[leopard print]

I understand why this is put in job descriptions, but I hate how some companies use this as a catch all to dump a ton of work on employees without rewarding them.

I was brought on in a director level role with my current company. Been with them for 6 months now and started seeing red flags in the first week. We have pay ranges for each job title and all my staff are paid at the low end, not even one at the mid-range. 2 of my reports are high level performers. Because of this, they've been given more high level duties outside of their job description over the years (before I got there), but haven't seen any increases outside of the annual COLA increase. Now that it's review season, I come up with a proposal for the 2 employees outlining their actual duties vs. their original job description and take it to my CFO and HR to ask for raises or bonuses for both of them. A 2 hour back and forth conversation basically resulted in them saying "other duties as assigned" is in their job description and if they stayed for X amount of years they have the opportunity to eventually grow to the mid or high level range of their salary bracket from the annual COLA increases. They also said they don't really do performance based raises because it can be unfair to other employees. Total bullshit IMO.

The conversation blew my mind. They have terribly low employee morale and ridiculously high turnover for certain positions. However, certain high level management wonder why.

Just had to rant.

[________]

Good conversation.

One might ask why they haven’t left if they’re underpaid as implied.

I’m with you: take money off the worries table, have employees focus on work. Pay well so it’s not an issue.

However, without knowing you or the situation, one can only imagine if they are indeed underpaid and/or you’re not making a case for a raise just based on the pay charts…

If “other duties as assigned” don’t comprise most of the time they work, and are not a part of another role, the raise isn’t justified just on the premise of how “low on the scale” they are. That’s a promotion conversation.

[RickFLM4]

What type of business / jobs?

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by Onesie

Good conversation.

One might ask why they haven’t left if they’re underpaid as implied.

I’m with you: take money off the worries table, have employees focus on work. Pay well so it’s not an issue.

However, without knowing you or the situation, one can only imagine if they are indeed underpaid and/or you’re not making a case for a raise just based on the pay charts…

If “other duties as assigned” don’t comprise most of the time they work, and are not a part of another role, the raise isn’t justified just on the premise of how “low on the scale” they are. That’s a promotion conversation.

Appreciate the objective response.

It's not a request solely on the pay charts. It's a comparison of what they were told they would be doing vs. what they are actually doing. They're doing more in both cases.

I know one of them hasn't left because they were promised a review/raise/promotion over the years by my predecessor. They last review done was in 2019. I wouldn't be surprised if they left now. It would suck because of the work they produce compared to their counterparts, but I would support them if they did.

Apologies, left out a few details. For the one mentioned above, I did recommend a promotion. The other was just a raise to get them comparable with other employees with similar titles/duties.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

What type of business / jobs?

One is a data processor. The other is an accountant.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by leopard print

One is a data processor. The other is an accountant.

The reason I asked is I am a CPA (corp accounting consultant, not audit or tax) and sometimes see the same at clients. Accountants and other back office functions are often seen and treated as easily replaceable by the C-Suite and, in fairness, many are. There is generally less interest in recognizing performance and taking steps to retain these positions than others, and top performers are frequently not valued. Not everywhere, but a lot of places.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by leopard print

I understand why this is put in job descriptions, but I hate how some companies use this as a catch all to dump a ton of work on employees without rewarding them.

I was brought on in a director level role with my current company. Been with them for 6 months now and started seeing red flags in the first week. We have pay ranges for each job title and all my staff are paid at the low end, not even one at the mid-range. 2 of my reports are high level performers. Because of this, they've been given more high level duties outside of their job description over the years (before I got there), but haven't seen any increases outside of the annual COLA increase. Now that it's review season, I come up with a proposal for the 2 employees outlining their actual duties vs. their original job description and take it to my CFO and HR to ask for raises or bonuses for both of them. A 2 hour back and forth conversation basically resulted in them saying "other duties as assigned" is in their job description and if they stayed for X amount of years they have the opportunity to eventually grow to the mid or high level range of their salary bracket from the annual COLA increases. They also said they don't really do performance based raises because it can be unfair to other employees. Total bullshit IMO.

The conversation blew my mind. They have terribly low employee morale and ridiculously high turnover for certain positions. However, certain high level management wonder why.

Just had to rant.

That was part of our job description. If you try to imagine how do you write job description for policing?

