our ex-CEO’s son can’t do his job and is overpaid

by Alison Green on November 13, 2024

A reader writes:

I took over a new job about eight months ago, and knowingly inherited an abundance of issues, ranging from minor (previous CEO of 20 years did not believe in pest control so there were mouse remnants everywhere) to complex (ex-CEO had hired their unqualified child, Jasper, into a role that has large organizational impact).

As the old CEO’s replacement, I’ve been untangling the nepo baby situation over the past six months, and it is nothing but a mess. Jasper was directly supervised by the ex-CEO and was never held to any kind of workplace expectations. No one had a job description, including Jasper, and there was no enforced personnel handbook. I’ve addressed both of those and, to his credit, Jasper has been taking feedback about his work to heart, if not executing it as well as I’d expect. From what I hear from other staff, Jasper shows more personality and initiative than ever before (but still a LOT less than I would expect from that role). All that’s to say, I now have the documentation in place to work through his performance in a specific, unbiased way that may or may not lead to a future for him with the organization.

The bigger issue is that he is being paid disproportionately for his job. His rate of pay would imply that he has supervisory responsibilities and an advanced degree, neither of which are true. He is being paid more than other, more qualified and effective employees both in similar roles and even those who would be above him in the chain of command. I’ve just completed a comprehensive wage review to ensure we are competitive and equitable within our industry, and it all balances out … except for Jasper. He is being paid 10-15% over what is appropriate for his role, where other employees are being paid as much as 20% under their market value.

What should I do? I hate the idea of docking anyone’s pay, but at the same time, I can’t afford to up everyone else’s pay to keep it in line with Jasper’s. Do I keep paying him more than he’s worth? It’s not exactly his fault that the ex-CEO/parent put him in this situation, but yet we are there.

P.S. To complicate matters further from an emotional standpoint if not a technical one, Jasper also still lives at home with the ex-CEO and receives a ride to and from work from one of his parents. So it’s not like there’s a ton of breathing room for this situation.

Parents are doing their kids no favors with this kind of special treatment, as this situation illustrates. Now Jasper has a job he can’t do, a professional network that probably doesn’t think highly of him, and extra scrutiny because he’s being overpaid.

I’m always curious about what parents who set up these situations think will happen to their kid when they’re no longer there to champion/protect them! In a lot of cases, the parent’s network ends up taking over and finding them their next gig, and obviously there are tons of other ways society advances people based connections rather than merit … and as a result a lot of Jaspers go through life without even realizing that’s what happening … but isn’t it a parenting failure (if not a character failure) to want that for your kid?

Anyway.

It sounds like you need to have a really straightforward conversation with Jasper where you lay out the facts: he’s not currently performing at the level you need, he would need to be doing XYZ to meet the job requirements, and currently his pay is out of sync not only with his performance but with the job itself.

Leaving the pay aside for a minute: realistically, do you think Jasper will be able to perform at the level you need within a reasonable amount of time (months, not years)? If not, the kindest thing, and the best for the organization, is to be frank with him about that. Explain the gap in what’s needed with his current performance, and tell him you can’t keep him the role. You could consider setting an end date that’s a bit in the future (maybe the end of the year) to give him some time to job-search … but if you wouldn’t do that for anyone else you were letting go, it might not be the right move here. (I tend to think that’s always a decent thing to do when you have to let someone go through no fault of their own — someone who’s trying hard but just isn’t well matched with the job — and it can make things feel more amicable, but if the organization has never done that for anyone else, you don’t want it to become yet one more way Jasper is getting special treatment. That said, political considerations might mean it’s the best course of action regardless.)

