As i read the comments above it would appear that most are managed by people who dont understand the business.........and whats worse that seems be be a requirement rather than promoting someone who has ground floor business and product knowledge!
There's a certain amount of truth in the idea that people get promoted to their level of incompetence. Organisational politics generally means that people would rather get rid of you than see that you get the right training. I appear to be working for a company now that takes performance management seriously, genuinely wants you to succeed and provides the training for you to do so. They'd pay for my MBA if I let them. They have a goal to be the best place to work and appear to take that seriously. To help my studies they approved a flexible working arrangement so I can work my normal weekly hours Mon - Thu. I start at 7:30am and finish at 6pm and have Friday's for study etc. In theory that's great but I still work longer hours so in practice, taking them up on the training is a little difficult. Taking a week off can be difficult if you're running a high profile project too - I had to do a lot to get my week off in Sept approved. Swings and roundabouts ... after being out of work for a while in the UK I'll take it on the chin and keep delivering so I keep the money rolling in.
The now bankrupt (*) company concerned was larger (>2000 staff) and so encouraged by clients (utility companies who wanted to work with one large org, not a few smaller ones) to borrow cash to buy out smaller (c500 staff) yet more profitable companies. These smaller co's were full of people who had risen from junior to senior positions. But they then imposed their own management/working practice on the smaller companies, pushing out the experienced staff, thus negating the very reason why these smaller companies had been more successful in the first place. Within 5 years, profits slumped to a point where debts (from monies borrowed for the buy outs!) couldn't be serviced. Unfortunately, it's more of a reflection of corporate Britain over the past 20 years than a one off! * - They've officially swapped debt for equity, so are now owned by the bank they borrowed from!!!
From my limited experience you reach a certain level (each company has it) purely using your skills and how you work. Getting there appears to be quite easy as you use skills you know to do that. However from there onwards a big factor in being promoted up is not as much your skills as who you know, do they like you and will you piss someone off if you start managing correctly. Finally does that pissed off person know someone important in company. If you look at it is more kinder garden playground antics then real life. 90% people will role with it as they want more. Some will be unhappy but have more money some have the ability to separate life and work and rest will actually enjoy it. The 10% left out are people who will refuse the position where they have to do things they do not feel are right.
There is the other side of the coin. Those in higher management have a little amount of knowledge and feel threatened by the people under them. Then the excuses for why people need to go come out just so the management ego can be massaged and they look good to the board. Talk about abuse of power......
You sort of have to take a zoological approach to all this. There is the top monkey with all the bananas and the pick of the females, and a hierarchy underneath him, who keep the other pretender monkeys in check. The top of the hierarchy always keeps an eye out to become top monkey, but they also realise that their current position is a good one and they have an interest to go with the flow. Companies work in exactly the same manner. You will be promoted if it will make your boss look good, but possibly not if you are perceived as a threat. That is why it is often the case that promotions in large organisations are to posts in some other part of it where you have no power base. We can all rue the unfairness of the system, but it is the system. Life is unfair - it was never meant to be otherwise. For me, the whole of society just works as a more subtle and complicated primate group. When you get that, everything, from the desire to acquire a Rolex to being seen on a Panigale, makes sense. Of course power is abused. But more than this, it is used - quite simply. It's a myth (a sad myth) that those in power are meant to be using it for the good of those they govern, be it politically or in private enterprise. Naturally, it is used first and foremost for their own comfort - everything else is secondary.
A couple of years ago Peter and Dan Snow did a program on income distribution, the average was £23k and the threshold to be in the top 10% was £45k. The distribution curve is low and flat then ramps up very quickly to stratospheric levels for the top few percent. The top 1% of earners pays 25% of all income tax believe it or not. The idea that there are hoards of people out there earning vast sums is simply not correct, the vast majority are close to average. Note my use of the world 'comfortably', so really I have told you diddly.
Every now and then the term 'bed blocker' rears its ugly head, someone who has been in position for more than a few years, is good at what they do and has no desire to climb the greasy pole. Unfortunately companies see these as preventing fresh blood entering at a lower level on a lower salary.
