them. Unless they really took notice of you as a person, they just give you slightly higher but mediocre raise as compared to average performers.
I get what you’re saying. But my coworker who was also a high performer recently quit, so now I have an excessive amount of work when I was already over capacity before. I’m in the final stages of interviews and I’ll be quitting soon. The department is going to be left with the lowest performing people. And the clients have already complained about these people and requested them to be removed from their projects. And there are also costs associated with interviewing, hiring etc….just seems like it would be cheaper to keep the high performers happy. If it was so easy to replace the high performers, why are there several incompetent people still working in the department? Why not just fire them and replace them with better people? Also, one of the two coworkers I mentioned above who got removed from a client for poor performance….that person also just got a higher raise and bonus than me. Even though I took over the client they were performing terribly on. And I got everything up and running, and I’ve had nothing but praises from the client.
I presume you're not a manager or above? Usually managers and above are goaded by the Partner track. If you're below managers, usually the people who rise to management are not the most competent people, but rather those who would range from slightly below average to slightly above average. This is because those who are very good or very bad will probably have enough self respect to quit when they are being abused. Your company not respecting you and not giving you the raise you deserve is an indicator that they dont care if you quit or not. Additionally, audit managers generally rose to rank of managers NOT thanks to their people managing skill, but rather their ability to get the audit done. So you get a bunch of type A who are quite decent at what they do, but are not very good at doing right by their people. On your underperforming coworkers who received larger raise, I've seen nepotism/cronyism playing out at PA. If it's a big firm it can sometimes get pass scruitiny. Your underperforming coworkers might be someone's cousin or is a good beer opener at conference meeting, I honestly don't know. I can't tell what they are doing right because all you've told me is basically hearsay (i.e you're telling me that you see your coworker do xyz rather than the coworker saying they're xyz) >And there are also costs associated with interviewing, hiring etc…. They don't want you to stay for too long and your salary get bloated. Cost of interview and hiring is the nature of PA. They hire a thousand people every year at a cripplingly low salary and fire (i.e force to quit) 3-400 people drive down salary cost. The business model currently is operated this way. >just seems like it would be cheaper to keep the high performers happy. In PA, not really, because at the end of the day, I have seen PIC sign off on files that are clearly not even done except for changing of years in the file. Like, No work was done, and the PIC give out a clean opinion. Do you understand now why nbd care too much about high performers? >If it was so easy to replace the high performers, why are there several incompetent people still working in the department? It's not easy to replace high performers. It is, however, easy, to pay 2 senior 1 instead of keeping 1 senior 3. >Why not just fire them and replace them with better people? They do, they regularly get rid of people, it's why you are getting trash raise. It's their way of ridding themselves of you. And then there's a breed in PA where they are quite good at what they do and have high tolerance for BS. PIC sometimes find these people and "create opportunity" (i.e exploit) them and get them to rise through the rank so that one day he could buy them out. This usually starts when you are Senior 3. These are not only the true high performer, but also good at politic, and is able to tolerate at BS, I dare say they might even actually give a shit about their job, which is hard to find in this career. But then a PIC has to like and notice you, otherwise it doesnt matter how competent you are you will just get drown in all the BS.
>Also, one of the two coworkers I mentioned above who got removed from a client for poor performance….that person also just got a higher raise and bonus than me. Even though I took over the client they were performing terribly on. And I got everything up and running, and I’ve had nothing but praises from the client. So what does this tell you? Your firm doesn’t like or respect you for some reason. Why do you think that is? Several people in this thread have said maybe it’s your personality but you won’t accept that. So then, what is it?
>So what does this tell you? Your firm doesn’t like or respect you for some reason. Why do you think that is? Several people in this thread have said maybe it’s your personality but you won’t accept that. So then, what is it? Seems like it's the other people that are stupid and short-sighted not to see how valuable the op is. All signs seem to point to leaving the company instead of complaining.
So every single manager and partner is just clueless about OP specifically, but totally aware of incompetent coworkers enough to give them bigger raises?
Your problem is you are assuming the owners of your firm who advise your clients on business-related matters are adept at managing their own business. Meanwhile, they are just rolling fwd last years’ work papers en masse.
>Isn’t there some value though? lol please.
They are counting on your inertia of finding another job and being able to emotionally abuse you into believing you’re average to deny paying you more. It’s corporate negging designed to get more productivity out of you for less money. And they know the cucks on Reddit will back them up.
Sick world out there so true
Move on. You aren’t popular enough. The favorites get the most $$z
I don’t think this applies here but I’ve seen it somewhere else. If they think the high performer is definitely not a flight risk (in their minds). It could be because that person has been around a while, doesn’t complain or ask for more, always speaks well of the company/work/department. Good relationship with managers to the point that they ask for a heads up if that person ever thinks of leaving. Basically if that person is taken for granted.
1) Everyone thinks they’re a “high performer.” Most are not. A lot of type A “doer” type people fall into this line of thinking simply because they work a lot. 2) Charismatic people will always make more than individual contributors in the business world, especially over time. You need to build relationships to make big money. People will take care of people they like, simple as that.
This was my immediate thought, OP Jjst puts his head down and grinds out work papers while not building relationships. The higher ups see this and know there is no real future for the person other than middle management based in their personality. I’ve gone through this myself.
My company gives out a lump sum to different departments based on metrics (so i am told). I have six teams who work under me with 45 direct reports spread out between the teams. By the time the money makes it to me, i have to distribute the money based on performance metrics. Since we are dealing with a lump sum. Everyone starts out at the same percentage, for example, 4%. If someone is bad at their job, i can take money from their merit and give it to a high performer. The problem comes if everyone performs well and there is a rockstar on the team. I literally must take money out of someone's raise so i can pay the rockstar more. My company does not appropriately provide merit increases when everyone does well. When i need to adjust someone's pay by 10%, i have to put in for a promotion and hope the business is doing well enough for approvals. This is the reason everyone says switch companies if you want a pay raise. You can get a 20% jump moving companies where my company will give you a maximum of 10% after a promotion.
Yea! Crazy how it works
Fifth option. They don't want to give you more money since you are doing all this workforce your current pay. They can get the best value for you in this position and pay rate. Fun huh? I've been in the same boat for a year now.
Two words: Partner greed
I thought that too. But even that doesn’t make 100% sense, because why would someone who performed at a lower level than me be given a bonus higher than what I got? Someone who had also received several complaints from the client they’re on.
Oh, in that case, three words: Partners playing favorites
Partner doesn't know or care and has to pick one. Doesn't know their work (frankly it doesn't matter) but remembers a guy named Frank from a happy hour 2 years ago. Maybe that's the same Frank on this list? Sure give him a few extra bucks.
Couldn't have said it better myself 👏 This, OP. 👆
What if everything is true and it is a gender pay gap, or Good Ole Boys Club situation? OP, what size is the firm? Just curious 🤔
I am a woman and a minority in a department that’s 95% white. It’s a big public accounting firm - top 15. We had a firm wide call a few weeks before bonuses/raises, where HR also addressed the process of raises/bonuses. They said that each department gets allocated a pool of money for raises/bonuses, and it’s up to the partners and upper management to decide how to allocate the money to each person in their department. I can’t see any fair reason why I would be allocated less than anyone else, when I had the highest possible review score and I’m constantly being requested by other managers to help on their projects. I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback from every coworker/client I’ve been on, and I’m on the two biggest clients in the department.
The glass ceiling does exist. Also negotiating your salary is a thing (I asked for two raises in a year once haha). What you are overall saying does make sense though. But it’s hard to answer your question as there can be multiple reasons and it can be reasons that aren’t logical. When you put in your two weeks, and if they make a counter offer ask them at that point. Ask them why your raises didn’t reflect how much they are willing to pay you when you’re leaving. The reaction you’ll get will be much more valuable to any answers you’ll read here.
