Research Into How to Best Ask for a Pay Raise

This is relevant research in some respects, although it’s unclear how true all of it actually is. Timing is pretty important — employers probably have to be given an incentive, and subtle hints that a valuable employee may look for a job elsewhere with higher pay may make the difference.

To avoid the common fear of sounding greedy or obnoxious, don’t simply ask for more money. Instead say, “I would like to make $X. What would it take for me to get there?”

You might then elaborate with follow-up questions: Would it mean adding extra duties? Changing roles? Improving some aspect of the way I work now?

What’s brilliant about this approach is that it basically says, this isn’t about me and what I feel entitled to. It makes the conversation about the bargaining. And because you’re not asking a yes/no question, it immediately sets up the expectation that some deal will be struck, and we just need to find out what it is. (Sales people use this tactic when they ask, “What would it take for you to accept?”)

[…]

Economists and psychologists have conducted multiple studies on pay negotiation tactics and human behavior. In 2014, psychologists at Columbia University found that naming a salary range with a high “floor” (i.e. the lowest amount you’ll accept) led to higher offers. In 2016, a Columbia Business School study said that cracking a joke about a ridiculous amount of money you’d like to make can “anchor” a conversation, and subtly influence the employer’s thought process so that they’re more likely to go high, too. If you know the job pays in the $60,000 range, ask for half a million. Ha, ha!

These ideas sound promising in theory, but they don’t address that initial obstacle— the fear that asking for what you want, however you go about it, will be off-putting. In this sense, Coffey’s non-scientific method feels more doable. It’s not manipulative, either. You’re asking how your employer values particular contributions for a given role, but you’re flagging your own agenda, too. Your ambition exists and you’ve declared it.

It applies equally well to men as to women, though its basic premise is in keeping with advice Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, shared at a forum last year about improving policies specifically to advance women’s economic opportunities. Sandberg said that although it shouldn’t be so, women generally are not treated the same way as men when they ask for money.

“If you are negotiating for a raise and you are a man, you can walk in and say ‘I deserve this.’ That will not backfire on you,” Sandberg said. “We know the data says it will backfire on a woman. So I think along with saying ‘I deserve this,’ [women should explain] that, you know, ‘This is important for [my] performance,’ and ‘This will make [me] more effective as a team member.’”

Sandberg said at the time that she hates to share this advice. Women shouldn’t have to adjust their behavior to accommodate a sexist structure. Men who happen to have less confidence than the average dude shouldn’t have to, either, of course, but they might feel more comfortable if they did. This compromise will get you further than not asking at all.

[…]

Anyone considering a job offer should probably attempt to secure a higher starting salary, experts say, because it could work, and it likely will not tarnish your reputation or jeopardize your opportunity. Andréa Mallard, chief marketing officer of athleisure wear company Athleta, who also spoke at the Well + Good panel, told the young women in the crowd that they should never hesitate, because it’s an impressive move.

Whenever she has hired someone who asked for more money, she said, the pushback made her respect that person more, not less. And, if it’s possible, most employers want to hit that number that will make someone feel excited about the job.

Research: Kindness to Employees Improves Worker Performance

There’s thus good evidence that mean employers devalue companies. Someone ought to mention this to the highest level of management in the economy — there are too many of these employers, as workers generally know quite well.

Want the best results out of your employees? Then be nice to them.

New research from Binghamton University, State University at New York finds that showing compassion to subordinates almost always pays off, especially when combined with the enforcement of clear goals and benchmarks.

“Being benevolent is important because it can change the perception your followers have of you,” said Chou-Yu Tsai, an assistant professor of management at Binghamton University’s School of Management. “If you feel that your leader or boss actually cares about you, you may feel more serious about the work you do for them.”

[…]

They surveyed nearly 1,000 members of the Taiwanese military and almost 200 adults working full-time in the United States, and looked at the subordinate performance that resulted from three different leadership styles:

  • Authoritarianism-dominant leadership: Leaders who assert absolute authority and control, focused mostly on completing tasks at all costs with little consideration of the well-being of subordinates
  • Benevolence-dominant leadership: Leaders whose primary concern is the personal or familial well-being of subordinates. These leaders want followers to feel supported and have strong social ties.
  • Classical paternalistic leadership: A leadership style that combines both authoritarianism and benevolence, with a strong focus on both task completion and the well-being of subordinates.

The researchers found that authoritarianism-dominant leadership almost always had negative results on job performance, while benevolence-dominant leadership almost always had a positive impact on job performance. In other words, showing no compassion to your employees doesn’t bode well for their job performance, while showing compassion motivated them to be better workers.

