Salary.sg Forums - Reply to Topic
Salary.sg Forums  

Go Back   Salary.sg Forums > The Salary.sg Discussion Forums: > Income and Jobs > normal degree in stat board vs ministry

Income and Jobs Discuss jobs, career options and of course salaries




Salary.sg Forums

Thread: normal degree in stat board vs ministry Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Human Verification To prove you are a human and not a computer program that spams, please check the box below and answer any further questions if prompted.

Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
26-02-2012 02:40 AM
hanszzz here's another thing.. tot of this since is it said that salary > title as a gauge..

imagine Person A (through a series of well executed job switches) has a salary which is higher than what an average person of his/her age should have.. and on the other hand, Person B stayed in the same company for years and have an average (or lower) salary..

assuming both have similar work capability (actual work and/or wayang work), who has a better chance of being promoted??
- Person B who stayed in the company longer (more experience locally)
- Person A who is a newer recruit but has a higher salary than Person B (nearer to his/her salary cap)

of cuz, this is up to each individual bosses preferences.. but based on your experience, who is more likely to advance?
26-02-2012 02:39 AM
Unregistered should jump from private to govt or govt to private?
26-02-2012 01:56 AM
hanszzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRMAL View Post
Pace I personally feel not much difference. Sure these days we get more things done in a shorter time, but this is largely due to technological innovations rather than because last time people were more relax and now people work harder. I was clocking super long hours in my early years just like any new grad is now.

Some older workers at my age feel now working too stress, but I think it has more to do with their inability to change their working style to leverage on technology rather than the work per se is getting much stresser.

As for rapid career progression now, at the end of the day to me is just a facade, nothing much has changed. The fact remains that no matter what company in what age, there can only be so many directors : managers : executives : labourer ratio.

The ratio hasn't really changed much, but what has changed is that HR nowadays are taking what used to be "executives" and splitting it into 4 or 5 different titles to try and create the illusion that their employees are being recognised for promotion every 2/3 years. Ask yourself in this age, has the job really changed much when you move from Exec to Snr Exec to AM to Manager? Most of the time the changes are very slight and are more of recognition of your "experience" rather than because you are doing something very different.
very insightful views from NoRMAL!! but i guess this "facade" isn't so bad.. people still enjoy a pat on the back once a while.. having no form of recognition could be so depressing..

so bottom line is that titles these days are inflated and best to go with salary figures/scales..

however.. if the whole title allocation is inflated, wouldn't it be the same?? a higher sounding title is still better than a lower sounding one.. its like saying rupiah is super inflated.. but 200 rupiah is still better than 100 rupiah, inflated or not.. but yup, i guess the main issue is that salary is a better gauge than titles..
24-02-2012 07:46 PM
miwashi Haha.. thanks for all the insights. I wouldn't know, because I've never been promoted in my life!
24-02-2012 06:49 PM
NoRMAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by miwashi View Post
This is very interesting, so people just worked for the sake of working.
But back then the pace of work was also not as fast as today, right?
Today people are forced to work harder, and they in turn expect something more.

i wonder if these fancy titles and rapid 'progression' have something to do with HR and all that equity theory stuff and things like that.
Pace I personally feel not much difference. Sure these days we get more things done in a shorter time, but this is largely due to technological innovations rather than because last time people were more relax and now people work harder. I was clocking super long hours in my early years just like any new grad is now.

Some older workers at my age feel now working too stress, but I think it has more to do with their inability to change their working style to leverage on technology rather than the work per se is getting much stresser.

As for rapid career progression now, at the end of the day to me is just a facade, nothing much has changed. The fact remains that no matter what company in what age, there can only be so many directors : managers : executives : labourer ratio.

The ratio hasn't really changed much, but what has changed is that HR nowadays are taking what used to be "executives" and splitting it into 4 or 5 different titles to try and create the illusion that their employees are being recognised for promotion every 2/3 years. Ask yourself in this age, has the job really changed much when you move from Exec to Snr Exec to AM to Manager? Most of the time the changes are very slight and are more of recognition of your "experience" rather than because you are doing something very different.
24-02-2012 04:53 PM
miwashi This is very interesting, so people just worked for the sake of working.
But back then the pace of work was also not as fast as today, right?
Today people are forced to work harder, and they in turn expect something more.

i wonder if these fancy titles and rapid 'progression' have something to do with HR and all that equity theory stuff and things like that.
24-02-2012 04:41 PM
NoRMAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by miwashi View Post
that's a very interesting insight.
Are you an old timer?
I always like to hear from old timers about how different things were back then.
Haha, still got people interested in uncle story in this forum har? I thought everyone just want to talk about banks & big bonus here.

