But why has the workplace evolved into an environment where employees must validate their contributions, as if their daily efforts aren’t already evident? It’s peculiar that individuals invest in training programs designed to teach them how to “sell” themselves—crafting persuasive arguments and hoping for the best. The skill of requesting a raise is taught with the same fervor as mastering Excel or project management. Yet, shouldn’t compensation adjustments be an internal, automatic response to an employee’s contributions, rather than a game of chance?

This approach highlights a deep-seated systemic issue: the responsibility for fair compensation has shifted from the organization to the individual employee. Employees must prove they are “worth more,” even though managers should already be aware of who is consistently contributing to the organization’s success. The paradox lies in the fact that those creating value must exert additional effort to gain recognition.

By training employees to request raises, we implicitly acknowledge that the system is flawed. Instead of questioning why managers fail to recognize contributions, we teach employees survival tactics in an unjust system. This isn’t progress—it’s merely coping with a system that needs fundamental change.

Power vs. Responsibility: The Manager as the “Gatekeeper of Funds”

Despite numerous training programs, the typical managerial role remains one of authority—the individual who decides, controls, and distributes rewards when someone has sufficiently proven themselves. This model inherently creates a hierarchical imbalance: the manager acts as a gatekeeper to financial rewards, and the employee must know the right time and manner to knock. But let’s delve deeper—why do we believe that the manager should be the sole arbiter of an employee’s value?

Modern leadership should, and frankly must, transition from an authoritarian oversight model to one of responsible partnership. A manager shouldn’t merely be a “financial concierge” who decides whether someone deserves additional compensation. A raise isn’t a reward or bonus; it’s a logical outcome of one’s contributions. If a manager is unaware of who in their team is making significant contributions, the issue lies in management, not the employee.

Power without responsibility is a recipe for burnout—for both managers and employees. When a manager has the authority to influence someone’s salary but lacks daily insight into that person’s efforts and dedication, decisions become subjective and potentially unjust. This leads to frustration, decreased motivation, and eventual turnover—not because the work is unsatisfactory, but because the manager failed to recognize and value contributions.

A responsible manager doesn’t wait for an employee to request a raise—they observe, listen, and take initiative. They are aware when someone has gone above and beyond, exceeded expectations, or delivered significant value. Such a manager doesn’t dispense salary increases as charity but compensates fairly, based on informed leadership. This requires effort, empathy, and a desire to be more than just a taskmaster.

Organizations where managers wield power without responsibility quickly become toxic. When authority isn’t coupled with the obligation to be informed, caring, and supportive, managers become mere supervisors. But what we need are leaders, not just bosses.

A Shift in Mindset: Managers Who Know Their Team

Imagine an organization where a manager doesn’t know their employees by name. They might see names in spreadsheets or performance reports, but if asked about each person’s strengths, motivations, or concerns, they draw a blank. In such a system, management becomes a technical process, not people management. Yet, teams aren’t composed of data—they’re made up of individuals.

A shift in mindset begins when a manager realizes that their role isn’t solely to plan and demand results but to genuinely engage with their team. This involves listening, observing, and providing feedback—not just during annual reviews, but consistently. When a manager knows their team, they don’t need a formal request to recognize who deserves compensation, acknowledgment, or development opportunities. They simply know.

Empathetic leadership doesn’t mean becoming lenient or allowing standards to slip. On the contrary—it entails awareness followed by deliberate action. When a manager notices an employee’s efforts, initiative, or commitment even during challenging times, they respond accordingly. Raises aren’t granted because someone asked, but because the manager proactively assessed and addressed the situation.

This approach fosters trust—employees don’t feel the need to constantly “sell” themselves or compete with colleagues; they know their contributions are recognized. And trust is a more potent motivator than any bonus. When a manager becomes an advocate rather than a judge, the entire team culture transforms. Employees no longer feel like “beggars” pleading for recognition but as valued partners whose contributions are appreciated.

Forward-thinking managers understand: employees remain with an organization not just for the salary but for the feeling of being acknowledged. And that feeling arises when managers lead not just for outcomes but for people.

A Raise Isn’t Charity; It’s Recognition

When an employee finally musters the courage to ask for a raise, they’re often met with a response reminiscent of a medieval judge: raised eyebrows, a few questions about performance, and perhaps a “we need to review the budget” reply. In some cases, additional compensation is granted, but the prevailing sentiment remains—that something was begged for, not rightfully earned. And that’s problematic.

Salary isn’t a reward bestowed upon the “worthy” by a manager; it’s the organization’s tangible feedback on an employee’s value. If that value is evident, compensation should reflect it. Employees shouldn’t feel they must continually prove themselves just to be noticed. A raise isn’t a gift—it’s a sign that the organization recognizes and values their contributions.

When compensation becomes arbitrary, emotionally driven, or more dependent on one’s ability to request it than on actual contributions, the sense of fairness erodes. Employees begin to feel their value is neither clear nor consistent, but contingent on how well they can pitch the idea of “why me.” This leads to frustration, insecurity, and eventually, departure—often to competitors who offer fairer compensation.

However, when a leadership culture is built on transparency and objectivity, compensation becomes a form of recognition, not a prize to be won. Employees understand the criteria by which they’re evaluated, and managers can justify their decisions. Raises aren’t surprises or acts of mercy but logical and dignified continuations of work and value.

Organizations that establish such systems don’t need to worry about employee motivation or loyalty. When individuals feel their contributions matter—not just in words but in actions—there’s no need for desperate pleas. Recognition naturally follows.

Manager, Your Salary Depends on Those You’re Overlooking

A manager might sit at the head of the conference table, analyzing strategies and planning growth, but if they’re unaware of what’s happening within the team, the entire strategy is built on shaky ground. Every result a manager boasts about—that report, that sales chart, that stellar quarter—is the product of someone else’s work. And often, it’s the work of someone whose contributions the manager has never truly acknowledged.

The reality is, no manager achieves results alone. Their salary, bonuses, and promotions are directly tied to how well their team performs. And a team performs well when its members are motivated, valued, and see purpose in their contributions. This doesn’t happen by chance. It results from effective leadership—not control, but genuine care.

If a manager doesn’t listen to their employees, fails to recognize their efforts, or shows no interest in their development, they’re setting themselves up for failure. Not immediately—but over time, motivation and initiative wane. Work becomes mechanical, creativity diminishes, relationships strain. And when results decline, the blame game begins. “Employees aren’t committed enough,” they say. But perhaps the manager wasn’t committed enough to their employees.

The essence of leadership isn’t just directing but taking responsibility—not only for achieving goals but for the people who achieve them. It’s about power coupled with responsibility—if you want to make decisions, you must also care. A manager’s role isn’t merely to oversee processes but to support those who execute them. A manager’s salary is a reward for a thriving team.