By Hollie Broekman
•
August 25, 2021
Let me start this post by saying that I spend a lot of my time on LinkedIn. I post on LinkedIn, I search for candidates on LinkedIn and I network with hiring managers looking for Project Services resources on LinkedIn. That being said, I recently posted the following status on this platform, which received over 80,000 views and a lot more comments than I am used to receiving on my posts: "I recently read on LinkedIn that a candidate thought it was 'the norm' to apply for, interview for and receive an offer from a company, in order to get a counter offer (read: pay rise) from their current employer. This is absolutely not the norm and is not acceptable/professional behavior. Has anyone else ever come across this?" A lot of the comments seemed to be in support of the premise that this sort of behavior is 'not on,' and that if you want a pay rise and you deserve a pay rise, you should go and ask for one, and not waste everyone's time by getting an offer somewhere else in order to bring about this conversation. A common thread in the dissenting camp, was that employees are being paid less than market rate, and are being driven to these sorts of tactics in order to be paid what they are worth. Working in recruiting, I have a deeper insight into what candidates in Melbourne are being paid than the average person, and I can safely say that some companies do pay their employees less than market rate. There are a number of reasons for this, which I have broken down as follows. Because they can. A number of sexy organisations, especially in the digital platform space or in the tier one financial services space, don't need to pay overs to get the best talent, because high caliber candidates will want to work there for reasons that are not strictly financial. An example of this could be a candidate who wants the best digital and Agile project exposure, or to get one of the 'big names' on their CV. That being said, many of these organisations will pay market rate or over anyway, which will solidify their place in the market moving forward, and ensure their employees stay with them long term. Start-ups. In the early stages of the start-up life cycle, every penny is important and accordingly, some start ups will not be able to pay market price for the resources that they need. Not for profits. NFP's often offer non-financial benefits in the form of work-life balance, the opportunity for a candidate to 'give back' to a cause they believe in, and there are also attractive salary packaging options at NFP's. "Penny Pinchers". These are the organisations that are able to pay market rate, but choose not to for various reasons, which include not caring if their resources are the best in the market, not caring if their employees are well paid/happy in their roles, not doing enough research into where market rate currently sits, placing more value on their bottom line than the welfare and happiness of their employees and retaining their talent. Out of these categories, the 4th is the sort of organisation that many of the commentators on my status are referring to, and which might be driving the sort of behavior discussed. Organisations need to have a realistic view of whether they can offer candidates non-financial value (in the form of career opportunities, work-life balance or interesting project exposure etc), if they are not prepared to meet the market in terms of compensation, and they want to retain their talent long term. If you are looking for advice around market rate salaries and daily rate's for your employees, please don't hesitate to contact me for a confidential discussion. Hollie Broekman