Workforce Blogs
Home
Complete archive of features and news articles, sample policies and procedures, assessments, and surveys.
Network and exchange ideas with other members in the forums or ask an expert in one of the hosted forums.
Access vendor directories, product case studies and showcases.
Read Best in Shows, view our conference calendar, read commentaries and take our news poll.
The Hot List
Blogs
Topic Channels
Comp, Benefits, Rewards
HR Management
Legal Insight
Recruiting and Staffing
Software and Technology
Training and Development
= Member Only
Workforce HR Jobs
Find A Job
Post A Job



Subscribe Now
Workforce Magazine
Subscriber Help
























= Member Only


Blog: The Business of Management
 

August 5th, 2009

Will Work for … Less?

A long time ago in a workplace far, far away, I had a boss who was as hard-line as they come when it came to the notion of taking a new job with less pay. “I have never, ever taken a job for less money,” she told me on more than one occasion, “and I never will.”

Her point was simple: You should never undersell yourself, no matter what. You never take a job for less money even if it’s temporary, or good for your career in the long term, or perhaps even because it’s something you always wanted to do. You never do it, she reasoned, because you devalue yourself and because your salary arc should always be moving up, not down. That’s how she always did it, she said, and she shook her head in amazement the day I walked in and told her I was leaving to take a better position with a smaller organization—for about 30 percent less pay.

That was the first time I took a new job with a cut in pay, but it wasn’t the last. Don’t get me wrong: I never took less money because I really wanted to. It was always because I thought there was some short-term upside to doing so, or because I really, really needed a job and was willing to take less salary to get it.

I was thinking about this today while reading a blog post by Chicago Tribune business writer Greg Burns on how “many job-seekers balk when the moment comes to accept a lower salary than they were earning at their previous post, according to the LaSalle Network, a Chicago-area recruiting firm.”

Burns adds this: “According to the survey of 500 [Chicago-area] job-seekers, 85 percent expressed a willingness to accept a pay cut of up to one-fifth. Considering that 4.4 million Americans have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more, the firm says, it’s obvious that many are not acting on their professed willingness to work for less.”

Should we be surprised that “only” 85 percent of job seekers are pragmatic enough to recognize that there is a glut of talent on the market during this big, bad recession, and that taking less pay may be what’s needed if you really want a job? I’ve been around long enough to recognize that getting 85 percent of people to agree on anything is virtually impossible, so getting eight out of 10 unemployed workers to admit that they would take less to get back and working is pretty amazing in my book.

The bigger issue, as I pointed out in my latest Last Word column, is this: Many organizations, according to The Wall Street Journal, are ignoring people who are out of work and are still going after “passive” candidates (i.e., people with jobs) when they have a job to fill, “reasoning that these survivors are the top performers.”

And although the Journal’s evidence of this practice was largely anecdotal, it is par for what I read and hear from all too many recruiters. In their minds, finding that great passive candidate is the Holy Grail, regardless of much it might cost, how futile it might be to actually lure a candidate away from a solid job, and despite how many other eminently hirable unemployed candidates might be eligible.

Tom Gimbel, chief executive of the LaSalle Network, told the Tribune that part of the problem in the recruiting market now is that salaries were over-inflated in pre-recession days and that “job seekers must acknowledge the fact that they have been overpaid, and once they do that, they will secure a job that meets these new expectations.”

It’s true that a lot of people were overpaid during the last few years, and many still are (take, for example, some of the Wall Street folks who are “earning” unfathomable bonuses. But I don’t agree completely with Tom Gimbel that the problem is simply due to unrealistic pay expectations by those who are out of work.

Sure, some unrealistic people have priced themselves out of the market. But when an overwhelming 85 percent of the unemployed say that they’d take a job for 20 percent less than they made before, then maybe it’s time to stop blaming the out-of-work people for their predicament and focus on the real issue: a shattered economy that looks like it’s going to stay shattered (at least in terms of job growth) for a long time.

Get my latest blog updates on human resources and workforce management news by following me on Twitter.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2009/08/05/will_work_for_less/trackback/



Comments

The problem is more complex than simple numbers would indicate. The huge numbers of unemployed include tens-of-thousands of manufacturing, construction, and office workers that are at the mercy of the overall economy. They will only be hired if needed.

Hidden in the statistics are the thousands of professional workers that are not required at this time and have been displaced. Those are the workers that are hurt by the attitudes described by the WSJ. I believe that many hiring managers have a business-as-usual attitude when looking at new candidates for job openings. That is why they are passing by the unemployed professionals and seeking out their competition’s workers.

Hiring managers simply do this because they think, dream, hope, wish (you pick the verb) that the new hire will bring some secret “magic” from the previous employer that will launch, grow, or save their business. This does not mean they are looking for a trade secret, although that is what they secretly desire, but maybe just a new process, partner, insight, or trend. This is human nature at its best. [sic]

Going back to your basic premise, which people will work for less, I believe there is another problem. These same hiring managers that are looking to raid the competition will also believe that the new hire will bail for more cash when the markets turn around. Therefore it is safer to hire the currently employed at the same inflated salary.

Your final statement regarding the shattered economy points to a different strategy for the unemployed professional. They should consider alternate careers or at least alternate sources of income. This brings to mind my own antidotal story about my father who was a young mechanical engineer out of Penn State when the Great Depression hit. He lost his good paying job at a steel company and spent the depression years pumping gas at a rural truck stop. When the economy turned around he moved to Ohio and re-launched a successful thirty-year engineering career.

I wanted to point out that some of us who are willing to work for less have great difficulty even getting a telephone interview… our applications are discarded by recruiters as soon as they note how much experience we have, assuming we will want more than they are willing to pay or, as the previous poster noted, that we’ll jump ship once the economy improves. And many of us were only discharged from our last position as a business necessity, and not due to performance or our contribution to the company… deep budget cuts meant positions had to be eliminated. Passing us by means companies are passing up the opportunity to hire talented, loyal individuals with much to offer. Just give us a chance to meet with you face to face and we’ll have no trouble convincing you.

Recruiters tell me that hiring managers know the current supply/demand equation, which means they can hire someone into a job for less money than the same position would have paid a year ago. That 85 percent of job seekers willing to take a pay cut are people who are realistic. Let’s face it, many people held on to their jobs by taking pay cuts. So it’s not really that difficult to understand you may need to take a lower salary to regain employment. Those who balk may find themselves broke.

I don’t think the total work load will ever truly go down; it will just shift to new things. The same way the invention of the technology of the car didn’t reduce workload. Yeah people didn’t need to take care of horses anymore, but those caretakers didn’t get leisure time out of the deal.


Post a comment

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

You must read and type the 5 chars within 0..9 and A..F, and submit the form.

  

Please, generate a





Blog Index







Recent Posts

Blog Archives

Categories



Recent Comments

Other Workforce Blogs

Blog Roll







Copyright © 1995-2007 Crain Communications Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement