When You’re the Boss, but Your Employees Make More Money
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,764,302 (+0.48%)       Melbourne $1,066,697 (+0.05%)       Brisbane $1,181,591 (+0.51%)       Adelaide $987,749 (-0.14%)       Perth $1,041,108 (-0.48%)       Hobart $802,593 (+0.38%)       Darwin $826,337 (-2.56%)       Canberra $1,001,004 (+0.17%)       National $1,157,291 (+0.14%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $793,689 (-0.41%)       Melbourne $524,006 (-0.53%)       Brisbane $754,229 (-3.72%)       Adelaide $563,099 (-0.55%)       Perth $593,974 (+3.43%)       Hobart $554,111 (+2.35%)       Darwin $460,457 (-0.56%)       Canberra $482,673 (+0.62%)       National $612,602 (-0.54%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 12,286 (+165)       Melbourne 14,524 (+136)       Brisbane 7,377 (+39)       Adelaide 2,517 (+59)       Perth 5,494 (+86)       Hobart 863 (+3)       Darwin 134 (-5)       Canberra 1,200 (+68)       National 44,395 (+551)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,355 (+30)       Melbourne 7,113 (+60)       Brisbane 1,331 (-14)       Adelaide 391 (+7)       Perth 1,174 (+23)       Hobart 175 (+2)       Darwin 228 (-13)       Canberra 1,190 (+19)       National 20,957 (+114)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $580 ($0)       Brisbane $670 ($0)       Adelaide $630 (+$5)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $598 (+$3)       Darwin $750 (-$30)       Canberra $700 ($0)       National $686 (-$4)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $650 ($0)       Adelaide $540 ($0)       Perth $650 ($0)       Hobart $475 (+$15)       Darwin $600 ($0)       Canberra $580 ($0)       National $614 (+$1)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,345 (-110)       Melbourne 7,556 (-112)       Brisbane 4,070 (+34)       Adelaide 1,534 (-9)       Perth 2,414 (-24)       Hobart 164 (-13)       Darwin 86 (+5)       Canberra 433 (+3)       National 21,602 (-226)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 7,762 (-17)       Melbourne 6,081 (+25)       Brisbane 2,126 (+27)       Adelaide 431 (+3)       Perth 667 (-79)       Hobart 84 (+4)       Darwin 186 (+14)       Canberra 643 (-7)       National 17,980 (-30)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.36% (↓)       Melbourne 2.83% (↓)       Brisbane 2.95% (↓)     Adelaide 3.32% (↑)      Perth 3.50% (↑)      Hobart 3.87% (↑)        Darwin 4.72% (↓)       Canberra 3.64% (↓)       National 3.08% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 4.91% (↑)      Melbourne 5.85% (↑)      Brisbane 4.48% (↑)      Adelaide 4.99% (↑)        Perth 5.69% (↓)     Hobart 4.46% (↑)      Darwin 6.78% (↑)        Canberra 6.25% (↓)     National 5.21% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND         Sydney 1.2% (↓)       Melbourne 1.4% (↓)     Brisbane 1.0% (↑)      Adelaide 1.1% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.4% (↓)       Darwin 0.6% (↓)       Canberra 1.4% (↓)     National 1.0% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.3% (↑)      Melbourne 2.3% (↑)        Brisbane 1.2% (↓)       Adelaide 0.9% (↓)       Perth 1.0% (↓)       Hobart 1.2% (↓)     Darwin 1.1% (↑)      Canberra 2.6% (↑)        National 1.4% (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 28.0 (↑)      Melbourne 27.9 (↑)        Brisbane 28.3 (↓)       Adelaide 25.4 (↓)     Perth 32.9 (↑)      Hobart 26.1 (↑)      Darwin 32.1 (↑)        Canberra 27.1 (↓)     National 28.5 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 28.1 (↑)      Melbourne 28.2 (↑)        Brisbane 24.5 (↓)     Adelaide 24.4 (↑)        Perth 36.8 (↓)       Hobart 26.9 (↓)       Darwin 34.3 (↓)     Canberra 38.2 (↑)        National 30.2 (↓)           
Share Button

When You’re the Boss, but Your Employees Make More Money

Power dynamics get complicated when managers earn less than their employees

By CALLUM BORCHERS
Sun, Aug 13, 2023 7:30amGrey Clock 4 min

When NFL quarterback Justin Herbert and NBA star Jaylen Brown signed contracts this summer worth $262.5 million and $304 million, respectively, they struck the richest deals in their leagues’ histories. They’re also out earning their bosses by millions a year.

Professional athletes often command higher salaries than their coaches, since it’s harder to find people to execute plays than diagram them. And individual contributors can earn more than managers in a lot of fields, from finance and tech to sales and media.

The sticking point is how bosses and their charges deal with those imbalances.

There are two keys to a functional working relationship when a subordinate makes more money than their manager, people in both camps tell me: The boss must possess the humility to accept the situation and the confidence to project authority. And the highly paid employee can’t be a diva.

Richard Reice, a labor attorney and chief people officer of a restaurant group, says fat paychecks can lead to entitlement and make a highly paid employee practically unmanageable.

“Some refuse to do basic things, like attend meetings, just because they think they’re silly,” he says.

