would be pretty straight up in using it to ask for at least the high end

8-10K raises aren't even noticeable after taxes in the upper brackets

I would tread very carefully here. Even though your company has not had any layoffs, doesn't mean they won't soon. The hiring freeze part is the most telling. Typically that means something is about to happen.

Sounds like you can make more money with less responsibility with the posted job - apply for that.

Tells me that you don't understand how/why salary grades/ranges overlap (by design).

You were likely well underpaid at some point - thus some of the speed/size of your increases, but not alarming to me as an HR professional that you may still be in an overlap state with the range/band below you.

It happens - keep performing and the issue will work itself out in the long run.

It's perfectly normal, and that band accommodates people who have been stuck n that job grade for years. They might still get merit but won't get promoted.

I wouldn't raise any flags here and keep doing what you're doing.

Ezra Brooks said:

---

Tells me that you don't understand how/why salary grades/ranges overlap (by design).

You were likely well underpaid at some point - thus some of the speed/size of your increases, but not alarming to me as an HR professional that you may still be in an overlap state with the range/band below you.

It happens - keep performing and the issue will work itself out in the long run.

---

This was my thought. The ranges in these pay bands are meant to be large and have some overlap. They will likely be shooting for somewhere around the median of the grade they are hiring into.

You should be able to find out what the range for your own grade is by asking. Figure out where you are in your range and make a plan around that and your current performance. If you are below the median and are performing well, then I think you have a good case for a decent raise. If you are closer to the high end of your range then you should start conversations about your next step, with the expectations of a higher grade in mind and how you are already fulfilling them.

I would really try to avoid making your case for a raise based on what someone else is making or some perceived inequity. In just about all cases it will not be received well.

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

coastalAg said:

---

Ezra Brooks said:

---

Tells me that you don't understand how/why salary grades/ranges overlap (by design).

You were likely well underpaid at some point - thus some of the speed/size of your increases, but not alarming to me as an HR professional that you may still be in an overlap state with the range/band below you.

It happens - keep performing and the issue will work itself out in the long run.

---

This was my thought. The ranges in these pay bands are meant to be large and have some overlap. They will likely be shooting for somewhere around the median of the grade they are hiring into.

You should be able to find out what the range for your own grade is by asking. Figure out where you are in your range and make a plan around that and your current performance. If you are below the median and are performing well, then I think you have a good case for a decent raise. If you are closer to the high end of your range then you should start conversations about your next step, with the expectations of a higher grade in mind and how you are already fulfilling them.

I would really try to avoid making your case for a raise based on what someone else is making or some perceived inequity. In just about all cases it will not be received well.

---

Thanks all for the objective tips here. This is all helpful.

On this, what I'm having a hard time being comfortable with is the fact that I'm essentially at the median of what that range is for the role that's a level under me. That doesn't sound right when I've been in the position a level above for a year at this point.

What you're telling me is that's normal?

---

Don't measure your pay against what is really just a theoretical number or even what a peer makes. It will only make you miserable and lead you to some illogical places and make bad decisions.

It's all about your market value. Do you think you can go out on the open market and get a $30k pay bump easily or even have evidence of that? Then you should discuss it.

I'm just suggesting that there's likely a whole lot of information that you haven't shared (and likely don't know) about the situation.

There are MANY factors that come into play around where you are situated in the pay range, and how that relates to others.

If I were you, I'd focus on the fact that the company values you - or else they wouldn't have promoted you ahead of schedule, and focus on your relationship with your boss/other mgmt and continue to provide high value to them. Understand that how others are paid is fairly specific to them

You're really going to freak out when you get promoted to a supervisory position and find out that half your team makes more than you.

"doing the work of 2+ people". welcome to corporate america.

this would seem to imply it was not, in fact, the required work of two people

/ducks

txaggieacct85 said:

---

I assume this is a hypothetical or someone you know.

If the person likes the job and likes the people he works with and the company has growth potential then just work and let the chips fall where they may.

