Subordinate earning more than supervisor

[NeedAChange]

Hi all. I know this topic has been brought up before but not in a few years/since the economy has improved. I hope you don't mind my asking for any current Views.

I am a supervisor at a insurance company. I got hired in 2013 when the company was smaller, and the economy was still pretty shaky. FF to December 2016, and a new adjuster was hired. My boss told me I'd be supervising her and for some reason included her salary and add'l week of vacation in his email. This is not Standard operating procedure. I don't know if he did it because he wanted to see if I'd react (I tend not to rock the boat), or if he just spaced it out that it was even there. She is making 15% more per year than I do.

Our company is growing quickly and with a better economy they're having a hard time attracting applicants to the open positions, which is likely why she was hired in with her calling the shots salary and benefits wise. I have about 10 years experience on her and a much wider field of experience/specializations.

This is bugging me to no end. I'm considering asking for a raise based on the fact that the company's pay scale is apparently higher. If I do, I have no clue how much to ask for. I'm currently about 15% below current industry standards. If my boss did intentionally include that info, I'd feel like a fool for not addressing it. Any constructive comments? Thoughts? Thanks!

[bjl584]

I'd bring it up to your boss immediately.
I wouldn't supervise someone that is earning more than I was.

This happens in the NFL. (The coach makes less than the Quarterback), but it shouldn't be happening in the insurance industry.

[feh]

I've never understood the mentality that somebody managing/supervising somebody else needs to make more than they do.

Salaries should be set according to market; if somebody has a highly sought skill, or if there aren't many people with that skill, they will earn a higher salary. If the skills of the manager are not hard to find or all that specialized, why should they be paid more?

I've worked in software my entire life, and I think it's not unusual for a programmer to make more than their supervisor, which makes perfect sense to me.

[bigdaddybus]

I am in the same boat as feh, my technical role has a higher top end salary than the managers I report to. It is absolutely nothing new in an environment where the skills determine the salary. I have had many, many managers that barely understand the technical work their subordinates do.

With that being said, I have never been afraid to request a raise. Just know the lay of the land. My boss completes with other bosses to get more salary dollars from the pool of money. I have always documented my results to my leadership in a way that they can easily compete with other managers for the salary dollars.

I would never go to a boss and say "I want to make as much as Sally" without being willing to walk out the door if they say no.

[StormRichards]

I can understand how this might make sense in some fields like technology as feh and bigdaddybus are in.

However, I think the more common scenario is a company just not wanting to bring current employees up to industry standards. There is also a good chance that there is nothing the manager can do about it. Or not enough to fully remedy the situation.

My employer has strict guidelines when it comes to salary increases. Exceeding a set limit requires SEVERAL signatures up the ladder, with each manager being forced to provide justification for the request. Often it requires a documented offer from outside the corporation, and it is still a long shot that offer will be matched.

I have witnessed it MANY times over the years where an employee will jump ship due to salary only to return within the year. The manager is not bound by the same restrictions for external hires as he/she is for external candidates.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I think it depends on the role of the supervisor and employee. I can see in some companies where the skill is in demand and project management like my DH says previous company and current aren't paid at nearly the level of the people they are "managing". They are project managers but many don't have the experience or expertise or even education of the people they are supervising. They are good at organizing and managing the projects. I know my DH now makes more than the guy who supervises him. But different skill set.

[TexasHusker]

It boils down to how much they value your services - nothing else.

When I was in the hospital business, there was a point in time that I was only a director and I was getting paid more than everyone on the administrative side of the hospital except for the CEO, including my boss.

I was in a sales oriented job, and the hospital depended on me to negotiate contracts with various insurance companies that were worth $50 million per month to the system.

I guess I could have asked for a fancy title, but that just would have meant I would have to spend less time selling and more time attending a bunch of nonsense meetings.

[VS_ozgirl]

Do you get small raises annually? I do, based on whatever the inflation rate for the year is. If you don't then perhaps this is the reason the subordinate got a higher pay - because this is now the going rate and if you are not getting small raises then you are in fact behind the going rate for what you are able to make.

Either way, whether you get small raises or not, this is the perfect opportunity to really review what you are able to earn. Don't bring the subordinate into the argument. If you are now being underpaid and have proof that there are jobs out there willing to pay more than you are receiving, speak to them and let them know that you think you are being paid below industry standard and you would like to know the likelihood of being paid correct rate there (or if it's time to move on).