When leadership doesn’t pay

It’s hard to quantify how frequently rank-and-file workers make more than their bosses, but Reice says he has observed a shift from his dual perches in employment law and human resources. Many companies are scrapping the old notion that bigger titles should automatically mean bigger bucks. Instead of promoting star employees into management, where administrative duties can siphon time from their true talents, more businesses are keeping top performers in individual-contributor roles—and paying them like bosses.

Leadership, in these situations, is considered like any other skill, and not necessarily one that is worth more money.

We’re more likely to notice now when someone out earns the boss. The pandemic-era rise of distributed teams was accompanied by cost-of-living adjustments, which meant a manager based in an inexpensive town might earn less than direct reports living in pricier cities.

Pay-transparency laws have given some bosses the jarring experience of seeing less-senior positions at their companies posted on job boards with advertised salaries that exceed their own. Market demand can explain some discrepancies; in other cases, racial, age or gender biases could be to blame.

Keep your ego in check

Nikki Barua, who runs the women’s leadership program Beyond Barriers, says her clients in managerial positions sometimes feel underpaid relative to subordinates and are unsure whether discrimination is a factor. Bosses need to recognise there are often valid reasons behind pay, she says, and advises managers to pay more attention to what their fellow bosses make.

“The star performer is not the right comparison,” she says.

Barua says that in previous roles at technology and consulting firms, her knack for bringing in business sometimes led to incentives that pushed her pay over her managers’. She kept her ego in check by viewing her skill as a blessing, remembering that others might be equally good at different jobs that the labor market rewards less generously.

Now, as an entrepreneur trying to conserve cash, she’s sometimes paid herself less than her employees. She admits that, at times, it was hard not to resent people making more than she did, feeling that she’d be able to draw a salary if only they’d work harder or do better.

Founders often draw modest salaries, or none at all, in companies’ early days, says Jeff Bussgang, general partner in the Boston office of startup investor Flybridge Capital Partners.

“Naturally, if they own a big chunk of equity, it makes it all more palatable,” he says.

Plus, owners’ status is seldom in doubt, regardless of pay. Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who acquired a controlling stake in the company in 1965, has for several decades taken an annual salary of $100,000. His total compensation last year was $401,589, while two vice chairmen earned more than $19 million apiece. Buffett, the world’s sixth-richest person with a net worth of $122 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, derives most of his income from investments.

Bosses who earn less

Ellen Taaffe, who sits on the compensation committees of several companies, including AARP Services, says corporate boards often set pay by studying the going rates for similar roles in other organisations. Boards can ease potential tension by giving junior executives lower base salaries and enabling them to surpass more senior leaders only through bonuses for exceeding expectations. Usually the people with the loftiest titles make the most money, but not always, notes Taaffe, who teaches at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

For instance, the chief scientific officer of a biotech company—whose research might be the crux of the business’s success or failure—could be paid more than the CEO. George Yancopoulos, the chief scientific officer of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, has received almost $435 million in total compensation since 2012, according to securities filings, making him the company’s highest-paid employee over that span. (Regeneron may be best known for its monoclonal antibody treatment for Covid.)

At some universities, the highest-paid employee isn’t the president; it’s the football coach or the person who manages the endowment. The $2.2 million pay package awarded to Yale University President Peter Salovey last fiscal year was one-third of what the chief investment officer earned, according to tax filings.

Leaders who successfully handle higher-paid employees find satisfaction in helping others shine, Taaffe says.

Warren Cereghino, a retired TV news director in California, says he kept pride at bay by reminding himself that viewers tuned in to watch his station’s anchors, who earned more than he did as their boss. He says the on-air talent didn’t abuse their sway.

Still, being privy to their contracts, he knew that some had negotiated a measure of editorial control in addition to large salaries. If there was a disagreement, he wouldn’t necessarily win.

“Even though my name was on the door of the news director’s office, there was a limit to my power,” he says.

—Theo Francis contributed to this article.



MOST POPULAR

Pure Amazon has begun journeys deep into Peru’s Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, combining contemporary design, Indigenous craftsmanship and intimate wildlife encounters in one of the richest ecosystems on Earth.

Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.

Related Stories
Money
More Big Companies Bet They Can Still Grow Without Hiring
By CHIP CUTTER 27/10/2025
Money
Dow Industrials Hit Record, Boosted by Strong Earnings
By JACK PITCHER 22/10/2025
Money
Gold Could Hit $5,000, Strategist Says. Why Others Are Worried About a Crash.
By MARTIN BACCARDAX 14/10/2025
More Big Companies Bet They Can Still Grow Without Hiring

JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.

By CHIP CUTTER
Mon, Oct 27, 2025 3 min

It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.

Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.

JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.

Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.

“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”

Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”

Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.

“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”

Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.

The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.

Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.

The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.

Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.

Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.

Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.

“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.

Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.

Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”

MOST POPULAR

A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.

A cluster of century-old warehouses beneath the Harbour Bridge has been transformed into a modern workplace hub, now home to more than 100 businesses.

Related Stories
Money
In a Sea of Tech Talent, Companies Can’t Find the Workers They Want
By CALLUM BORCHERS 02/10/2025
Property of the Week
Chippendale Warehouse Transformed into Architectural Masterpiece
By Kirsten Craze 15/08/2025
Property
HERITAGE WAREHOUSES REBORN AS SYDNEY WORKSPACES UNDER THE HARBOUR BRIDGE
By Jeni O'Dowd 21/08/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop