Hiring staff on more money?

LegacyUser

Hi,

I work for a large company and like most companies we have a career structure that we all are placed in. The career structure has stood still for the last number of years but like most staff we have changed roles, taken on more responsibility etc with no reward.

The issue is the company is now hiring and I’m currently hiring people who will report to me but the annoying thing is they will be on more money than I. In some cases up to 20% more than my current salary.

I have raised this issue and am getting the usual crap of we are looking into it etc.. if you were in my shoes what would you do?

Thanks
Annoyedmansger

antix80

This has been going on forever.

Google it.

Best thing to do is get a new job offer then hand in your notice.

Your company can justify your payrise when you show you're willing to leave and you have a job offer that shows your market value.

Flinty997

The modern world doesn't not value length of service.

It's not about what you are worth, but what you can get. You only know what this is by moving. The company will only bother to work this out when they try to replace you. Which they don't do unless you leave.

Having a job offer and calling their bluff only works once and if they call your bluff you have to be prepared to move.

If you stay, paying you less relative to others while getting you to do more is a win win for the business and a win win for whomever you report to. No one going to want to change that if they don't have to.

So in summary this is wake up call for you.
That you have to go seize the day etc.

...or if you are content suck it up. Sometimes thats the right choice too.

OMM 0000

antix80 wrote: »

This has been going on forever.

Google it.

Best thing to do is get a new job offer then hand in your notice.

Your company can justify your payrise when you show you're willing to leave and you have a job offer that shows your market value.

Yeah, it sounds like this is your option.

Jim2007

Annoyedmanager wrote: »

Hi,

I work for a large company and like most companies we have a career structure that we all are placed in. The career structure has stood still for the last number of years but like most staff we have changed roles, taken on more responsibility etc with no reward.

The issue is the company is now hiring and I’m currently hiring people who will report to me but the annoying thing is they will be on more money than I. In some cases up to 20% more than my current salary.

I have raised this issue and am getting the usual crap of we are looking into it etc.. if you were in my shoes what would you do?

Thanks
Annoyedmansger

It is not that unusual to have to manage people that are more highly paid than you, especially if you are managing people with skills or experience that are in high demand. Management is not the only way to advance to higher salaries.

These days it's productivity and achievement not length of service that counts. So I suspect you'll need to be able to show a significant contribution beyond turning up and doing the usual or else that you will be difficult to replace in order to motivate them to do something about your salary.

Flinty997

Jim2007 wrote: »

....
These days it's productivity and achievement not length of service that counts. ...

Does everywhere actually measure productivity and achievement. I'm not sure that they do.

In my experience is more the perception than the reality thats important. Often its people standing on the shoulders of others.

Its up to people to do their own PR. If you don't self promote, no one else will.

Tazium

Can you apply for one of the roles where you'd get the higher salary?

spaceHopper

Book a meeting with you manager and ask them when will they have an answer. Then ask them if they were in your position what would they do - say nothing else and leave an uncomfortable silence let them make then next move. Or tell them that for the role you are doing x is an appropriate salary have something to back it up.

If you book the meeting for next Friday they have all week to come up with an answer so that they can't express surprise or oh you caught me off guard let me comeback to you.

If they don't budge, leave and not accept any counter offer from them.

dreamers75

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is not that unusual to have to manage people that are more highly paid than you, especially if you are managing people with skills or experience that are in high demand. Management is not the only way to advance to higher salaries.

I manage staff on close to double what I am on, I understand this as I am a manager and they are the product engineers.

They 100% should be on more than me.

If you in your case they are doing a job you graduated from then crack on with getting the payrise.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

These days it's productivity and achievement not length of service that counts. So I suspect you'll need to be able to show a significant contribution beyond turning up and doing the usual or else that you will be difficult to replace in order to motivate them to do something about your salary.

That's possible, but it's also true that companies will pay as little as they can get away with.

_Brian

Technically they aren’t doing anything wrong.
Yea some people are very out off by this but your own pay is your business and their pay is theirs.

If you can negotiate more pay then that’s great but it may not be possible and you may have to move on to get better pay elsewhere.

Strumms

Pay needs to be relative to responsibility.

If you are in a managerial role, the ultimate responsibility is on you to ensure everything is running as it should... you should get better pay as you have a higher degree of responsibility..

Odelay

Strumms wrote: »

Pay needs to be relative to responsibility.

If you are in a managerial role, the ultimate responsibility is on you to ensure everything is running as it should... you should get better pay as you have a higher degree of responsibility..

That doesn't always apply. What about a manager managing a football player, managing pilots, surgeons, major actors? Who gets paid more then? It also happens in industry as described above where managing skilled people. The manager doesn't have to have the skills, just be able to manage.

Strumms

Odelay wrote: »

That doesn't always apply. What about a manager managing a football player, managing pilots, surgeons, major actors? Who gets paid more then? It also happens in industry as described above where managing skilled people. The manager doesn't have to have the skills, just be able to manage.

Managing pilots ? It’s an industry I know well, System Chief pilot in a job I had was on about $230,000. Regional chief pilots $175,000..Line pilots significantly less all be it excellent money.

People managing surgeons ? Senior consultants, again, they are on hefty six figure salary’s.

Football players are independent contractors. All on negotiated contracts. No football player anywhere is an employee, 100% are contractors.

Actors don’t have managers to report to... they are not employees of anybody either, they are independent contractors..

It’s not about skills. Despite whatever you do, it’s about responsibility.

Lantus

Man who works for free, will always have work. Chinese proverb.

Muppet Man

Honestly I would struggle with this situation OP and I don't blame you for wanting to do change the situation. How much would it cost them to replace you in the current market? But to be honest if you can prove you are being underpaid for your role with x number of direct reports, I would be of the mindset to be moving on. Factor in benefits like pension, health and holidays as well to ensure you are comparing apples to apples.

On the other hand if you are Comfortable and otherwise enjoying the role then there is merit in applying 'value' to that. You could move to a new job in a new company with 25% increase and absolutely hate the job.

In all cases you need to take a selfish view of your own career

Good luck
Muppet man

ebayissues

OP isn't doing anything wrong.

Wage inflation is part the issue. In my previous company, my manager was at 65k with 6 years in the job. Within 2 yearsiout of college, I was on 50k. Fastfforward a couple of years later, a friend of mine with less experience joined the company and was on more money than me.

OP, start interviewing, get an offer of atleast 10k. Ask your company tommatch tthis .

Think about the pros aand cons of movingjjobs eespecially in this climate.

Pharmacy business manager would be on far less than the pharmacist in a community pharmacy.

LegacyUser

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the replies, just some context the field we are discussing is IT. I served my time as an engineer and worked my way up to management.

I don’t blame the new recruits as they are highly skilled and know their market worth hence the salaries. As some of you said the responsibility stops with me so I’m going to use this as leverage but backup plan started today getting my LinkedIn profile and CV up to date.

The market is good so I have selected a few roles to apply for. It will give me a good indiction of what’s out there and my worth.

Thanks
Annoyedmanager

dreamers75

Strumms wrote: »

It’s not about skills. Despite whatever you do, it’s about responsibility.

No its not, its about the product/service being provided and who its being provided by.

The manager of surgeons doesnt stand over a whoopsie, the surgeon does as it it is his skill set the manager just scheduled it, the manager doesnt stand over an electrical install killing someone the electrician does its his skillset. This is what they got peieces of paper for to stand over their work.

Gone far away from the OP but managers manage staff, staff generally provide the service and in some cases are on more money than the manager. That is perfectly fine.

Strumms

dreamers75 wrote: »

No its not, its about the product/service being provided and who its being provided by.

The manager of surgeons doesnt stand over a whoopsie, the surgeon does as it it is his skill set the manager just scheduled it, the manager doesnt stand over an electrical install killing someone the electrician does its his skillset. This is what they got peieces of paper for to stand over their work.

Gone far away from the OP but managers manage staff, staff generally provide the service and in some cases are on more money than the manager. That is perfectly fine.

Well, I was never in a job where the line employee got paid more then management.

The manager would definitely need to account for the error. Staff supervision and clinical governance are key elements of consultants jobs..any managers jobs...manage.

Any IT person I know reports to a manager.

dreamers75

Strumms wrote: »

Well, I was never in a job where the line employee got paid more then management.

The manager would definitely need to account for the error. Staff supervision and clinical governance are key elements of consultants jobs..any managers jobs.

Any IT person I know reports to a manager.

The fact you called them a "line" employee tells me a lot, for arguments sake an engineer who is one of 3* people in ireland qualified to install a certain security system (fcuk load of degrees) I tell him on Monday he is in X building installing said system. I should be paid more than him?

I cant install that and if it goes wrong, he will be back anytime 24/7 he works direct for the company hasnt gone consultant YET.

*maybe like 5 that are allowed by the manufacturer, possibly 6 not entirely sure tbh.

Apologies OP.

Strumms

dreamers75 wrote: »

The fact you called them a "line" employee tells me a lot, for arguments sake an engineer who is one of 3* people in ireland qualified to install a certain security system (fcuk load of degrees) I tell him on Monday he is in X building installing said system. I should be paid more than him?

I cant install that and if it goes wrong, he will be back anytime 24/7 he works direct for the company hasnt gone consultant YET.

*maybe like 5 that are allowed by the manufacturer, possibly 6 not entirely sure tbh.

Apologies OP.

A line employee is a reference to a non management employee so beyond that what it’s supposed to mean ? .

qwerty13

I wouldn’t have thought that this scenario was all that unusual - it depends on the specific skill set required, and whether it’s in short supply or not. Simple fact is that if the company needs x skill set, and it’s in short supply, then they probably need to bump up what they previously would have paid for the same skills in order to attract the skills that they need.

Of course this can be very disheartening, both for existing employees of the same x skill set, and for someone managing them. It’s down to employers not wanting to pay any more than they have to in salaries. I can’t imagine any employer would voluntarily bump up the salary of an existing employee with the same skill set, or the manager, simply because there’s an excess of demand versus supply.

It’s not a slight on you OP, it’s just capitalism / economics. There’s 3 ways of dealing with it:
1. If you otherwise like the company / your role / the flexibility of other benefits - suck it up, but get better at selling yourself internally, so that your employer is actively trying to ‘attract you to not leave’
2. If the disparity in salary is something that you just can’t live with, pursue this in the company to try to get a review. Be prepared for strong pushback though, and do your homework on what value you add, and market rates for your experience and how in demand your particular skills are. If your specific skills aren’t in relatively high demand, use your current employer to increase your skills - whether by getting them to pay for courses, or perhaps a sideways move that would increase your experience and marketability
3. Start looking elsewhere. Use this as a bargaining chip if you get a better offer - but you have to be prepared to actually make that move if your current employer won’t match an offer you get elsewhere. And IMO you only get to do this once. And beware in case that ‘caps’ you in terms of salary scale and bonuses

I know it’s annoying, but I’m not sure you have any specific grounds for complaint unless there’s a very regimented salary scale where you work.

Jim2007

Flinty997 wrote: »

Does everywhere actually measure productivity and achievement. I'm not sure that they do.

In my experience is more the perception than the reality thats important. Often its people standing on the shoulders of others.

Its up to people to do their own PR. If you don't self promote, no one else will.

The point is you need something beyond he is going to get more than me to have a basis for the increase.

Jim2007

Strumms wrote: »

Pay needs to be relative to responsibility.

If you are in a managerial role, the ultimate responsibility is on you to ensure everything is running as it should... you should get better pay as you have a higher degree of responsibility..

You are talking about a couple of exceptions rather than the norm. In many or probably most cases the product engineers, marketing specialists, salesmen, operations specialists are critical. Junior to middle management not so much, you can always cut them or switch to cheaper versions in an economic crisis. When they start taking the knife to the guys that design, build and sell, the writing is on the wall.

Jim2007

Strumms wrote: »

A line employee is a reference to a non management employee so beyond that what it’s supposed to mean ? .

That would seem to be your problem.... you failed to appreciate that many organizations have technical career paths and management career paths and technical paths are often paid more, particularly in science, technology and engineering.

Take for instance the database environment in a major bank, if that goes down it will be the techies that decide how to get it back, the manager role will be to communicate what the techies are doing and to act as a buffer so the techies can get on with it.

Mollydog123

I'm a manager albeit not in IT. I cant grasp how any manager could manage people without having a pretty good grasp of the roles of the people they manage, and the job they do. Therefore I'd expect the manager to be qualified in the same area. In my industry(Pharma) all engineering managers would be engineers, all quality managers would have quality degrees etc.

Wanderer78

antix80 wrote:

Best thing to do is get a new job offer then hand in your notice.