Economics of comparing monthly salaries is a bit odd until you remove the underlying costs of living in a UK If you compare someone on £20k/yr (take home c£1300/mth) with someone on £30k/yr (take home c £1900/mth), you would think that they would be 50% better off. But, most people have the same basic living costs to pay, which are c£1k/mth (mortgage/council tax/water rates/food/insurance/vehicle/heating & lighting etc) .... so, in reality the bod on £20k has about £300 to spend, whilst the bod on £30k has around £900 to spend - so, in terms of what they can spend on themselves, they are more like 3 times better off .... by the time you get to £40k/yr (£2400/mth), in disposable terms, you're more than 4 times better off than the bod on £20k !
Just noticed this and have to say What? 45k is way above average salary and at 45k you can happily live alone however happily depends from what you are used to. 45k you, your wife the least another half of it so WTH are you saying? Also if you do have 45k and you have went to higher tax bracket have a word with your employer and get a salary of 44.999.
I think the point Cranker is trying (and failing ) to make, and one TP seems to be demsontratimg, is desire + effort = reward Loz, as an example, if you wanted the next step whats to stop you enrolling to an OU course in Business Management (if funds are tight and you cant afford a part time evening course at a local Uni or college) therefore not only improving your skills but demonstrating a desire to progress and willingness to self educate On the other hand, if its just more money for the same job, it fits into Crankers 'lazy stop moaning' thread. Not a dig btw just an example as I know you and not the others who have put their own situation forward Btw I fall into the lazy category; has loads of pressure and is less challenging than I'd like but job I can do standing on my head and little risk of the sack and redundancy would be worth if just for the dosh. Do I still moan? Yep course I do; thats life
Not quite true to throw the proverbial spanner in the works. The guy at 40k isn't 4 times better off has he has higher NI and higher tax @40% to pay for
Guy at 40k takes home just over 2400 while guy at 20k 1344 so he is. UK PAYE Salary Wage Income Tax Calculator 2012 UK. Updated for 2012/2013 inland revenue tax year. Calculate wages pension national insurance and student loan repayments online.
Luca Nice link by the way last time I checked 1344 doubled was 2688, but as to having 1200 quid as a disposable income based on 20 k/300 is unlikely IMHO
Well ok then 3.5 times more so 1050 disposable income vs 300. Remember living cost for both are the same unless 40k guy wants to spend more from his disposable income.
No its not. Here comes a wild generalisation so look out....Someone earming 50k likley to be office or managerial or sales or similar unless they are self employed in some form. And run their own business. Extra expense will include; clothes, cant get away with jeans and t shirt and no one buys it for you, so several suits (which dont last that long when worn a lot) and a few hundred quid each plus shirts, ties etc adds up to a lot more than using your everyday clothes to work. You also need all your everyday clothes. There are often standards to be kept, again so this drives more cost; whos round is it for coffee? Oh thats 40 quid a week then...what about lunch as coolbags dont last that well and tbh arent 'the done thing' in many businesses....theres another 40 quid a week...then theres transportation with things like bikes and older cars a luxury as you cant use them for business and of course if its a company car theres 300 quid a month in tax...could go on but I wont. My disposable income to race comes from the family budget for holidays, which is about 3k a year...and my wife has to work and pretty much earns about double that. Can assure you with my 180k house and a mortgage which is less than 60% of its value the DI in my house is no where near a grand a month. We dont eat out much, clothes are not from Armani, Mrs B car is 7 years old and I have my 848 which I do far few miles on...would say too many luxuries Cue the violins
No youre not. What about the benefit system? A family of 4 where its 20k pa will have more dispoable than the same on 30k due to additional allowances in my opinion and experience, family credits, reductions in council tax (in some places) and a host of other things which can be claimed.
Bradders as self employed you also get to claim tax back and put all little things as company expense further hiding stuff. A self employed person can have less earnings on paper then 40k employed and still be just as well off. Finally I would say most 40k earners are not self employed so get work benefits. I can tell you this in one of the Swiss hotels I worked for a head of department was getting 35k a year. However at the same time free parking in central London, free gym, free uniform from company and shirt/shoes allowance, free meals on duty including unlimited coffee, free 2 week hotel stay in any property under out logo on top of cheap staff rates. Any work related travel not to hotel building paid, free fancy "business" dinners where he could take his entire closest family. Not to mention freebies of other sort. His 35k looks a lot like 40k to me.