But if you do think he can reach the level of work you need from his role and it’s really just the pay that’s at issue … level with him about that. Give him some notice because it’s not fair to cut someone’s pay without warning, but it’s fair to say, “We’re both in a tough situation. You were hired into a role and at a rate of pay that normally would require supervisory responsibilities and an advanced degree. I’ve completed a wage review for all positions to ensure we’re equitable internally and within the industry, and your salary is the one salary that’s out of sync with that structure. You’re being paid 10-15% over the market rate for the role, while we have other employees paid as much as 20% under their market value, including people above you in the chain of command. The best your role can fairly pay is $X, and so I need to give you notice that we need to change the salary for the position to $X effective on (date). I understand you might not want to remain in the job in light of that, and if that’s the case, we can work on a transition plan. For now, though, I want to give you notice of the change and some time to think about it.”

Will that be messy? Yes! But the situation is already messy, and addressing it head-on and candidly is your best shot at cleaning it up.

However, don’t go through all of that if you don’t think you’ll ever be satisfied with Jasper’s performance. It’s not fair to slow-roll that news over months, with first a salary cut and then a continuing stream of negative feedback. If he’s just not the right person for the position, no matter what’s he’s being paid, cut to the chase and move him out of the job.

Alternately, you could skip all that and lay him off with severance, explaining that you simply need a different skill set for the position (which is true). That might be cleanest all around.

You may also like:
{ 232 comments }

{ 232 comments… read them below }

      1. Family business*

        Thanks for the quick reply. I completely agree with your advice. I think its quite normal for nepo employees to be managed out of the business when their sponsor leaves and the OP should begin the process to do that.

        1. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

          Yes, they were willfully ignorant of the hiring, and definitely unaware of the salary discrepancies in Jasper’s favor. They’re supportive of the actions I’m taking, but given their looking the other way for a LONG time, they’re not the ones pushing for change.

          1. goddessoftransitory*

            Ooof. Jasper is hemmed in on all sides by people who apparently think he’s incompetent. No wonder he’s never flourished.

            1. goddessoftransitory*

              ETA: I don’t mean you, LW! But his father and the board seemed to collude into pressing this guy into a “you can’t succeed on your own” mold his entire adult life.

  2. MsSolo (UK)*

    The other option, assuming your organisation does CoL raises (as well as or instead of performance based, and separately from what you might do to bring those who are under paid up to market rate), is to tell him his wage will be frozen until 202X, at which point you anticipate the rest of the organisation to have caught up.

    1. renata ricotta*

      But that would mean continued organizational pay inequity will continue, potentially for years. That could create legal liability for the company. If the other people performing the same level of job that Jasper is for substantially less pay are different than Jasper in terms of gender/sexual orientation/race, that looks equally like discrimination based on a protected class. And it’s not a good look to defend a discrimination claim with some version of “he doesn’t get special treatment because of his gender/race, it’s because his dad used to be the CEO!”

      That’s all the more concerning where LW has in fact done the audit and is aware of the pay discrepancy, so there’s no plausible argument that the company just didn’t realize the disparity existed.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        It’s not going to create a legal liability. Shitty optics, yes. But pay disparities happen for all kinds of reasons not related to protected classes – reorganizations, negotiations upon hire, nepotism like we see here – and that’s all perfectly legal. Bad practice, different kind of problem, but it’s not a legal issue.

        1. renata ricotta*

          Of course it can be (I’m a litigating lawyer and often handle employment claims, always defending the company). If a woman/person of a different race who does the same job level but with substantially lower pay brings a claim, there are at least two explanations for the disparity — nepotism and discrimination. It’s up to a factfinder (typically a jury) to decide which it is, which is usually an inference based on the circumstances. Most smart companies with good defense counsel would choose settle that claim rather than defend it, because there’s at least as good of a chance that a jury would infer legally discriminatory animus. Not to mention, it’s extremely embarrassing and looks almost as bad from a PR perspective to present a defense of “nope, we’re discriminating based on nepotism, not race or gender! So technically legal!”

          1. Statler von Waldorf*

            That’s interesting, because when I was involved in a similar situation during the audit relating to the the sale of a family business, the lawyer we spoke to told us the exact opposite and pretty much seconded what Eldritch Office Worker stated. He was very confident that any legal liability caused by overpaying the nepo employee (the bosses daughter in this case) was negligible, despite the illegal discrimination claim filed by her soon-to-be-ex husband against the company.

            I don’t think your embarrassment concerns are universal though. Sure, I can see how a corporate lawyer representing a large corporation might worry about the PR perspectives and being embarrassed to be engaging in nepotism. For small family run businesses though, that’s just Tuesday.

            1. linger*

              The important distinction here is, Jasper is a special individual case, not a general category. As long as all other employees are treated equitably regardless of their category memberships, Jasper’s existence does not constitute a legal liability.
              Nevertheless, nothing is forcing OP to “grandfather in” Jasper’s continued special treatment. So to approach overall equitability, Jasper should be held to expectations reflecting first, his existing position, and second, his higher salary. That’s a two-stage PIP:
              (1) perform the assigned duties of the position to the expected standard in order to keep that position, or else be demoted [with pay reduced to commensurate for new position, reflecting the standard actually achieved] or fired;
              (2) perform some (extra) duties (incl management), at the (higher) expected standard, to keep that salary.
              It’s probably an insurmountable learning curve for Jasper, and also an extra administrative burden on OP, to cover all of that in one step. To be honest, it seems daunting even in two stages. But if OP is lucky, it may seem daunting enough that Jasper decides to explore alternative possibilities elsewhere.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          My (layman’s) understanding of the Equal Pay Act is that the *only* legal reasons for paying men and women differently for the same role is if they have differences in skill, effort and/or working conditions. Unlike many other laws, you don’t have to prove discriminatory intent, just the existence of unequal pay.

          In past columns, Alison has specifically noted that paying a man more because “he negotiated better than she did” is not allowed; that would be a loophole large enough to render the act pointless.

      2. ScruffyInternHerder*

        I ran a little math experiment – used 100 a round number, a very generous 5% raise each year, with “if 100K is the market value, there are people earning 85K, and he’s earning 120K”.

        Ten years, minimum. At 5%…which seems really really generous.

        1. linger*

          Compounding helps. By year 7, those initially at 0.85X (where X is market rate) have reached 1.20X, and thus parity with Jasper. By year 10, they’re at 1.38X.

          1. linger*

            (And OP clarifies in comments that others will be brought up to 1.0X within a year, so parity would happen even sooner [within 4 years, in this sterile mathematical exercise]. Though of course that still leaves Jasper overpaid and underperforming in the interim, which should be addressed ASAP.)

    2. Lily Potter*

      I thought of this too – just freeze his pay. If it’s not feasible to let Jasper go for non-performance (and it sounds like that could be a tough sell – sounds like he’s performing adequately if not brilliantly) a way to handle the money issue is to freeze his salary. Show him the “standard” salary band, explain that he’s already paid above the top of the band, and that he won’t be getting any further raises in the future until he’s within the band again.

      I’ve seen this happen in a former workplace under somewhat different circumstances. A co-worker was talked into taking a leadership position that didn’t work out. Co-worker gave the position the “old college try” for a year, and while he did his best, it just wasn’t a good fit for him or for the owners. The owners let him go back to his IC role without cutting his leadership pay (significant increase) but told him not to expect another raise (even COL) until he was back to within the salary band again.

      2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        I like this option if the underperformer is pleasant to be around, a team player, and an asset to the organization overall–if the only catch is the overcompensation. Outright cutting the pay of such an individual risks demotivating those around them (what if the company decides I’m not worth it?!).

        1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

          Everyone knows he’s the nepo baby so they will realise that Daddy was overpaying him surely?

          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            Not being present, it’s hard for me to validate the assumption that everyone must loathe Jasper.

            1. JB (not in Houston)*

              But you can realize that someone is drastically overpaid because of their connections without loathing them. Obviously we don’t know for sure, but my guess is that rebel is right and that people would understand the unique situation and why his salary is being cut

            2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

              I think people want to be paid fairly regardless of their personal feelings about people who are being overpaid. The unfairness of the overpayment may lead to loathing rather than loathing leading to resenting the unfairness.

