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.
Austin, Texas, company Core Scientific went from bankruptcy to stock market darling this year by betting on two technologies: Bitcoin mining and AI data centers. Shares are up 400%.
But if given the choice of whether to invest more in one business over the other, executives answer without hesitating: the data centers.
“We really just value long-term, stable cash flows and predictable returns,” Chief Operating Officer Matt Brown said in an interview. The company began life as a Bitcoin miner. Even though Bitcoin has been a great asset lately, it’s very volatile. By comparison, Core Scientific can earn steady profits for years by hosting servers owned by companies that sell cloud services to AI providers, Brown said.
This year, you couldn’t go wrong betting on either. Bitcoin is up 116%, and data centers are in high demand because tech companies need them to power their AI applications.
The two technologies seem to have little in common, but they both depend on the same thing: access to reliable power. Core Scientific has a lot of it, operating nine grid-connected warehouses in six states with access to so much electricity they could serve several hundred thousand homes. Other Bitcoin miners have similarly transitioned to data center hosting , but few with quite so much success.
Core Scientific’s business didn’t look quite so good at the start of the year. The company started 2024 under the shadow of bankruptcy protection. It had too much debt on its balance sheet after going public through the SPAC process in 2022 and succumbed to a Bitcoin price crash. But the company’s fortunes quickly turned around after it emerged from bankruptcy on Jan. 23 with $400 million less debt.
The company started the year focused entirely on crypto mining, but quickly pivoted as it saw demand surge for electricity for AI data centers.
In June, the company signed a deal with a company called Coreweave to lease data center space for AI cloud services. Coreweave has since agreed to lease 500 megawatts worth of space. Core Scientific says it will get paid $8.7 billion over 12 years under the deal.
Privately held Coreweave is one of the fastest-growing companies behind the AI revolution. It was once a cryptocurrency miner, but has since transitioned to offering cloud services, with a particular focus on artificial intelligence. It’s closely connected to Nvidia , which has invested money in Coreweave and given the company access to its top-end chips. Coreweave expects to be one of the first customers for Nvidia ’s upcoming Blackwell GPUs.
Core Scientific’s quick success in this new world has surprised even the people who are driving it.
“Every once in a while I need to pinch myself, to see I’m actually not dreaming,” Brown said.
Core Scientific’s success does create a high bar for the stock to keep rising. The company is expected to lose money this year, largely because of a change in the value of stock warrants—an accounting shift that doesn’t reflect underlying earnings. Analysts see the company becoming profitable in 2025, when more of its data center deals start to hit the bottom line. They see EPS jumping tenfold by 2027. Shares trade at about 13 times those 2027 estimates.
The data center opportunity should only grow from here, as tech companies build more powerful AI systems. Of the 1,200 megawatts worth of gross power capacity Core Scientific has contracted, about 800 megawatts are going to data center computing deals and 400 megawatts toward Bitcoin mining.
Brown said the company has good relationships with its power suppliers and can potentially add more capacity without having to buy more real estate. It expects to be able to secure about 300 more megawatts worth of power at existing sites, perhaps by the end of the year.
It’s also in the hunt for new sites, including at “distressed” conventional data centers that have lost their tenants. Core Scientific has figured out how to quickly spiff up bare-bones data centers and turn them into high-tech sites with resources like liquid cooling equipment and much higher levels of electricity.
A single server rack in a standard data center might need 6 or 7 kilowatts of power. A high-performance data center can use as much as 130 kilowatts per rack; Core Scientific is working on increasing capacity to 400 kilowatts. The company likens the process of upgrading the warehouses to turning a ho-hum passenger vehicle into a Formula One racing car.
Core Scientific’s transformation from a broken-down jalopy to a hot rod has been a wild story. Its fate next year will depend on just how quickly the AI revolution unfolds.
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.