When You’re the Boss, but Your Employees Make More Money
Power dynamics get complicated when managers earn less than their employees
Power dynamics get complicated when managers earn less than their employees
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.
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.
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.
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.
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.
Governments around the world are offering incentives to reverse a downward spiral that could threaten economic growth
The Australian birth rate is at a record low, new data has shown.
Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics have revealed there were 286,998 births registered around the country last year, or 1.5 babies per woman.
Birth rates in Australia have been in a slow decline since the 1990s, down from 1.86 births per woman in 1993. Declining fertility rates among girls and women aged 15 to 19 years was most stark, down two thirds, while for women aged 40 to 44 years, the rate had almost doubled.
“The long-term decline in fertility of younger mums as well as the continued increase in fertility of older mums reflects a shift towards later childbearing,” said Beidar Cho, ABS head of demography statistics. “Together, this has resulted in a rise in median age of mothers to 31.9 years, and a fall in Australia’s total fertility rate.”
The fall in the Australian birth rate is in keeping with worldwide trends, with the United States also seeing fertility rates hit a 32-year low. The Lancet reported earlier this year that, based on current trends, by 2100 more than 97 percent of the world’s countries and territories “will have fertility rates below what is necessary to sustain population size over time”.
On a global scale, the Lancet reported that the total fertility rate had “more than halved over the past 70 years” from about five children per female in the 1950s to 2.2 children in 2021. In countries such as South Korea and Serbia, the rate is already less than 1.1 child for each female.
Governments around the world have tried to incentivise would-be parents, offering money, increased access to childcare and better paid maternity leave.
Experts have said without additional immigration, lower birth rates and an ageing population in Australia could put further pressure on young people, threaten economic growth and create economic uncertainty. However, a study released earlier this year by the University of Canberra showed the cost of raising a child to adulthood was between $474,000 and $1,097,000.
This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan
Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.