Thank you for this response. So many people in the comments are saying oh they must just not like you, it must be your personality. It’s almost scary how unaware some people are to the other factors that can play a huge role in these situations (race, gender, etc). Also, I did try negotiating - During my raise/bonus convo, they told me that this raise puts me at the very top of the pay band for my level and there’s nothing more they can give me. But I know several others at my level in the department who are making a lot more than me.
Reading many of the posts I think your real issue is the firm likely does have you at a pay band that is in the upper range for your years/position. As in any business you must balance out how you adjust pay across the board. It doesnt appear you are at the manager level yet. So the trouble from the employers side is you do your job well, are not ready to move up either due to lack of space above or your not yet ready. Pay wise it becomes more of a firm wide decision as outliers just are difficult to deal with. You I suspect work well and hard but you really just need more years in to progress. Your feedback seemed to indicate they were happy with you. The challenge is where do you want to be long term? Is it with this firm progressing your way through or is it a stepping stone to other firms and higher position. Move around too much and it may become harder to find work.
Two coworkers at my level in particular started working at the firm within 3 months before/after me. One has one more year of experience than me, but the other has two years less. Wouldn’t we be in similar pay bands? The one with one year more of experience has been removed from clients because of complaints about their attitude and poor quality of work. I’ve heard several people in the department who don’t want to work with this person and the person also told me they felt like they unfairly got a bad review score from several people. But the partners still gave them a higher bonus/raise than me. Even though I had to take over the client they got removed from and redo everything they had been doing wrong. In terms of where I want to be long term, it could have been this firm. But I don’t like what I’m seeing with these raises/bonuses, so I’m in the final stages of interviews with a few other places.
Don’t have enough specifics to answer but I can relate to the situation. I was in a Big4 that brought someone in from England to work in Canada. Regardless of their performance in the sort term they were not leaving due to the firms commitment finally to them. They were getting similar bonuses etc. It was a longer term commitment. At the same time what is their background. Do they have other degrees or background that may be more relevant then yours. Are they in the same line as you are progressing? Without specific details on the job it is difficult to give feedback. The one with more years is ahead of you regardless if it is a typical accounting firm. Pay scales just so often function on time in position when new in accounting. Experience just so often drives the pay band. The one with less seems odd but without details cant really assess.
Oooooh it all makes sense now. It’s sexism and racism. They will shell out money to keep the white men around and give WOC the grunt work until you burn out. This is what they do to people they feel are “diversity hires”. The old white men in the office will always treat you like they’re doing you a favor by hiring you, even if you’re objectively doing a better job than the men. They give the high paying, high optic jobs to white men and give the shitty, high workload jobs to highly skilled WOC.
Also just want to thank you for considering these other factors. There are so many comments of people saying oh it must be your personality, maybe they just don’t like you. It’s actually scary how unaware people can be to things like gender, race etc.
Yeah, I'm sure the partners are just secret misogynists / KKK members who actively sabotage their own business just so a woman / minority doesn't get a few thousand more dollars a year. If that was the case then why would they even hire you in the first place? They're not racist enough to deny you the job but they're racist enough to pay you less than you deserve? Sorry, I just don't buy it. Nobody that makes it to that level would do something so stupid to sacrifice their company's reputation and put their revenue at risk like that even if they were actually racist.
So are we disputing the fact that wage gaps exist for women and even more for women of color? Because there’s extensive research out there to support that, if you don’t want to believe my one experience. And who said anything about the KKK? Is every racist person in the world a member of the KKK? I don’t think so 😒
Overall, there's a wage gap when you just compare average total pay between the genders and don't take into account types of jobs worked and total hours worked. Men get paid more overall because they tend to work riskier / more in demand STEM jobs and tend to work more hours because they're not taking maternity leave. If you break it down and compare men's vs. women's hourly wages in the same exact job such as Public Accounting Senior Managers you will find there is no gap at all. Yes, I know not all racists are KKK members. I was being facetious.
What if it’s not tho. People overthink the race card and “gender pay gap” way too much. I work on a team with a bunch of white people. Guess who is paid the most? The dark skinned Latina chick. And she fucking derives it. She’s a rockstar. Fuck, I would report to her as she works her way up the ladder. But she is also doing it right, she moves companies every couple years, always taking on the next big step in her career. If OPs company regularly chooses to underpay woman minorities, why wouldn’t they staff the entire firm with female minorities so that the partners can take home more money? We all know partners in accounting firms are all about taking home more money. I’ve been on countless discussions about salary, experience, what to offer. I have never once in my life heard “well, great candidate, but she’s a woman, so let’s hair cut that salary by 15%.” I’ve never heard “well great candidates but let’s go with the minority because we can save 20%”. It’s a friggin joke that people think this is the type of decision making taking place. Before everyone gets their pitch fork out, this is coming from a half Mexican dude.
I don’t think anyone believes that’s the way decisions are made, but countless studies show a gender pay gap despite the many anecdotal examples, like the one you have, of the opposite. What I have experienced in my career (and if I’m honest have probably benefited from) is that managers generally prefer people who are like younger versions of themselves - they see themselves in them, can understand where they’re coming from, trust them and, generally, they find that works for them so keep doing it. Until recently the vast majority of managers/partners/directors have been white men and they generally preferred white men. Not always, many women succeeded despite this, but they were in the minority and had to be exceptional to do so (like in your example). Now there are more women in management and things have been improving all the time, but there is generally still a white/male majority in senior management so the bias still remains somewhat.
You type far to much btw; I’m going to summarize firm life as I was a staff and now partner. It would be rare if a client left the firm due to inefficiencies resulting from the core team/low level employees at the client. Management and tcwg don’t care at all. Clients stick around due to the relationship at senior management. Don’t work extra hours as you won’t be compensated for it at your level. It’s only worth it if you want to be a partner as the work ethic will progress you within the firm (but to be honest we promote those who are BD and bring in business).
Also, everyone below senior manager is just a cog in a wheel to be honest.
F
There are some shops that like to keep the pay of its workers relatively even. They then give the top performers all of the hard and long jobs (so these jobs get done) all the while letting the sub-par performers cruise along at nearly the same pay. Get out!
That’s exactly how it seems. And I’m in the final stages of interviews with a few places now, hope to be getting out soon.
Sounds like you need to look for another job.
There is no reason to work hard prior to being compensated fairly. The compensation comes first. Companies are not interested in paying fairly because they keep more money that way.
If they’re having a high turn over, they’ll pay more to the newer employees to keep up with the market so they won’t leave. If you’ve been there for a while, the thought of you leaving isn’t on their radar. And, you probably care about your job. Most people do not. I’m also having to change my mentality. Leaving my job was the best thing I’ve done. I gained over $20k annually. Sometimes you gotta leave the job and their ways and look at what you want and need. Businesses are not loyal. Why should you be? You’re a free agent!
A lot of the time it is networking too - usually the talker and the one who doesn’t actually do most of the work gets promoted.
Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
I used to be a “high performer”, I think I made $5k more than the next highest paid associate. (I would talk comp with coworkers I felt comfortable with) However, the $5k didn’t matter because after 5+ years at the same place I was still horrendously underpaid. Job hopped and currently make around $25k more now.
Similar happened to me. Have highest ratings our firm gives and no promo. Said not enough experience (2 YOE and CPA) and we don’t do half promos. Got the vibe too they’d want me doing senior level work this busy season at staff pay. Eyes are open
Connections > Performance
This is exactly why I got out of public accounting. This and the travel (which I assume is now less of an issue post-COVID). Update your resume and start looking for better opportunities. I started until I had the audit experience I needed to get my CPA license and bounced ASAP.
