原创 你考虑过吗？薪水增长30%的不二法门

本文获得Lou Adler先生同意，翻译自其Linkedin文章“Convert a Job into a Career and Get a 30% Raise”

"老蒋，您这是抓了细枝末节的‘小’，放了伟岸前程的‘大’啊。”
"John, you’re making a strategic decision using tactical information."

30年前，我的候选人在比较两个offer的时候，抓“小”放“大”，我第一次这么对候选人说。那两个offer职责相当，候选人青睐并非来自我客户的那个offer。这offer相较而言位高、钱多、离家近。可以想见，如果他接了那个offer而放弃我的，我就竹篮打水一场空了。但我客户的职位比另一个有一个得天独厚的优势：我客户所处一个风起云涌的上升行业，仍有生产上的技术空白有待填补；而候选人要接的公司是在夕阳行业，勒紧裤带搞节省才是重点。
I first presented this advice to a candidate about 30 years ago who was overvaluing the short-term aspects of an offer when comparing two new jobs. Both were comparable in terms of responsibility, but one was closer to home, paid a bit more, and had a better title. The candidate was planning on accepting this one, which was unfortunate for me, since it wasn’t my search assignment. As a result, I’d lose a fee if he accepted that job and rejected mine. My client’s opening had one clear advantage over the other that the candidate was ignoring: it was in a up-and-coming industry with some exciting technical manufacturing challenges to overcome. The one he was planning on accepting was in a slow growth industry with an emphasis on extracting cost savings.

当然，战略与战术的平衡话题毫不新颖，不过大多数人高估了短期价值，同时自欺欺人、不以为意地对长期价值视而不见，这也是不争的事实。我第一次意识到这点，是在某次财务课上，教授谆谆教导：勿用短期贷款支付长期项目。一年后，我在一次董事会上作为点ppt的龙套小弟，又听到了一样的话。当时那位CEO愤怒地的抡起手，指向一个部门的领导，骂道：“你的短期伎俩正在瓦解你的长期策略，这是彻头彻尾的本末倒置！你要用你的战略来驾驭你的战术。”
Of course, making strategic vs. tactical tradeoffs isn’t new, but most people tend to overvalue the short-term benefits, rationalizing, ignoring or minimizing the long-term impact. The first time I remember learning about this was in some finance course where the prof gave the admonition about not borrowing short for long-term business needs. I heard it again a year later at a board meeting where I was a rookie analyst flipping the slides. The CEO angrily pointed his finger at a division president and said, “Your short-term tactics are determining your long-term strategy. You have it backwards. Your strategy needs to drive your tactics.”

其他的案例不胜枚举，这种战略和战术的平衡游戏悄无声息地影响着各种形式的决策。通用汽车的“开关门”，又是一个典型的因短期成本压力作出的糟糕设计，而饱尝长期恶果的坏榜样。再想想伊拉克吧。2009年，许多人都在讨论某些形式的武力滞留，但最终全军撤退，现在我们能看到这个坏主意的代价了。快船队老板斯特林（William注：被公布带有种族歧视的录音，NBA催促强制其出售球队）和NBA的对抗又结局如何？对这捡芝麻丢西瓜的“战术”，咱们拭目以待吧！一言以蔽之，短期视野总是以某种消极的方式影响长期战略利益。
It doesn’t take much effort to see other examples of how getting this strategy vs. tactics balancing act negatively impacts all types of decision-making. The design problem with the GM switch is a pretty obvious one where short term cost pressures overrode the long-term consequences of a bad design. Think about Iraq. In 2009, many argued for some type of residual force, but pulling out completely won the day. We’re now starting to see the cost of this bad decision. What about Sterling vs. the NBA? We’ll soon see how this war of tactics plays out. Short-term politics and short-term thinking always impacts the long-term in some negative way.

当然，我们也不能说就没有坏的长期战略，我们谁也逃脱不了被坏战略左右的可能。职场上，最常见的就是宁愿选择能够给你短期芝麻，而不顾长期“大西瓜”的offer。
Of course, bad strategy can’t be ruled out either, and none of us are immune from this. For jobs, too often the choice is the one that offers the most immediate relief from some short-term pain, not the one that provides the best long-term opportunity.