Yup, this is pretty much the only way to do it, it's important to always remember, you really are just a number, the share holders needs are all that matters, and you're just there to be used and abused, best of luck

Wanderer78

Mollydog123 wrote:

I'm a manager albeit not in IT. I cant grasp how any manager could manage people without having a pretty good grasp of the roles of the people they manage, and the job they do. Therefore I'd expect the manager to be qualified in the same area. In my industry(Pharma) all engineering managers would be engineers, all quality managers would have quality degrees etc.

Sometimes it can be very beneficial to have a good mix of backgrounds in departments, it can reduce group think, and produce alternative thinking towards problem solving

Flinty997

Mollydog123 wrote: »

I'm a manager albeit not in IT. I cant grasp how any manager could manage people without having a pretty good grasp of the roles of the people they manage, and the job they do. Therefore I'd expect the manager to be qualified in the same area. In my industry(Pharma) all engineering managers would be engineers, all quality managers would have quality degrees etc.

If someone is good at managing projects they can generally manage anything. However someone who can do this is rare. So generally it's easier for someone with domain knowledge. Especially if their project management isnt top notch.

Flinty997

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Sometimes it can be very beneficial to have a good mix of backgrounds in departments, it can reduce group think, and produce alternative thinking towards problem solving

I think it can be useful. But the danger especially in a project lead or manager is they feel undermined by their lack of domain knowledge and see any technical challenges to their decisions as a challenge to their authority and over rule them.

The flip side of this especially in IT, with programmers who become managers is they may be woeful at project managing. Often they only look to solve every problem through coding and technical solutions and won't listen to anyone who is not a programmer.

Wanderer78

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think it can be useful. But the danger especially in a project lead or manager is they feel undermined by their lack of domain knowledge and see any technical challenges to their decisions as a challenge to their authority and over rule them.

The flip side of this especially in IT, with programmers who become managers is they may be woeful at project managing. Often they only look to solve every problem through coding and technical solutions and won't listen to anyone who is not a programmer.

oh theres no question managers from the field can also be great, ive experienced this as well, but ive also come across poor managers that were great at their previous role

economist pippa malmgren has experienced this as well, in her career, she says coders think coding can pretty much solve all, and hardware folks think hardware can pretty much solve all, only that in some situations, neither can

Jim2007

Mollydog123 wrote: »

I'm a manager albeit not in IT. I cant grasp how any manager could manage people without having a pretty good grasp of the roles of the people they manage, and the job they do. Therefore I'd expect the manager to be qualified in the same area. In my industry(Pharma) all engineering managers would be engineers, all quality managers would have quality degrees etc.

You don't manage experts, you facilitate their interaction and do the admin stuff. It's what I have seen and experienced for the last 30 years. It takes a special kind of person to be good at because you are basically the social side of the team. A team that usually are not so good at the social stuff.

The body of knowledge is too large and changes too quickly even for every techie on the team to be at the same level never mind someone outside those roles.

The most important ability of an IT manager in an outage is having the contacts and being able to get the people in place. You won't be held responsible for the technical decisions because you aren't expected to have the knowledge, but if say the team need the assistance of a senior sys admin at 4:30 in the morning and you don't know how to get one in or online you will have a problem.

dreamers75

Jim2007 wrote: »

You don't manage experts, you facilitate their interaction and do the admin stuff. It's what I have seen and experienced for the last 30 years. It takes a special kind of person to be good at because you are basically the social side of the team. A team that usually are not so good at the social stuff.

The body of knowledge is too large and changes too quickly even for every techie on the team to be at the same level never mind someone outside those roles.

The most important ability of an IT manager in an outage is having the contacts and being able to get the people in place. You won't be held responsible for the technical decisions because you aren't expected to have the knowledge, but if say the team need the assistance of a senior sys admin at 4:30 in the morning and you don't know how to get one in or online you will have a problem.

Agree with this, and its how it should be. I manage 12 Electrical engineers (electricians with the degree) if I made 1 of them manager for one day i would have 0 electrical engineers the next day.

Its madness to think that because you are a manager you should get more than the "talent/product".

Some industries would be exempt from this ie where the employee is not the "product" would agree with the OP but would need more info.

micosoft

TBH a lot of folk talking nonsense. It is very rare that managers earn less than their line reports. That's typically because managers do a lot more than just issue instructions i.e. a Team Leader. It does happen, I've been in that scenario, but it is very rare. Those claiming that some super skilled individual contributor should earn more don't really understand what management is actually about. It's not team leading.

