I often wrestle with my feelings of expectations as it relates to the work environment. Questions I often ask myself include: as a Supervisor--- Am I being realistic?.... Am I pushing too hard?....Am I doing what the company is paying me to do?.... Do I provide the tools necessary for people to do their job and then get out of the way?....Am I being fair?....and another common question I ask: Does the staff I current supervise make efforts to improve themselves....
I'd like to focus on the last question..... Certainly when staff members are hired, they are typically hired for an existing skill set. A sum of money and benefits (value) are assigned to that person and expectations to perform is expected. What's interesting to me is that over the course of time, "most" employees expect salary adjustments to the positive side with at least an annual occurrence. Why?...I would ask. Are you doing more work? Have you acquired new skill sets that add value to the employer? What is the reason you "deserve" more money?
Seems to me if the salary agreement was made based upon the perceived value you could provide at that time with your existing skill set...then salary shouldn't change...unless you change too! So, looking at it from that perspective, one could argue that unless you are doing more work, providing more value in some way, etc....then your salary should NOT change. You aren't worth anymore ....right?
Often my experience has been that the expectation from some employees is that at minimum....an annual raise in pay is expected/demanded. Is that fair to the Employer? I'd challenge that it is not....I would offer that it is an inherent responsibility of each and every employee to take it upon themselves to grow each and every year.... The old adage of "if you keep on doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting," sure seems to apply in this case. No new skills or responsibilities...then no new money. ....Seems pretty simple to me.
So, I'd challenge each of us to make the effort to improve ourselves day in and day out....that is where the value to Conservation really lies. If we all remain with the same skill set as the day we were hired....then Conservation is in real trouble. Make the time to invest in yourself...find ways to improve your knowledge and your skill set....GROW. That's my expectation...the effort is yours to make....not the Agency's to force. Take responsibility for your future....today.
TAFN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm going to have to thoroughly disagree with you on this point. I understand and respect where you are coming from, but you can't possibly believe this to be a realistic expectation. Here is my reasoning:
The Department of Conservation gets a lion's share of its funding via the one-eighth of one-percent sales tax, followed by permit sales, government matching funds, grants, etc., etc., etc. Currently, sales taxes are measured as a percentage of goods that are sold. Therefore, adding inflation into the mix, the department should be gaining more monetary funding as the cost of goods increases. Of course, the cost of doing business is also increasing and we all refer to this as "cost of living" increases that generally rise annually.
So I believe it to be perfectly reasonable to expect compensation to be adjusted annually that reflects the cost of living increase seen in any given year. I would expect that to be the case. Now...this might only be a 1% increase in pay annually. It could be 1% one year and 3% the following - again depending on inflation. But I don't think it unreasonable for an employer to offset these costs. It's more expensive for me to drive to work this year than the past five years so my cost of providing service to my employer has risen and salary should be adjusted.
With ALL of that said, the problem we have is that demotions, promotions, and uncapped salary increases based on performance aren't part of our equations either.
Currently at the department, if I have an absolutely stellar performance year creating new work flow and efficiency, engaging new opportunities independent of supervision, and providing vision, training and guidance to employees involved with my job, I can't see a 20% increase over my existing pay, even if that is what my performance deserved. HR actually won't allow that to happen even if I move two levels beyond my existing classification....regardless of whether this new position would dramatically increase responsibility and demands on my time. Our employer really should consider individual accomplishment, achievements and productivity when determining annual increases, and to my knowledge, that currently is not the case.
I do agree with you that we should all strive to perform to the best of our ability and we should be rewarded, or penalized, appropriately. This just isn't the case under our current system.
I truly appreciate your comments!
I think your observations are completely valid....but they are based entirely upon an EXISTING way of doing business (or mentality). "Realistic" in many cases is based upon your perceptions, experiences, etc....just because you expect it...doesn't make it real, for me. IMHO
Have you considered the perpective of, "If this were my business and it was my money..." ? Personally, being a business owner for over 12 years...it's a different perspective...or at least it was/has been for me. When every penny you "give away", impacts your bottom line, it has a tendancy to help guide future decisions. I still believe if you're not providing more value than you did last year at this point in time...I don't owe you any more money....
I don't control the economy. My job isn't to provide welfare to make up for ineffective planning on an individuals part. You/we/I all have access to similar information about rising costs, future preditions, etc. This "company" has to absorb all the costs that you or I do for gasoline, food, whatever....who is giving more money to them? Is there a pile of money somewhere that is passed out to businesses to cover those issues...so that they can give everyone more money each year?
Why are economic fluctuations an Employer's responsibility to cover for you?
Now I will say that if you are doing your job and in some way the work that you do help the Agency bring in more dollars...then yes, you have made improvements that are valuable and as such you would be entitled to a raise...be it COLA or planned...but the point there is if the company isn't taking in any new revenue...why should they pay more out in personal services?
I agree, we have some work to do.
Thanks again for your point of view...it is appreciated.
You raise a strong point in that the business/organization/agency/whatever shouldn't automatically have to foot the bill - their costs are rising just as mine are as an individual.
At the same time, if I'm not producing at an appropriate level, why would you keep me on staff at all? As an employee, there is a relationship that I have with my employer that should never be one-sided for either party. In my eyes, the organization is not some benevolent entity that I'm blessed to have a job with. They hired me because they saw skill that provided reasonable potential that I could impact their presence.
If I perform my job, going above and beyond basic expectations, the organization is rewarded with even more efficiency, productivity, increased internal morale, increased external awareness, etc. The organization is certainly getting their money's worth in my humble opinion...to the point that it's possible I would merit an increase. The issues I have are when the organization reaps benefits from my forward thinking yet doesn't express a willingness to change their culture or behaviors to modernize salary, promotion, reclassification, etc.
I expect any business that I work for to possess an inclination towards the pursuit of process modernization. Just a big-word way of saying they should stay current and strive for top effectiveness and efficiency. I have yet to see that in-play while working for a government agency. I do believe that there are individuals within the organization that are willing to take those extra steps and branch out into new ways of business, but as a whole, the culture tends to be entirely too trepidatious when approaching change. I think this gets to your point about the agency's "EXISTING way of doing business (or mentality)."
I believe that these types of changes could merit annual increases, given that operational workflow should theoretically be more profitable and overall worker productivity should increase as well. But I will concede that no increase should be automatically assumed. That would be a flawed expectation.
You're also right that "we have some work to do," as an employee and employer alike. It's still an exiting time to be a part of this organization...I do believe that great potential exists. What will be the biggest challenge, and most exhilarating experience, is whether we can realize that potential. ;)
Amen! Thanks for your insights and opinion.
I do not doubt it.
Post a Comment