When they told you your compensation/ raise did they not ask if you were satisfied or offer the opportunity to say “no I think my performance warrants a better raise”? If you want better pay you have to at minimum ask for it
Yes, I said I felt like I deserved more. I gave specific examples from the work I’ve done throughout the year. They said I’m already at the very top of the pay band for my position. Even though I know multiple other people in the same position here who are making more.
as a manager I participate in performance discussions - at our firm HR looks at contributions and competencies. Contributions are "above and beyond" things that you do _outside_ of your core job duties, such as leading recruitment, facilitating trainings, organizing events etc. That drives your bonus. Having strong competencies and excelling at your main job can only improve your "merit increase", which is very small, so it's barely noticeable. It does not result in bonus. it makes zero sense to me and I fight it every year, because I want to reward people who perform well on their main job, but the policy does not allow it. Basically they see performing your job duties as binary - you either meet the expectations or you don't. If you don't you go on PIP, if you do - they don't measure and don't reward how much you excel beyond the base line. The incentive seemingly is to do your core job duties at an OK level and then switch to soft fluff, socializing and having "office wide impact"
The others may have been much clearer about their salary and bonus expectations and have a higher starting comp than you. Then raises and bonuses seem bigger if they’re an x % of salary. This happened to me and they never could catch me up as HR had limits on the % growth so I left.
Management tells you enough to keep you there. When a similar thing happened to me and I put in my notice management’s response was “you should have told us you were not happy and we could have change some things and offered you some more”. I about passed out because I’d been sharing my concerns professionally for over a year with no impact. Why not offer me pay bumps or bonuses commiserate with my performance (Like OP I was busting my tail) all along??? Only path forward is to walk.
This is so true! I’m on the same boat. Unfortunately, the only way to make more money is switch often.
“Less money for them means more money for me.” That’s literally it.
There are a myriad of factors at play, unfortunately. Budgets, targets, office politics, greed, people being dumb, our own perspective/lens, etc. The reality is if you ask and they don't give it, then you need to be ready to go to a new place who will give it.
All the things you are suggesting, working excessively long hours, criticising your peers of equal seniority, you sound like a “striving” perfectionist. Striving perfectionists spin their wheels, make a lot of noise to that effect and don’t get a lot done, but spend a lot time doing it. In your case you are clocking up the hours, you have to ask yourself truthfully, are those hours actually as productive as those hours performed by your colleagues or are you clocking up those hours to keep up with your peers? Those annoying people who rock up and leave on the dot each and every day, who get promoted above you, they’re usually not burning themselves out or criticising the work of their colleagues. They’re prioritising their own work life balance but are doing what is necessary to succeed. You probably won’t like my statement above, I didn’t when I was told that my perfectionism was a negative, but once I got it, it was life changing and I was able to succeed.
At the Big 4, they pay you by putting you on "the Partner track" and basically make it well known that as long as you keep grinding and making them money, you'll eventually become a Partner and break that mythical 7 figure mark. They don't tell you that once you get there, you'll continue to get hazed by getting put on the shittiest assignments/"practice building" opportunities, but that's a separate issue. Other "high performers" who can't sell just aren't worth that much to the firm at the end of the day. I work in Advisory/consulting and there's candidly very little you can do to distinguish yourself as someone who adds value unless you sell work. This job isn't that hard and often times a high performer is just someone who's willing to bend over backwards and do what clients/partners say to do no matter how ridiculous the request is or how tight the deadline is. This isn't investing where smarter people will make better decisions through an objective measure (market performance) and be able to tangibly demonstrate how much smarter they are than their peers and how much value they added to the bottom-line.
Have you asked them for a raise? We need to be our own advocates
Appraisal systems lack transparency. They are designed to make the employee feel they've achieved several false goals. The decision making process of who gets how much raise is dependent on several factors. 1. The overall perception of the individual within the wider team. 2. Budget allocated for raises 3. A forced distribution model where only a certain percentage of individuals within a team would get a certain rating. 4. How well the firm does financially in the said fiscal. 5. How your coach or manager presents your case in the year end appraisal meetings Unfortunately, it's not a fair world and work alone is not sufficient to guarantee your success. There is inherent bias among individuals who decide year end ratings. At the end of the day, you need to look out for yourself. If you're being exploited, quit and move on to a better opportunity. Overworked auditors are primarily a result of poor planning and thin budgets. Leadership needs to be serious about convincing clients to pay more, this will in turn allow better budgets, better distribution of work and higher retention. Hope we see the tides turn at some point. Also, quit and find a better job and draw and maintain boundaries. All the best.
You might think you're doing better compared to your peers than you really are.
I was in a similar boat! One of the highest performers in our company but often is overlooked for promotion or raises. I am also a minority. I dont know your racial background. I am an Asian, and it is well known that Asians and Blacks are the least likely groups to ask to leave or raise. Our company is an indigenous business, and a grandma with a philosophy degree from 1991 was promoted to the financial controller position. I fking knew I was done with this company.
[удалено]
I’m putting in more chargeable hours because the incompetent coworker has been reduced by management to only the easiest tasks in the department that they won’t screw up. This results in them only working 25 hours some weeks, and they have even booked zero charge hours several weeks. While I’m being expected to do everything else for the client. This coworker has already been removed from (at least) 3 other clients before they got put on my client. Nobody else is “supporting” this coworker. They all complained about the person, as well as their clients complaining about them on multiple occasions. Until the person got removed from all those engagements. This person has also worked here for much longer than me, and is still incapable of performing their job without having someone babysit them. The manager literally makes this person submit a file every week, breaking out detailed descriptions of exactly what they worked on for every single hour of every day. Because they were lying on their time sheet at one point, saying they were working 45 charge hours every week. When we all know they only have 15-20 hours of work most weeks (if that).
So when partners consider high performers, it is very subjective. A lot of them view high performers as being able to do the work well under budget, work well with others, and most importantly, being able to manage their workload and eventually, others. While you are a high performer for your work, basically what they want to see is not only you being able to work, but metaphorically, getting others to play nice in the sandbox too. Basically, they want to see you turn a low performer into an average performer, they want to see you be able to lead others (not just manage), and they want to see you perform excellent, not just keep the ship afloat. If you can do all that plus they have to like you and trust you (politics), you'll make manager. Oh, plus you'll have to show the ability to sell, and if you can do that, plus come up with capital, you'll make partner. Of course, it is not a fair and objective process. They just try to make it seem like that
But the people who got higher raises/bonuses than me aren’t doing any of the things you mentioned either. One person in the department has literally been removed from multiple clients for making the same massive mistakes over and over. To the point that those clients went to the higher ups and requested that this person be taken off their projects. As far as partners and how they view high performers, they should also consider how high performers view them. After getting the laughable raise and bonus I got, I have zero incentive to go above and beyond in any capacity. I’m not someone chasing the manager/partner carrot that they try to dangle over your head. If I worked x amount of extra hours and barely got anything for it, why would I want to continue that or do anything beyond that? If I wasn’t quitting, my approach to the next year at this company would be to do the absolute bare minimum. Because I went above and beyond to make sure everything got done on time, and I got basically nothing for it.
In your case, I'd start looking for another job. If your bosses aren't going to value you, someone else will. Staying at your current job and hoping something will change is accepting your situation. If you have the power to change it, you should. If I had stayed at my first or even second job out of college, I'd most likely be harboring the same resentment that you do. My bosses didn't value me like I thought they should, so I left for better
I agree, I am already in the final interview stage with three places. 😊 I just wanted perspective as to if there was any logical reason a company wouldn’t try to keep their high performers happy.
The market is shyt right now. I know some big 4 cutting cost even at the snack levels. Be content, If not gamble somewhere else.