The company should do the right thing and if not, look around.

---

What's the right thing?

Pretty sure the company has shown they value this person in the fact they've received promotions and a 40% pay bump over 3 years, that's not insignificant or normal.

Now, if they're still below what they could earn on the open market that's one thing.

But if they're just crying because some overly broad, to the point of almost being useless, pay band for an internal job posting shows someone may make more than them, then it'd come off pretty negatively to me if I'm the employer...

Also, do not forget that companies have started using extremely wide bands with massive deviation because of the burgeoning trend of making salaries more transparent.

Not saying that is happening here but it could be further making that number meaningless and not putting too much stock in it.

You should be able to confirm if this has happened at your company.

Something I learned on this board:

Comparison is the thief of joy.

Salary bands are massive with massive overlap. That means nothing; they are intended to leave maximum flexibility for different geographies, different years of experience, etc to do that role. What means everything is if you are progressing, which it sounds like that is going very well. If there is another role/logical progression in your career that you desire, by all means discuss it and anchor the conversation on that. But don't bring this band on the other role up, it's basically meaningless

Ask for the pay band data on your role and then ask questions accordingly.

I don't agree with the Hr guy telling you it will work out in the long run. It won't. Your company will always pay new hires more than existing hires.

I work for Fortune 100 as well, and what we do use is the concept of "predictive pay". It's a calculation based on role, level, years of experience, recent years of performance eval ratings, geographic location, as well as a market input to get to a $ of what we should expect them to be making. Then we measure where an employee's salary stands vs that "predictive pay", and if needed, we will occasionally give people an equity bump. But yeah, the bands are mostly junk because again, at a large company, they are there to provide a semblance of structure but it's too wide to be meaningful

Unfortunately, the bands are what people see (and oftentimes make bad assumptions from) while the predictive pay is not shared. That said, we are good at requiring multiple career development conversations per year and moving people along, so things do actually work out for performers

Fisherman02 said:

---

Sounds like you've been underpaid from the get go and your management has been trying to fix that because you're worth keeping around and they can't backfill.

That being said, if it was an in role promotion with a huge bump, they really went to bat for you, most likely with approvals outside of HR (higher in your management chain).

Salary ranges have a lot of factors, one of them being location, if you're in Texas you're in a mid-tier cost region.

Be conscious your management has a pool of money each cycle, and it sounds like you've gotten a disproportionate share the last three years. If you came to me asking for more again, we'd have a discussion about finding you another promotion outside your current role, it's a pattern I'm not going to be able to keep up within your current position. I most likely have other people I need to take care of since a good portion of my budget has gone to you the last three.

All that being said, once your low in the salary band for your role it's tough to get ahead.

---

It's a real shame that people need to change companies instead of being valued by their current employer.

Fortune 100 Story for you ags - I once inherited a team where the prior leadership got their jollies from paying people the minimum amount that they could. Literally 95% of the team was hovering around the job grade minimum, some above some below.

HR passed a policy that everyone had to be paid at least the minimum. I was absolutely trapped in merit cycles and had to give everyone 3% or whatever just to keep the collective at the ever raising minimum for their job band. I kept banging the pot that we were going to lose people if we couldn't differentiate performance.

Then the top performers started quitting over comp, leaving for 50% raises. We lost a few key people at the wrong time and then HR finally decides to do something. So I tell them a few people we need to give raises to immediately - but we can't do that because they need to do a market compensation study first and that's going to take a few months.

More people leave. I get aggressive with hiring and decide everyone we give an offer to needs to at least be halfway between minimum and midpoint with midpoint preferred. The current employees find out (of course), and I deal with moral issues for a few months, then lo and behold the comp study completes and we end up giving a 10% average increase to the entire workforce.

Then in true corporate fashion, this becomes my fault, which I won't accept. I have to corner the CFO in the parking garage to give him a blow by blow of how we got there. He gets mad when he learns the truth, we have a big showdown with HR where he yells at them, and then in true corporate fashion we agree to have a follow on meeting, which never happens. The end.

Moral of the story, assume you are being effed at all times in Fortune 500.

$30,000 Millionaire said:

---

Fortune 100 Story for you ags - I once inherited a team where the prior leadership got their jollies from paying people the minimum amount that they could. Literally 95% of the team was hovering around the job grade minimum, some above some below.

HR passed a policy that everyone had to be paid at least the minimum. I was absolutely trapped in merit cycles and had to give everyone 3% or whatever just to keep the collective at the ever raising minimum for their job band. I kept banging the pot that we were going to lose people if we couldn't differentiate performance.

Then the top performers started quitting over comp, leaving for 50% raises. We lost a few key people at the wrong time and then HR finally decides to do something. So I tell them a few people we need to give raises to immediately - but we can't do that because they need to do a market compensation study first and that's going to take a few months.

More people leave. I get aggressive with hiring and decide everyone we give an offer to needs to at least be halfway between minimum and midpoint with midpoint preferred. The current employees find out (of course), and I deal with moral issues for a few months, then lo and behold the comp study completes and we end up giving a 10% average increase to the entire workforce.

Then in true corporate fashion, this becomes my fault, which I won't accept. I have to corner the CFO in the parking garage to give him a blow by blow of how we got there. He gets mad when he learns the truth, we have a big showdown with HR where he yells at them, and then in true corporate fashion we agree to have a follow on meeting, which never happens. The end.

Moral of the story, assume you are being effed at all times in Fortune 500.

---

former sr hr leader at fortune 100 and in my experience this is way more common than the OP's 40% increase in 3 years.

there are some folks that are well taken care of, but many many business leaders (and even some hr leaders) dream of meeting the cfo in a parking garage to deliver this message directly.

..and even more follow-on-meeting commitments that never happen.

Companies never pay employees what they are worth, they pay what employees are willing to work for. If you have other options that's how you leverage them into paying you more at your current spot, but always be prepared to take those other options before letting your employer know you are aware of them.

The trade off for a team, job, or location you like in most cases is taking a bit less than you could get elsewhere to stay there. Some get lucky and maximize their paycheck while having the best spot they could get, but not many I'd guess.

At most large organizations it's hard to make the big jumps in salary without changing teams frequently, and looking to take on more responsibility. That's anecdotal based on my experience but also what I know from how HR policies on pay work at large corporations.

$30,000 Millionaire said:

---

Fortune 100 Story for you ags - I once inherited a team where the prior leadership got their jollies from paying people the minimum amount that they could. Literally 95% of the team was hovering around the job grade minimum, some above some below.

HR passed a policy that everyone had to be paid at least the minimum. I was absolutely trapped in merit cycles and had to give everyone 3% or whatever just to keep the collective at the ever raising minimum for their job band. I kept banging the pot that we were going to lose people if we couldn't differentiate performance.

Then the top performers started quitting over comp, leaving for 50% raises. We lost a few key people at the wrong time and then HR finally decides to do something. So I tell them a few people we need to give raises to immediately - but we can't do that because they need to do a market compensation study first and that's going to take a few months.

More people leave. I get aggressive with hiring and decide everyone we give an offer to needs to at least be halfway between minimum and midpoint with midpoint preferred. The current employees find out (of course), and I deal with moral issues for a few months, then lo and behold the comp study completes and we end up giving a 10% average increase to the entire workforce.

Then in true corporate fashion, this becomes my fault, which I won't accept. I have to corner the CFO in the parking garage to give him a blow by blow of how we got there. He gets mad when he learns the truth, we have a big showdown with HR where he yells at them, and then in true corporate fashion we agree to have a follow on meeting, which never happens. The end.

Moral of the story, assume you are being effed at all times in Fortune 500.

---

Was skimming a bit fast and thought the bolded part was going differently for a minute there...