They also found that classical paternalistic leadership, which combines both benevolence and authoritarianism, had just as strong an effect on subordinate performance as benevolent-dominant leadership. Tsai said the reason for this phenomenon may extend all the way back to childhood.

“The parent and child relationship is the first leader-follower relationship that people experience. It can become a bit of a prototype of what we expect out of leadership going forward, and the paternalistic leadership style kind of resembles that of a parent,” Tsai said.

“The findings imply that showing personal and familial support for employees is a critical part of the leader-follower relationship. While the importance of establishing structure and setting expectations is important for leaders, and arguably parents, help and guidance from the leader in developing social ties and support networks for a follower can be a powerful factor in their job performance,” Dionne said.

Because of the difference in work cultures between U.S. employees and members of the Taiwanese military, researchers were surprised that the results were consistent across both groups.

“The consistency in the results across different cultures and different job types is fascinating. It suggests that the effectiveness of paternalistic leadership may be more broad-based than previously thought, and it may be all about how people respond to leaders and not about where they live or the type of work they do,” Yammarino said.

Tsai said his main takeaway for managers is to put just as much or even more of an emphasis on the well-being of your employees as you do on hitting targets and goals.

“Subordinates and employees are not tools or machines that you can just use. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect,” said Tsai. “Make sure you are focusing on their well-being and helping them find the support they need, while also being clear about what your expectations and priorities are. This is a work-based version of ‘tough love’ often seen in parent-child relationships.”

Advanced Automation in the Future

Over the last several decades in the U.S., productivity gains have been concentrated in the upper echelon of the income distribution. The general population hasn’t really received them.

productivitygraph

Productivity means the average output per hour in the economy. This has increased due to technological advances such as faster computer processing power and workers becoming more efficient at their jobs.

The story of robots taking all the jobs is today printed in the mass media with some regularity. However, if the robots were actually taking all the jobs today, it would show up in the data. Massive automation implies massive increases in productivity, but as it is now, productivity gains rates have been quite low. Yearly productivity growth was higher in 2003 than it is today, and since about 2005 there’s been a slowdown in it. So based on the trend of the last dozen years, it is unlikely enough that we will see significant advances in productivity (automation) over the next several years.

Society should be structured so that in the next decades, productivity gains will be distributed to the general population instead of primarily to upper-middle class and wealthy people. In a significant way, this will depend on who owns the technology.

It’s crucial that there be real care taken on the rights awarded to people owning the most valuable technology. This may frankly determine whether that technology is a curse or a blessing for humanity.

In one example, say that the groundbreaking designs for the most highly advanced robotics are developed by a major corporation, which then patents the designs. The patent is valuable since the robotics would be far more efficient than anything else on the market, and it would allow the corporation to charge much higher prices than would otherwise be possible. This would be good for the minority of people who own the company and are invested in it, but it would almost certainly be harmful to the general public.

The case of prescription drugs shows us what happens when legal enforcement via patents goes wrong. The United States spent $450 billion on prescription drugs in 2017, an amount that would have been about a fifth as much (representing thousands of dollars per U.S. household in savings) were there no drug patents and a different system of drug research incentives. The consequence of this disparity is obviously that there are many people who suffer with health ailments due to unnecessarily expensive medications.

The major corporation with the valuable robotics patents may be able to make the distribution of the valuable robotics (which could very efficiently perform a wide range of tasks) much more expensive than necessary, similar to the prescription drugs example. The robotics being too expensive would mean that there’d be less of them to do efficient labor such as assembling various household appliances, and this would manifest itself as a cost to a lot of people.

So instead of the advanced robotics (probably otherwise cheap due to the software and materials needed for them being low cost) being widely distributed inexpensively and allowed to most efficiently automate labor, there could be a case where their use is expensively restricted. The robotics may even be used by the potentially unaccountable corporation for mostly nefarious ends, and this is another problem that arises with the control granted by the patents. Clearly, there need to be public interest solutions to this sort of problem, such as avoiding the use of regressive governmental interventions, considering the use of shared public ownership to allow many people to receive dividends on the value the technology generates, and implementing sensible regulatory measures.

There are also standards that can be set into law and enforced. A basic story is that if (after automation advances lead to less labor requirements among workers generally) the length of the average work year decreases by 20 percent, about 25 percent more people will be employed. The arithmetic may not always be this straightforward, but it’s a basic estimate for consideration.