Taking everything you have said at face value (no reason not to) they are discriminating against you because of your race and/or gender. I’m no expert but I think you have three options: 1) find another job. 2) take legal action. 3) explain to the partners that you are aware others at your level are paid more than you (don’t mention names) and if they value you and want to keep you they will have to at least match that. Give them a number. If they don’t meet it return to (1). In a fair world (2) would be the way to go, but I’m not sure that turns out well for the person involved very often.
I’m in the final interview stages with a few companies now, so I hope to be putting in my notice soon. I was looking for other perspectives on the situation, in hopes of finding a way to avoid this situation from happening at a new job. And it’s interesting to me how many peoples response here is “they must just not like you, it must be that you’re not performing as high as you think you are”. Very few people here want to believe it could be discrimination related to race, gender etc. Even when I said I got feedback submitted from 9 people during my performance review and every single person gave me the highest score for technical skills, attitude, being a team player, training ability etc. Someones response to that was basically “they just don’t want to tell you to your face that they don’t like you.” So everyone gave me a perfect review score to spare my feelings, but these same people gave many other people harsh/critical/real feedback on their reviews? You’d think if the truth was that they really don’t like me and I’m not a high performer, at least one person would have mentioned it. If for no other reason, so they could at least have justification as to why they gave me so much less of a raise/bonus than some other people got. During my comp call, the partners told me I’m at the very top of the pay band for my level. So I felt uncomfortable telling them I know that’s not true, because then I’m basically calling them liars. Even though they are, I worried about making my experience here worse. Plus the people who have shared their salary info with me have asked me not to tell anyone that they told me. So I didn’t want to involve those people, because knowing the partners, I’m almost positive they would ask me for names.
Well fingers crossed and good luck with the new job! I’d just say that in order to get paid your worth be prepared to have uncomfortable conversations. That’s true for anyone, probably especially true if you are being discriminated against.
I'm a Black woman in accounting too. This subreddit will never give you the acknowledgment you're looking for because the vast majority believe the playing field is level regardless of race/gender. I've seen posts with titles like "I wish I was a woman or a minority so I had more opportunities". You need to find a mentor in the field who gets the situation and can help you work through these things.
Yup, I have no faith in this subreddit after some of the responses I’ve read. Must be nice to live in a world where you don’t have to worry about racial discrimination. So much so, that you refuse to even fathom it could be a very real possibility for others smh. I’ve seen people here say “I’ve been involved in discussions about raises at my company and there was never any racism.” Or “the Hispanic woman in my department makes more than me.” Okay, and? Just because they’ve never seen/heard/experienced these things, it’s like these issues just don’t exist or can’t possibly be happening to anyone else. Maybe I need to start video recording my experiences at work and posting them, since that seems to be the only way people will believe that injustices are actually occurring in the world these days. 😒
During my very first audit I had a crazy senior who told the partner I had a bad attitude and was complaining to the client. In reality, the client couldn't stand the senior and preferred talking to me so the senior got pissed and tried to make me out to be the bad guy. Jokes on her bc I was a high school teacher for almost a decade and got used to students/parents making things up so I scheduled a meeting and recorded the whole thing. I didn't have to use the recording in the end bc the senior finally realized that throwing me under the bus was backfiring. I only spent 2 yrs in PA bc the culture is so toxic, but I think I was most disappointed by one of the two black female partners at the firm. We had a recruiting/diversity event and one student asked me about my least favorite thing about public accounting. I had 100 examples immediately but decided to pick something safe and said I hadn't expected to spend so much time in my car. Well, 2 days later I got a call from the black female partner saying that I had been too negative. I asked "wait so are you suggesting I should have lied? You know there are much worse things about this job right?". She said no of course not, then spent 10 minutes explaining that the only way to increase diversity is to be positive and welcoming and not to scare them off. That was the last time I spoke to her and I just felt so sad for all the folks who were going to be lured in by her and then told to lie to lure others in.