上周，我曾建议换工作时参考“30%增长法则”，即新工作必须比现有工作有30%的增长。但是！薪水，只应该是这30%的一小部分。其余的大部分，应该来自于这个工作的空间和成长。职位空间，是指新工作相比现有的，在职位的职责、管理幅度、职位影响力的拓展。回到开头，老蒋打算拒绝的那份工作的职位空间比他打算接受的那份，大很多，比他那时所在公司的那份，更是不可同日而语。
In a post last week, I suggested using “The 30% Solution” when switching or comparing job opportunities. The idea is that for a new job to represent a true career opportunity it must provide at least a 30% increase over the one now held. However, only a small part of the 30% increase should be compensation. Most of the increase should be in the form of job stretch and job growth. Job stretch is the difference in the scope, size and impact of the new job in comparison to the others the person is considering or the one now held. On this basis, the job John was rejecting had much more stretch than the one he was accepting, and far better than the one he was holding at the time.

职位成长，意指所在行业、公司的发展速度，及该职位能够提供长期上升机会的可能性。老蒋的两个offer高下立断。他打算接的那个所处夕阳行业，我引荐的那家资深制造型的机会，则身处行业翘楚，行业也是星星之火，即将燎原。

Job growth relates to how fast the company and industry are growing and the likelihood the job will offer more long-term upside opportunity as a result. There was no comparison between the two new opportunities on this basis. The one John was thinking of accepting was in a declining industry, and the company I was representing was for a senior manufacturing opportunity with a leading provider for a new, faster growing technology.

“职位空间和职位成长在短期的蓄势，能保证薪水在长期的更快勃发。”
“… compensation will increase faster in the long-term when stretch and growth are maximized in the short-term.”

这就是我给老蒋和之后所有候选人的忠告，跨上30%增长门槛的法门是比较职位空间、职位成长，以及薪水。尤其注意，职位空间和职位成长比薪水因素更举足轻重，因为职位空间和职位成长在短期的蓄势，能保证薪水在长期的更快勃发。

My advice to John then, and to all candidates since, is to combine job stretch, job growth and compensation to reach the 30% threshold figure. More important, I suggest emphasizing the stretch and growth factors over compensation. The reason is that compensation will increase faster in the long-term when stretch and growth are maximized in the short term.

我和老蒋把这些道理细细掰开，他便一目了然：他要接的那个，比当下工作，有20%的整体薪水的增长，还有一个好了一点的抬头（title），离家更近、更多的个人时间，和大了那么一点点儿的职责。我所引荐的那份，虽然薪水增长只有5%，但整体增长远超30%。他能得到的还有，大很多的职责（虽然不是从抬头上看得出来），和管理层的直接接触，解决难得多的制造瓶颈。一旦做成，中期的上升机会会让人垂涎欲滴。我让老蒋仔细想想个中滋味。
I went through these ideas with John, and it was instantly obvious to him that the offer he was planning on accepting offered a roughly 20% overall increase in comparison to the job he was leaving, but most of this was in the form of a 12% increase in compensation. The rest was a better title, better work/life balance since he was closer to home, and a slightly bigger job. The job I was representing offered far more than a 30% increase, however, in this case compensation was only 5% of the total. The rest was in a far bigger job, although it had a less imposing title; instant visibility to the executive team; handling a far bigger manufacturing challenge; and if successful, significant more near-term upside opportunity. I told John to think about these differences.

第二天，老蒋打我电话，打算接我引荐的那个offer。好消息是，一年后，他兴奋地告诉我他刚刚被提升为一个大的制造集团的运营副总。说回来，这就是一个20%薪水成长和一个更大机会的比较的故事。他毫不吝啬对我的赞扬，感谢我早先给他的建议。
He called me the next day and accepted my client’s offer. More important, he excitedly called me a year later to say he was just promoted to a VP Operations role over a bigger manufacturing group. On top of this was a 20% increase in compensation and a bigger bonus opportunity. He thanked me profusely for the earlier advice.

这是放之四海而皆准的不二法门：不要拿眼前的无足轻重的数字去做长期战略，更不要让长期战略被短期战术所左右，不要用短期贷款去做长期投资。唯有这样，随着职位空间和职位成长的获得，长期的薪水才能快速增长。
Moral for everyone: don’t make long-term decisions using short-term data, don’t let tactics determine your strategy, don’t borrow short for long-term investments, and compensation will increase faster in the long-term when stretch and growth are maximized in the short-term.