Less time spent working while employing more people is clearly a good standard for many reasons, particularly in the U.S. where leisure rates among most are low compared to other wealthy countries. More people being employed may also mean tighter labor markets that allow for workers to receive higher real wage gains.

If there is higher output due to technology, that value will go somewhere in the form of more money. Over the last decades we have seen this concentrated at the top, but it is possible to have workers both work shorter hours and have similar or even higher pay levels.

Allowing Employees More Autonomy Improves Their Performance

More worker autonomy is shown globally to increase worker productivity. It’s one of the strongest arguments in favor of ditching the undemocratic top-down structure of capitalist enterprises in favor of using democratically run worker cooperatives. At the very least, countries could adopt Germany’s policies of co-determination, which gives German workers increased participation in managing companies.

Managers who encourage staff to take more control over their workflow by putting them in the driver’s seat find themselves with more competent and connected teams with motivated, engaged, high-performing and loyal employees, research by the University of Melbourne shows.

Leaders who employ a style known as autonomously supportive, rather than a controlling, micro-management style, are more likely to encourage greater workplace wellbeing and flourishing employees, according to the meta-analysis published in Springer’s Motivation and Emotion journal.

And the results are the same across all parts of the globe.

The research shows workers are more likely to be intrinsically motivated – or self-driven – when they can freely choose to pursue their work activities, feel they can master their tasks and are surrounded by important and supportive people like managers, mentors, peers and friends, finding a sense of relatedness.

“We found better workplace wellbeing and motivation when employees were not reliant on external events like rewards or sanctions,” said Melbourne Graduate School of Education study author Gavin Slemp.

“Our study showed that autonomy support leads to positive outcomes like , wellness, engagement and more committed and loyal employees, no matter the national culture,” Dr. Slemp said.

“We explored these leadership behaviours in studies that had accumulated more than 30,000 employees from all over the world and results were similar no matter the location.”

The research shows people who are intrinsically motivated do not need external rewards because the activity itself, that is self-driven, is its own .

“These practices have a positive influence on  work , performance and psychological functioning. Employees are less likely to suffer from burnout,” Dr. Slemp said.

“They might seek out new challenges and learning opportunities or take steps to develop relationships with peers. Decades of research document the positive effects of satisfying these three needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness—and autonomy support is an important contributor.”

The study shows an autonomy-supportive leader will: provide opportunities for staff to make their own choices and have input into decisions; encourage self-initiated behaviours within structured guidance and boundaries; and show interest in their perspective and demonstrate empathic concern while avoiding controls that restrain  or sanctions or rewards.

Using Work Sharing to Improve the Economy and Worker Happiness

An important policy idea of reducing average necessary work hours (with at least similar wage levels ideally due to increased value via more productivity growth) that will keep becoming more important as technology continues to advance.

The United States is very much an outlier among wealthy countries in the relatively weak rights that are guaranteed to workers on the job. This is true in a variety of areas. For example, the United States is the only wealthy country in which private sector workers can be dismissed at will, but it shows up most clearly in hours of work.

In other wealthy countries, there has been a consistent downward trend in average annual hours of work over the last four decades. By contrast, in the United States, there has been relatively little change. While people on other wealthy countries can count on paid sick days, paid family leave, and four to six weeks of paid vacation every year, these benefits are only available to better-paid workers in the United States. Even for these workers, the benefits are often less than the average in Western European countries.

[…]

Part of the benefit of work sharing is that it can allow workers and employers to gain experience with a more flexible work week or work year. It is possible that this experience can lead workers to place a higher value on leisure or non-work activities and therefore increase their support for policies that allow for reduced work hours.

Work Hours in 1970: The United States Was Not Always an Outlier

When the experience of European countries is raised in the context of proposals for expanding paid time off in the United States, it is common for opponents to dismiss this evidence by pointing to differences in national character. Europeans may value time off with their families or taking vacations, but we are told that Americans place a higher value on work and income.

While debates on national character probably do not provide a useful basis for policy, it is worth noting that the United States was not always an outlier in annual hours worked. If we go back to the 1970s, the United States was near the OECD average in annual hours worked. By contrast, it ranks near the top in 2016.

In 1970, workers in the United States had put in on average 3 to 5 percent more hours than workers in Denmark and Finland, according to the OECD data, by 2016, this difference had grown to more than 25 percent. Workers in France and the Netherlands now have considerably shorter average work years than workers in the United States. Even workers in Japan now work about 5 percent less on average than workers in the United States.

baker-worksharing-2018-06-fig-1

[…]

It is also important to consider efforts to reduce hours as being a necessary aspect of making the workplace friendlier to women. It continues to be the case that women have a grossly disproportionate share of the responsibility for caring for children and other family members.