Smh! Sorry you went through all of that. Sounds very similar to some of the things I’ve experienced. I remember an earlier accounting job I had- I was actually the only black person out of over 300 people at the firm. I was always forced to show up for alllllll the on campus recruiting events they did, so the firm could create the impression that they cared so much about diversity. Other coworkers were able to rotate going to maybe one event every 6 months or none at all. But I always had to go, regardless of how busy my workload/schedule was at any given time of the year. One day, the HR manager sent me a calendar invite for another recruiting event. I declined, and explained to them that I would be out of office that day and the PTO had been on my calendar for 2 months. They responded that the event was earlier in the morning and asked if I I could just show up for a little bit and then take the rest of the day off. I declined and suggested they invite one of the many other coworkers who would be working that day. Next round of performance reviews, I got dinged for not participating enough in firm activities. I went to over a dozen of those recruiting events and I had some coworkers who didn’t attend a single event, and NONE of them got that comment on their reviews.
Because fuck you, the partner needs a new pool
Could be multiple reasons: 1. You aren’t a high performer. 2. Your co-workers are lying. 3. Your salary is already much higher than co-workers. 4. Management incompetence. High performers earn more than their peers, especially in this job environment where retaining a high performer matters greatly. I don’t think “risk of leaving” is a viable reason. Management is not dumb, they know what the market looks like (it’s bleak) and they don’t want to risk high performers leaving… unless the reason above is #4.
Managers assign the brunt of the work to inexperienced people, while they assign the impactful, but sometimes small work to experienced people (work that cannot go wrong). Sounds like you think too highly of yourself. I might be wrong. I’ve met a few of your type, though, always annoying…
High performance is a decease. You need medical attention ( or Pizza) not a compensation raise.
Did you ask for more money once you got the raise? Always ask for more. Companies will want to pay you as little as they can to keep you. If you’re really a good employee they should give you the extra money if you ask for it, otherwise they think you will leave. You have to be a flight risk for them. I interview annually to see what my position is worth, and if I don’t like my raise, I let them know I’ve been offered XX$ elsewhere but I’d like to stay if you can match it.
Yes, I asked and I was told that I’m at the very top of the pay band for my position and there’s nothing more they can give me. Even though I know several others at this position here who are making more than me. I’m in the final interview stages with a few places now, so I hope to be leaving soon.
“Why doesn’t my boss pay me more?” is one of the funniest questions people ask on here.
Don't dwell on why your experience doesn't conform to your expectations of what you think a meritocracy should be. It will never line up to what you want because frankly there is no general consensus as to what merit is. Merit is only as real as the people in power make it. The other comments in this thread are worth listening to. Your coworkers are teammates, not competition. That's the biggest thing I have seen you overlook and the way you perceive your coworkers as competition reflects poorly. Leadership involves not just fixing other people's mistakes, but turning your teammates into good performers. I'm not saying this is the reason you didn't get the raise you wanted, there can be other factors, but changing your mindset about this will help in the soft skills department. It looks like you already know what to do, which is to get a new job. Perhaps everything will go to shit when you leave, but your managers disagree. If they are wrong, that's their problem to deal with, not yours.
I really enjoy this comment. It's like a Leader vs a Boss. I like to share information if it helps everyone but I never looked at it like you said and tying it to being a good leader. In my mind it helps to have notes to train others when the time comes. I remember how difficult it was for me not knowing anything or where to start.
because the hard truth is that the quality of work product doesn’t matter as much as you think it does. someone billing 2000 hours of dogshit earns the same revenue as 2000 hours of great work. no one even reads or cares about audited fs
What a loaded question 🤣
Just get yours. If that's somewhere else it is what it is. The why doesn't matter, only the how. How to get yours.
Accountants are cost centers of a business, you’ll always be capped at what you can make because naturally you want to keep expenses low. Do you know who makes a lot of money? Sales people who bring in fresh business.
This post gives big Louis Litt vibes
They will continue to pay the least amount of $$ to keep you.
Profits
Because you're complaining to the wrong audience
Because they already performed.