              1. MigraineMonth*

                Yeah, I don’t have to hate my coworker to hate the fact that he’s getting paid 15k more than me for a BS reason.

            3. Rainy*

              You can realize that someone is drastically overpaid without hating them.

              Although if they are both drastically overpaid *and* underperforming at the low-level responsibilities they *do* have, yeah, there are definitely some people who have to deal with them regularly who hate them.

            4. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

              I wouldn’t say people loathe him, but definitely tiptoe around him instead of asking him to do things that are definitely his job. I have to play the middleman a lot more than is appropriate. He also has annoying personal habits that aren’t performance related, but may contribute to overall opinion. I do not believe people are aware of the scope of the pay differential.

              1. Testing*

                One day, people might become aware of the scope of the pay differential. Those things do happen.

                If it was simply Jasper being overpaid, I’d say let inflation and a lack of COL adjustments fix it. But with other people being underpaid, the difference gets so much bigger that it’s tricky… Any chance you could argue for raises for the underpaid people?

              2. MigraineMonth*

                The tiptoeing really isn’t good. What’s causing it? Can someone be successful in that role if other employees avoid interacting with him?

              3. Takki*

                I’m seeing a few options:

                Big wage cut and stay here where he’s not thriving.
                Change roles with a pay cut, but to a role better suited to him.
                Lay-off under guise of restructuring/needing a different skillset in the role, with a good but not TOO generous severance package.
                Put him on a PiP to justify this huge salary, with the condition that certain benchmarks aren’t hit monthly, PiP is over, and he’s out.

                If he’s reasonable, maybe even offer him a choice of what he’d like to do. Obviously he can’t sit there and collect outsized paychecks for under-performing his job, so something needs to be done.

      3. RC*

        I don’t really like that option; if it’s just freezing his pay at the higher rate, he’s still getting more opportunity pay integrated over time even if others who would “eventually” catch up with his yearly salary. Compound interest and all that (see also: I was glad when my org fixed my pay to be in line with my male colleague’s, but was annoyed that there were ~3y of cumulative earnings that I missed out on because I didn’t know to raise it before then).

        Plus it sounds like it would take a long time (and maybe changes in income) for wage increases to be able to be implemented across the board to bring everyone up to his level. Alison’s advice is good, I think.

      5. Coun*

        I’m in Scottish local government. Around the mid 2000s, we went through a job evaluation process. Some people got rises, others had pay cuts. Those who had pay cuts saw their salaries frozen for three years before the cut kicked in. This might be a fair compromise

    3. Snarkus Aurelius*

      This approach only works if the LW sees to it that the rest of the organization really does catch up and immediately. I didn’t get the impression such increases were possible though.

      1. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

        The rest of the organization will be caught up to market rates as of Jan 1, so there is that.

        1. Evan Þ*

          Great!

          But that’s still not being caught up to Jasper’s over-market pay. I wouldn’t expect everyone to get paid over-market, so if Jasper stays on, he really should get a pay cut not just a pay freeze.

    4. Observer*

      wage will be frozen until 202X, at which point you anticipate the rest of the organisation to have caught up.

      That’s a large expense. And worse, people will know about this and it’s going breed resentment, if it has not already caused problems. Because you’ve identified a significant and *unjustifiable* pay disparity. And instead of taking active measures to deal with it, you’re letting it continue for years. That kind of thing tends to create a real hit to morale.

      And why take that on? I cannot see any reason why the organization should do that. Not legal, moral, or pragmatic.

      1. Ellie*

        If Jasper is well liked, then its generally good for morale for other people to see that he’s being treated fairly.

        Is there a possibility of moving Jasper into a different role with lower responsibilities (e.g. put him in the mailroom or something)? You could level with him about the pay discrepancy and his struggles in the role, and move him into one with lower pay that he can actually succeed at. It might even be a welcome transition if he really is struggling.

