When I’ve been made a counteroffer I sometimes try to explain that if it had been in my annual raise anyway we wouldn’t even need to have had this conversation. But managers are completely deaf to that message. That they happily pay all the costs of replacing someone, recruitment fees, lost productivity while the new worker gets up to speed, loss of institutional knowledge, etc, shows that management incentives are poorly designed.
The vast majority don't job hop though, it's cheaper to address it one off as you observe, rather run up salary on the majority who're "eating the crumby cheese till it's all gone"[1]. In my personal network I'm astonished at how many stay at one job for years, making far less than they could.
no, managers are not stupid, it's just that their incentives are aligned this way
to get you a raise, (s)he needs to do a lot of convincing to their boss, HR, etc - a lot of trouble, really, so they are not naturally inclined. But having offer in hand helps with the process and creates urgency, so they will do it
otoh, to fill a vacancy is most probably a streamlined process which keeps everyone busy and happy (even if its worse for the company as a whole)
> otoh, to fill a vacancy is most probably a streamlined process which keeps everyone busy and happy (even if its worse for the company as a whole)
I find it hard to believe that the cost of interviewing candidates, onboarding and ramping up a new employee is less work than making the case for a raise with a solid performer.
immediate_cognitive_cost(making a case for a raise) > immediate_cognitive_cost(doing nothing and hoping it sorts itself out and _maybe_ having to replace)
but obv it changes when the departure looks imminent, as I said
Exactly. Managers do what is best for them most of the time, not what is best for the company. (Hey, just like normal employees! We're all people, after all.)