To the OP I'd simply say - there is no quicker way to increasing your salary than as an external candidate. Everything internal falls into the mystique of HR wage levelling process whose
job it is to minimise wage inflation and not address hard cases. It just is the way it is*. The only way to break through it is to have a job offer lined up with an increase. They "might" make an exception. But tbh my view has always been at that point to just move on. This is just a big indicator that its the right time. You can always return two years later!

*Unless you have insider information and on the inside track. As Gordon Gekko said. If you aren't, well that just says something about your positioning in the firm...

micosoft

dreamers75 wrote: »

Agree with this, and its how it should be. I manage 12 Electrical engineers (electricians with the degree) if I made 1 of them manager for one day i would have 0 electrical engineers the next day.

Its madness to think that because you are a manager you should get more than the "talent/product".

Some industries would be exempt from this ie where the employee is not the "product" would agree with the OP but would need more info.

I think there is confusion here on definitions. You team-lead a team. You manage a function. There is a difference. If you define the management of a team as a glorified coordinator (which is a common role in engineering offices) then absolutely. Secretary wages for a coordinator. If you manage a budget, risk, customer relations, project prioritisation, escalation point and all the myriad of roles a genuine manager would do then I assure you the compensation will match this. It's not impossible but it is exceptionally rare.

If you suggest individuals are the "talent/product" you are literally a body shop and acting as a staffing agency which is another thing again.

dennyk

Good companies understand that management is a separate skill set and career path, and will consequently implement some sort of parallel progression path for individual contributors with similar compensation increases that help them retain their skilled employees who prefer to remain individual contributors long term. Companies that don't grasp that will either lose said skilled employees to other companies because that's the only way for them to get a decent pay rise commensurate with their experience and the value they bring to their employer, or worse, they will pressure those skilled employees into moving to management roles that they might or might not be any good at in order to progress in their careers, thus losing a skilled IC and possibly ending up with a mediocre (or worse) manager in exchange.

Lux23

This is why I haven't stayed in the same job longer than five years, you aren't valued for your service anymore, and if they can continue to get away with paying less to do the same work as someone else, they won't feel bad about it.

jakiah

micosoft wrote: »

I think there is confusion here on definitions. You team-lead a team. You manage a function. There is a difference. If you define the management of a team as a glorified coordinator (which is a common role in engineering offices) then absolutely. Secretary wages for a coordinator. If you manage a budget, risk, customer relations, project prioritisation, escalation point and all the myriad of roles a genuine manager would do then I assure you the compensation will match this. It's not impossible but it is exceptionally rare.

If you suggest individuals are the "talent/product" you are literally a body shop and acting as a staffing agency which is another thing again.

This is an odd take. I work in a consultancy firm, the staff are all paid more than middle management. The consultants are "the function". If the guy with the specialised skillset who designs and delivers the service gets hits by a bus at the weekend, work is stopped the following Monday morning. If his manager gets hit by a bus, the show goes on.

Im chuckling at the idea that I could 'escalate' an issue to my manager. If there is an issue I tell him about it so he can inform the business, but Im ultimately responsible for the engagement, not him - if he had skillset he'd be where I am, earning more money without all the management bull****.

We have very little middle management tbh, it isnt really required when the staff are all senior.

tjhook

Annoyedmanager wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, just some context the field we are discussing is IT. I served my time as an engineer and worked my way up to management.

I think this is a key point. It sounds like *in your organisation*, the move to management was a promotion, I assume with a payrise etc.

Now people are being hired to do what you were doing before your promotion, earning more than you were on when you did their job, and more than you're now earning. So while there are plenty of situations in which a manager earns less than the people they manage, it doesn't appear to be relevant in this specific instance.

The simplest explanation, as many have said, is that you're being taken for granted. Nobody here is in a position to judge how good you are at what you do, so I'd assume you were (when you were doing their job) no better or worse than the new employees who are now on more than you.

Basically your employer is forced to compete and pay new employees what they're worth, but feels they can get away with paying you less. If you do force a payrise now, I think your manager will feel you've been done a "favour" and you may struggle for future payrises. I don't think it'll resolve your core issue in the longer term.

Personally, I'd consider working somewhere new - where I'm genuinely appreciated as an asset rather than being seen as a pain in the arse who's a drain on the budget. But of course I don't know how attached you are to your current situation. Or maybe your current pay is very good in the context of your industry generally.

Paul_Mc1988

This happened me. I had three years experience and someone I recommended for a job got offered more than I was on after two pay reviews/increases.

