Pay rise conversations: how to handle them as an employee and as a manager

A pay rise is a decision about the value of work, not a debating contest

Two people who are similarly effective may talk about their achievements differently. The more vocal one shouldn’t automatically earn more. A pay conversation covers at least four things: results, the scope of duties and responsibilities, comparable pay and the organisation’s financial means. A new job title without a change in duties doesn’t always justify a new salary; broader responsibility without a new title may do so. That’s why it helps to separate the assessment of the arguments from the budget decision. Research on organisational justice, including a meta-analysis by Colquitt and colleagues, shows that the outcome, the procedure and the quality of the explanation each matter in their own right. An employee may not get the amount they hoped for and yet understand which rules were applied. They may also get the money and still see the system as arbitrary. The aim of the conversation is not just to negotiate a single rate but to arrive at a justification that will stand up to scrutiny.

How an employee prepares arguments instead of an ultimatum

Start with three specific examples: what you did, with what effect and what your personal contribution was. “I improved reporting” sounds weaker than “I cut the month-end close from four days to two, and the new process has been running for six months.” Check whether you have taken on responsibility that wasn’t previously part of the role, and what the comparable pay ranges are in the market and in the company, if you have legitimate access to them. Then state your expectation: “I’d like to discuss an increase in my salary to PLN 9,000–10,000 gross a month. I’m basing this on my new responsibilities and my results over the past two quarters.” The amount is an example, not a market recommendation. Don’t base your case solely on the cost of living, what other people earn or a threat to leave, unless you really are discussing an alternative offer. Ask who makes the decision and on what criteria. That way you avoid a conversation in which both sides spend half an hour discussing something neither of them can approve.

How a manager prepares for a question about money

Before the employee sits down opposite you, check the scope of their duties, their recent performance reviews and the rules for pay reviews. See whether their pay is consistent with comparable roles. Don’t assume the employee knows the whole budget, but don’t use “the budget” as an automatic excuse either. Be clear about what authority you have: can you approve a rise, recommend one or only pass the request on? Say so at the start. If data comes to light showing a significant pay gap, check it with HR before delivering a verdict. Polish law provides for the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. That doesn’t mean an identical rate for everyone in a similarly named position; what counts are real, objective criteria. So a good conversation doesn’t release the employer from the duty to put its pay rules in order. The manager’s job is to apply those rules fairly, not to win a rhetorical battle.

How to talk about the amount without making empty promises

The employee might begin: “I’d like to discuss a change to my salary. I’ve prepared my results and a proposed figure. Could we go through the criteria?” The manager might reply: “I’ve seen your results. I’ll also check the internal comparisons and the budget. I can give you a decision by the end of next week.” When pay genuinely depends on several people, avoid saying “I’ll sort it out for you”, because the employee will hear a promise. “We’ll see” can be just as damaging if nobody has a task and deadline written down. In research by Shaw, Wild and Colquitt, the adequacy of explanations was associated with perceptions of fairness, especially when the outcome was unfavourable. That doesn’t give anyone the right to justify every refusal with words alone. If a decision is hard to understand, the manager should check its basis, not just look for a smoother way of putting it. A specific date and clear conditions for reconsidering the matter allow the conversation to end honestly.

Turning down a pay rise mustn’t mean “don’t bother me”

There are three different kinds of refusal. First: pay already matches the role and the results according to documented criteria. Second: an increase is justified, but the funds aren’t currently available. Third: more data or the approval of a decision-maker is needed. Each calls for a different conversation. “There’s no budget” shouldn’t replace information about when the next decision will be made. If you don’t know something, say so without feigning certainty. You can also offer broader responsibility, a change in the scope of the job or a fresh review on an agreed date, but don’t present opportunities that aren’t guaranteed as compensation. After the conversation, write down what the request was about, what decision was made and what will happen next. The employee should know whether they need to provide new data or simply wait for the outcome of a specific process. This kind of transparency won’t replace a fair pay policy, but it does limit the disappointment that comes from things left unsaid.

Close the conversation so that both sides know the next step

At the end, both sides should be able to answer five questions: what change is being requested, what criteria the assessment is based on, who decides, when we will return to the conversation and what could change the outcome. The employee might sum up: “So you’ll submit your recommendation on Friday, and I’ll get a decision by the end of the month. If it isn’t approved, we’ll talk about the criteria for the next review.” The manager should correct any detail that sounds like a promise that hasn’t been made. If the company has formal procedures, they should be followed in parallel, not replaced by a verbal agreement. In an organisation with many departments, it’s worth checking whether managers use the same criteria and aren’t rewarding only the employees most willing to negotiate. A well-closed conversation doesn’t guarantee satisfaction, but it does let you judge whether the rules are applied consistently and are understood.

A good pay rise conversation requires two things: presenting the value of the work and applying pay criteria fairly. The employee should come with facts and an expectation, the manager with knowledge of the role, the budget and their own authority. Whatever the outcome, both sides should leave with a specific decision or a date by which it will be made.

How Empatyzer supports a pay rise conversation on both sides

An employee can ask Em to help prepare the conversation based on their achievements, the change in their responsibilities and the amount they expect. Em will help separate strong arguments from those that may only raise the tension, and rehearse a response to “we don’t have the budget”. A manager can describe the other side of the situation: they recognise the results but don’t have the authority to approve a rise on their own. Em will help prepare a conversation without false promises, with an honest explanation of the process and a specific date. If the organisation uses Empatyzer diagnoses, the way the decision is communicated can be better matched to the other person’s needs – for example, their preferences regarding detail and directness. This doesn’t change the pay criteria, which must be sound and objective. After the meeting, it’s worth going back to Em to review whether the agreements were properly understood and to rehearse the next stage: communicating the decision or delivering a constructive refusal.