Protect life, protect property, bring offenders before the crown, execute warrants and other duties as assigned.

[Mason Hatcher]

Originally Posted by leopard print

I understand why this is put in job descriptions, but I hate how some companies use this as a catch all to dump a ton of work on employees without rewarding them.

They don't get paid?

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

That was part of our job description. If you try to imagine how do you write job description for policing?

Protect life, protect property, bring offenders before the crown, execute warrants and other duties as assigned.

I agree a job description can never be all encompassing. However, let’s say someone who is strictly a data processor is assigned a duty of policing and enforcement of receivables, that doesn’t really fall into the category of other duties as assigned imo.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by Mason Hatcher

They don't get paid?

Meant to say extra work outside of their outlined duties. They get paid to do the functions on their job description. If they perform duties outside of that, I think it should be acknowledged somehow.

This is an extreme example, but if someone is hired as an staff accountant and they’re asked to do or assist with systems implementation, then I think there’s a disconnect there.

[ryan stewart]

Its definitely becoming a problem. Had my own back and forth with a manager about her team where she considered giving them the extra work as "an opportunity to prove they could be promoted." Given that companies will cut staff for a quarter point of valuation I dont think that thinking is flying anymore. Too often that "opportunity" just becomes the new norm.

They might still be well compensated for the position comparatively, they might just be comfy, they might be quietly on the market.

I think either way losing sight of compensation is getting really costly right now, as opportunities abound. We have lost people to that line of thinking lately.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by ryan stewart

Its definitely becoming a problem. Had my own back and forth with a manager about her team where she considered giving them the extra work as "an opportunity to prove they could be promoted." Given that companies will cut staff for a quarter point of valuation I dont think that thinking is flying anymore. Too often that "opportunity" just becomes the new norm.

They might still be well compensated for the position comparatively, they might just be comfy, they might be quietly on the market.

I think either way losing sight of compensation is getting really costly right now, as opportunities abound. We have lost people to that line of thinking lately.

I’m with you. I don’t know your specific situation, but I’m all for giving someone a task as an opportunity to prove they’re promotable. If they prove it, then take action on what that task was assigned for. Not use it as an excuse to tack on more duties just because they’re capable of it. You’ll lose great employees that way. Seen it happen way too often.

[2000cs]

Most job descriptions I’ve seen have that language in them. When writing goals at the start of the year for my reports, I usually put in something to allow me to recognize extra performance (especially if it would cause another goal to be missed). Something like “special projects” or “emergent work”. Then at review time I had a basis for a good review and extra bump recognizing that expanded performance.

If the issue is minor stuff, I would expect that as part of the basic employment deal. But if a big project got assigned (an acquisition for example) which takes significant time and effort, perhaps new skills or broadening, it definitely should be recognized and rewarded. Often the reward is one-time bonus, instead of a permanent salary bump. Of course good performance and attitude will also move someone into position for the next promotion opportunity as well.

[ToddBlack88]

I had the experience a few years back with this “term” in the job scope. I have found it more and more being used to change the actual role that people are doing. It my specific incident, the job I was recruited for was XXXXX, with a bunch of descriptions related to that, and a small portion of “other duties as assigned” to round out the roll. The job turned into 90% “other duties assigned” and 10% the actual job I was recruited for. The other duties were the crap the director didn’t want to deal with, which I was good at, but it’s not what I was recruited for.

I quit after a few months, and they acted surprised.

[///MPhatic]

This is more common than the non-use of turn signals by BMW owners, except it's not funny.

[3.0L]

During my 20 years at the local university, my job description was massaged on an annual basis. I always had 5 or 6 work items in the description, each assigned a percentage - 40% this; 20% that and so on, all adding to 100% on the bottom line. Every year included at least 10% for "whatever."

Well let me tell you, the "whatever" was broad and far-reaching and I'm sure much more than 10%. With every passing year, I found I was allotted less and less time to do what I was hired to do and more on an amazing amount of extraneous stuff.

I'm so f-ing glad I'm retired.

[JP10]

Understand the point but depends on the company. I work for a small business, wear plenty of hats outside of my job description. Rewarded year after year though so different circumstances. With that said my salary stays the same year after year, bonuses and the other things make up for that. I feel it's a matter of patience and diligence. Some times perseverance is the best path forward.