Anyway there are 3 companies which I stayed the longest - 1 MNC in logistics industry, 1 MNC in high tech and 1 GLC the current job. On the topic at hand on jobs, titles and grades I would say the biggest difference is in the past organization structure is much simpler and titles less layers.

Back in those days, believe it or not, people do not join companies expecting to get promoted every few years. Many of my bosses then probably had no more than 2 or 3 promotions in their entire lives till retirement.

Take for eg the logistic MNC, the structure was very simple, anyone who is doing ops / corporate / admin work with no team management is called an officer, technician or administrator regardless of how long you have been there. Those who rise through the ranks and eventually get to lead a team or small department will be called supervisor or leader, even a degree grad (those days degree grads were considered very atas, like your ivy leaguer MBAs now) will take at least 4 years to move up to team lead.

Only people who eventually get promoted to lead a sizable department or in charge of a branch (now we like to call them Business Units) with P&L accountability are called Managers. Managers on one-man show or with a few kakias were virtually unheard of. Nowadays for a similar job they are probably called Directors or SVP or even MD for some banks.

The big boss of the entire Asia operations is quite simply called General Manager, Asian Operations. No other BS like President, CEO, EVP that we have now. As for the title Director, these were really the top dogs from US HQ who directly report to the #1 guy who is called Chief Executive. Like Finance Director means the biggest guy in Finance for the whole world like the CFO now and Operations Director is COO now. Some departments have 2 or 3 top henchman called Deputy Directors supporting the Director.

In those days not getting promoted for a decade was really no big deal and people generally did not demand for promotions after every annual review. If you can be a Manager before 40 in a big MNC, it’s something to be really proud of. Managers those days came with power and responsibilities to both the company and their subordinates, they really have things to manage besides themselves.

Now I see everyone in my co. including me seem to be getting promotion all the time. My current co. even for white collar has so many levels, Executive, Senior Executive, Assistant Manager, Senior Assistant Manager, Manager, Senior Manager, Assistant Director, Deputy Director, Director, Senior Director, Divisional Director, VP, SVP, CEO. Hell there are enough grades for even a mediocre fresh grad to promote every 2-3 years if he stays long enough. But most of the time there is not much change in job scope before & after promotion.
24-02-2012 02:44 PM
miwashi that's a very interesting insight.
Are you an old timer?
I always like to hear from old timers about how different things were back then.
24-02-2012 02:31 PM
NoRMAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
There are is no such thing as a benchmark standard in terms of job titles to begin with. There never was, so there is no equality to speak of.
Before the 90s, there was a broad consensus on roughly what constitutes a manager or a director in a big company. While it isn’t very precise with clear guidelines and rules, the interpretation was much narrower in range than it is now.

Nowadays we have a lot of companies offering “managers” at $3k and even lower. If you discount that number 20 years back by wage inflation would be ~$1.3k in 1992 dollars. Try telling anyone that you are a manager in 1992 drawing $1.3k and you would be the joker of the year.

This title inflation all started in the early 90s when then US finance companies started to dish out AVP/VP/SVP at random. The rest of the non-finance companies in US and soon the world started following suit with managers, directors, vice presidents flying everywhere. Gradually even conservative Asian conglomerates (like Japan & Korean) were forced to inflate them in order to compete for younger talent by offering them these “career progressions”.
24-02-2012 02:15 PM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by miwashi View Post
unfortunately the whole practice of exaggeration of titles has played havoc across the country's hiring.

We have real managers supervising 10 staff and generating annual profit of tens of millions of dollars, who when thinking of having change of environment, come into 'manager' positions where fellow "manager's" can't even write meeting minutes. I've seen it before.

The position descriptors are no longer equal, and recruitment ads don't list the job grade associated with the position.
There are is no such thing as a benchmark standard in terms of job titles to begin with. There never was, so there is no equality to speak of.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +8. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2