I am assuming the person who ranted about ‘not recognising qualifications’ (Have a rant, Personnel Today, 23 January) has not long been in the role, yet they are expecting a pay increase because they have achieved a Masters degree.
News flash: It is not an automatic right. Pay rises should be purely based on performance in the role and added value to the business.
Achieving a Masters says that, academically, you have reached a certain level it says nothing about your performance in your job.
If this was so important to the ranter, they should have negotiated and agreed this prior to starting the job. It wouldn’t then have come as such a shock. I assume a Masters degree was not a prerequisite for the position?
If the reader had put a justified argument forward outlining the value they had added to the business through the development of leadership competencies, I wonder if the outcome would have been different.
Nicola Parkinson, HR officer, Vivalis