    5. TeapotNinja*

      What sort of pay raises does this company give out regularly?

      10% – 15% doesn’t strike to me as terrible, if the raises for high performers are in double digit percentages.

      If the raises are only COLA, or no raises at all, then, yes, salary cut would be the best way to address this.

  3. Nicosloanicota*

    I’m reading this with the assumption that OP is actually the new CEO, but I’m not positive that’s true? If not, there’s probably very little OP can do if they don’t have the full buy in of the current leadership. I’m thinking like, if OP is an HR Director or some other role.

  4. Voodoo Priestess*

    I really want to know how this one plays out.

    Best of luck, OP. You sound like you’re trying to do all the right things in a tough situation you inherited.

  5. DivergentStitches*

    I wonder if, since Jasper is open to feedback and actually trying, it would be worth sending him to a manager bootcamp.

    1. Nicosloanicota*

      Man, it’s so hard to picture investing a ton of valuable resources in training up this employee unless that is also offered to other high(er?) potential employees. Putting this guy on an escalator to success is the least just outcome here in my view.

      1. duinath*

        I agree with that. Maybe the parent’s actions were unfair to Jasper, but they were more unfair to every person Jasper has worked with, and I don’t think it’s justified to put even more unwarranted effort into someone who should never have had this position in the first place.

    2. Zombeyonce*

      Jasper isn’t currently in a supervisory role, so manager bootcamp isn’t needed. If he attended, he’d then expect a promotion to a new role and a corresponding pay bump. They need to just get rid of him, which would likely buy a lot of goodwill among remaining employees; there’s probably a lot of resentment about the nepo hire and his salary.

    3. Falling Diphthong*

      I feel like there are different versions of the baseline story trope in play:
      • Jasper is a slacker in all contexts.
      • Jasper was a slacker when he either expected to be always bailed out by a parent, or viewed all assignments through the lens of 30 years of contentious history with that parent. When the parent departed Jasper actually pulled himself together.
      • Option 2 happened, but Jasper didn’t blossom into the role. He blossomed into a much lower paid role.

      It’s easier when Jasper is a mustache twirling villain.

    4. MigraineMonth*

      Sorry, but the suggested response to having an underqualified and overpaid nepotism hire unable to do his current job… is to promote him into a management job to justify his pay?

      Talk about failing upwards!

    5. AJ*

      I’m wondering if there’s a lower position Jasper is qualified for that he could be gently shifted to.

  6. Person from the Resume*

    You are not “docking” his pay as I understand it. Docking pay is when an employer deducts part of an employee’s wages for a pay period already completed. It can be used to penalize an employee for a variety of reasons.

    You are going to reduce his pay starting on XX date in the future. He gets advance warning and he can choose to quit instead of accepting the lower pay rate.

    You should explain that the reason you’re doing so is that he’s overpaid for is performance, education, responsibility (management) level. Dude is probably not clueless. He knows he’s only there and paid that much because of his parent. He can choose to accept being treated like a normal employee or not.

    1. Paint N Drip*

      you HAVE to imagine that once mommy/daddy dearest began transitioning out of CEO role, Jasper knew that the free ride was over

      1. Evan Þ*

        That’s assuming he realized he was underperforming and paid over-market. I can imagine a sad story in which Jasper was oblivious to all that, nobody dared tell him otherwise till mommy/daddy left, and so he thought he was doing a good job.

        1. goddessoftransitory*

          He’s still getting rides to and from work from Dad, so I would guess he’s still pretty swaddled.

    2. MigraineMonth*

      I agree that it’s fair to adjust pay rates in the future, with the understanding that it isn’t dissimilar to a layoff (many employees will quit rather than take a reduction in pay, and you shouldn’t contest unemployment for them).