[…]

In this respect, it is worth noting that the United States went from ranking near the top in women’s labor force participation in 1980 to being below the OECD average in 2018. While other countries have made workplaces more family friendly, this has been much less true of the United States.

Shortening Work Hours and Full Employment

There has been a largely otherworldly public debate in recent years on the prospects that robots and artificial intelligence would lead to mass unemployment. This debate is otherworldly since it describes a world of rapidly rising productivity growth. In fact, productivity growth has been quite slow ever since 2005. The average annual rate of productivity growth over the last twelve years has been just over 1.0 percent. This compares to a rate of growth of close to 3.0 percent in the long Golden Age from 1947 to 1973 and again from 1995 to 2005.

So this means that we are having this major national debate about the mass displacement of workers due to technology at a time when the data clearly tell us that displacement is moving along very slowly.[2] It is also worth noting that all the official projections from agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget show the slowdown in productivity growth persisting for the indefinite future. This projection of continued slow productivity growth provides the basis for debates on issues like budget deficits and the finances of Social Security.

However, if we did actually begin to see an uptick in the rate of productivity growth, and robots did begin to displace large numbers of workers, then an obvious solution would be to adopt policies aimed at shortening the average duration of the work year. The basic arithmetic is straightforward: if we reduce average work hours by 20 percent, then we will need 25 percent more workers to get the same amount of labor. While in practice the relationship will never be as simple as the straight arithmetic, if we do get a reduction in average work time, then we will need more workers.

As noted above, reductions in work hours was an important way in which workers in Western Europe have taken the gains from productivity growth over the last four decades. This had also been true in previous decades in the United States, as the standard workweek was shortened to forty hours with the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1937. In many industries, it had been over sixty hours at the turn of the twentieth century.

If the United States can resume a path of shortening work hours and get its standard work year back in line with other wealthy countries, it should be able to absorb even very rapid gains in productivity growth without any concerns about mass unemployment. While job-killing robots may exist primarily in the heads of the people who write about the economy, if they do show up in the world, a policy of aggressive reductions in work hours should ensure they don’t lead to widespread unemployment.

Research: Immediate Rewards Increase Motivation More Than End of Task Rewards

People respond to incentives, but it’s of amazing importance how those incentives are structured.

Kaitlin Woolley assistant professor of marketing at Cornell University, found that giving people an immediate bonus for working on a task, rather than waiting until the end of the task, increased their interest and enjoyment in the task. People who got an earlier bonus were more motivated to pursue the activity for its own sake and even continued with the activity after the reward was removed.

In a series of five experiments, Woolley analyzed how reward proximity influenced intrinsic motivation — the positive feeling that comes from the process of an activity — and people’s desire to persist in the task after the reward was removed.

“The idea that immediate rewards could increase intrinsic motivation sounds counterintuitive, as people often think about rewards as undermining interest in a task,” Woolley said. “But for activities like work, where people are already getting paid, immediate rewards can actually increase intrinsic motivation, compared with delayed or no rewards.”

“If you have a hobby — say you like to knit or quilt — the process itself is enjoyable, it’s intrinsically motivated. You’re doing it just for the sake of doing it, rather than for the outcome,” Woolley said. Adding immediate rewards does something similar: It increases the positive experience of the task, with important outcomes for motivation and persistence.

In one study, people completed a task in which they spotted the difference in two images. Some people expected to receive an immediate bonus after they finished the task, whereas others expected to receive the same bonus in a month. An immediate bonus led to an almost 20 percent increase in the percent of people sticking with the task after the reward was removed compared with a delayed reward.

In another study, the researchers compared the timing of a reward with the size of the reward. They found that an immediate (versus delayed) bonus for reading led to a 35 percent increase in the number of people continuing to read after the reward was removed, whereas a larger (versus smaller) reward only led to a 19 percent increase. This suggests the timing of a reward may matter more for intrinsic motivation than the size of the reward, Woolley said.

The work has important implications for motivating employees. For example, a series of smaller, more frequent bonuses throughout the year could motivate employees more than a larger end-of-the year bonus. Similarly, this finding could inform loyalty programs for marketers trying to incentive customers to make more purchases.

Ironically, people balk at providing bonuses too soon, and think early rewards might have a negative consequences. “More evidence suggests immediate rewards are beneficial,” said Woolley. “They’re a useful tool for increasing interest in an activity.”