We have bi/monthly meetings with not just the boss but his boss and his boss etc. I called them out on it at the meeting with 10 other people in the same situation but they were unaware. They said I must be wrong but I said I could get they guy to send on the contract (he had left at this point as he didn't like the job). Silence. Post meeting numerous complaints from fellow employees and rumblings of people leaving. It takes a year to train someone the basics so naturally management were a bit shook..... a few weeks later a 12% market adjustment( about 8k each).

You only find out how much you're worth when you go to leave.... if you can accidentally get a few others to do the same it's even better.

JPup

Think of it likes this.

Company X has 100 staff on average salaries of €40k. Annual cost €4 million. Annual sales €5 million. Now they see an opportunity to grow sales by another €1 million. They need to hire 5 more staff to do it. The jobs market is tight so need to pay €60k to get decent people in. Now sales are €6 million and annual staff costs are €4.3 million. Profit has gone from €1 million to €1.7 million.

But if they were to pay all 105 staff €60k, the profit would be wiped out. That is the logic from the company's perspective in a very basic template.

The problem of course is with staff morale when people realise, as OP has, that the new hires who don't seem to know a whole hill of beans and have to be trained in on everything are earning more than they are. It's not fair and it p*sses people off. A well-managed firm will never run into these issues but in your case it appears that you work for a poorly managed company. I think the only solution is to do what you are already doing OP, and look for another job.

micosoft

jakiah wrote: »

This is an odd take. I work in a consultancy firm, the staff are all paid more than middle management. The consultants are "the function". If the guy with the specialised skillset who designs and delivers the service gets hits by a bus at the weekend, work is stopped the following Monday morning. If his manager gets hit by a bus, the show goes on.

Im chuckling at the idea that I could 'escalate' an issue to my manager. If there is an issue I tell him about it so he can inform the business, but Im ultimately responsible for the engagement, not him - if he had skillset he'd be where I am, earning more money without all the management bull****.

We have very little middle management tbh, it isnt really required when the staff are all senior.

You are not describing middle management. You are describing team leaders of coordination or low end project mgmt.

I've worked with all sorts when in Ireland. I'm really struggling with this notion of "specialised skillset" which in Ireland is pretty rare despite our small size. I mean, there might be only a couple of lithography process engineers in the country, but the idea that there is a consulting shop in town with "rare ninja skills" is strikes me as bull****. You can share the skills/roles without breaking confidences.


I've worked in high-tech and all its manifestations for a long time. I even played with "People Managers" and "technology managers" in an org where the leaders were generally awful. But again - this is really really uncommon.

gameoverdude

My take on these promotions is I don't care about the title, call me senior arsehole if you want, show me the money.

Do your interviews, get a new job...if they offer to match the increased wage, say no, too late.

Good luck in your future.

daheff

Companies will pay you the minimum they think they can get away with. As long as you are working for them @your current pay, then they are going to keep it that way.

Your only leverage is to get a new job offer. Then it's whether you actually want to leave or want them to match that salary.

StupidLikeAFox

daheff wrote: »

Companies will pay you the minimum they think they can get away with. As long as you are working for them @your current pay, then they are going to keep it that way.

Your only leverage is to get a new job offer. Then it's whether you actually want to leave or want them to match that salary.

Not true for all companies. Some (good) companies will benchmark salaries against the industry and try keep you in the same ballpark at least. No point saving a few k here and there on peoples salaries if they are constantly losing people

You are right though, the best benchmark is finding out what somebody is willing to pay you elsewhere

daheff

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Not true for all companies. Some (good) companies will benchmark salaries against the industry and try keep you in the same ballpark at least. No point saving a few k here and there on peoples salaries if they are constantly losing people

That's true....some companies realize the value in having staff & continuity. Unfortunately a large amount don't , or are guided by budgets.....so vacancies can take a while to fill...to save money./ Not go over budget for the year.

jakiah

micosoft wrote: »

You are not describing middle management. You are describing team leaders of coordination or low end project mgmt.

Fair enough. We dont have middle management then, its not a required function. Nor did we have them in my previous three roles. Seems a lot of middle managers have an inflated sense of their own worth.

There are plenty of technical specialisations in Ireland where there are only a handful of certified and experienced individuals who can deliver projects in these areas. The market for some of these specialisations is tiny given that only a handful of huge businessess have budget for the licening involved. This is how specialised consultancies make money.