      I actually wouldn’t bet on the ex-CEO’s son knowing that he is vastly overpaid or, up until now, that he wasn’t performing his job adequately. The vast majority who benefit from family wealth believe that they earned *their* money solely/primarily through their intelligence and hard work, and discount the ways that wealth has improved their chances in a million ways. (This is how all privilege works.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the ex-CEO’s son thought he had a slightly better chance than other applicants, but must have really wowed the hiring committee/negotiated really well at the salary stage to get his current job.

  7. Kes*

    Agreed with all of this advice. I would just be frank with him – acknowledge that you have seen a lot of improvement, but that you’ve realized both that there is a fundamental mismatch between where he’s at and what you actually need in the role, and that his salary is really that of a higher position and qualifications, and significantly overmarket while you’re still working to bring others even up to market, and that as a result you’ve concluded it’s not feasible to keep him on. I would also look at what severance or notice you can give him, since it’s not his fault, without being out of line with what you’d provide someone else
    And as much as I hate to say it, I would consider what impacts or blowback doing this could bring, and make sure you’re prepared for it.

    1. Nicosloanicota*

      if there’s a lower-level job that would be appropriate to offer him the chance to apply to (if he chooses) that seems cleaner than trying to reduce his pay while keeping him in the high level role where he’s unlikely to be successful, and he/other stakeholders may feel less ill-used if that’s offered.

      1. Project Maniager*

        Yes – I don’t know why this is not a mentioned option. If he’s going great work for a coordinator but is currently a director, why not just move him to be a coordinator with commensurate pay and responsibilities since he’s an objectively good employee?

      3. Puggles*

        I was coming here to say the same thing. Could they demote him to a position that is in-line with his education and experience? He’ll still get a paycheck and if he doesn’t like it he can quit.

  8. LB33*

    I don’t know what should be done with Jasper, but just a note that 10-15% above the average isn’t that outrageous. The other folks being 20% underpaid is a bigger deal imo – getting rid of Jasper or lowering his salary won’t change tbat

    1. iglwif*

      Except that that 10-15% for Jasper might be part of what’s keeping OP from getting those other folks closer to the average.

      Also, as an employee I would be extra displeased if I discovered that while I was making -20% of the average for my role, some less competent person was making 15% above the average for his.

    2. Khatul Madame*

      Yes – the OP claims their salary analysis “balances out”, but it doesn’t.
      This would impact employee morale a great deal – just as the presence of an overpaid, underqualified nepo hire.
      I would not spend cycles trying to save Jasper and instead focus on the rest of the organization.

      1. Dust Bunny*

        I think the OP means that nobody else is wildly out of line for this particular employer, not that salaries are in balance for the industry in general.

      2. Kay*

        I was confused at that phrasing as well! It sounds like it absolutely does not “balance out” if people are so severely underpaid.

        1. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

          My plan to fix it balances out, not the current arrangement. Essentially, while there were discrepancies that impacted other roles, by applying the same analysis to all employees (job duties, title, degree/certification, longevity) and using it with industry data, I could match it up to market rates and everyone got a raise. Except Jasper (and me, and I am also addressing my own salary.)

    3. CB212*

      I agree. If Jasper is making 200K and should be making 175K…. that 25K isn’t keeping several other employees underpaid. (Like, two people making ~40K who should be at ~50k?) I don’t see how many employees would be rebalanced even if he’s making One Million Dollars and the role is only “worth” 900K… and at that level surely it would be clear LW can’t keep a wild underperformer in that role.

      1. Jay*

        My read was that Jasper has been given an extremely senior role that would normally be highly compensated, and has been well overpaid even at that level.
        If senior executives at this company are particularly well paid to begin with when compared to the average employee, it could be a case of Jasper making 100 times their salary. Removing him could potentially cover the cost of bumping a couple of hundred employees up to a more appropriate pay rate.
        I would be surprised, from the tone of the letter, if it were quite that high, but it would not surprise me to find it was still pretty major, and his removal could fund most of the pay hikes for the rest of the org.

      2. Samwise*

        Two people at 40 who should be making 50 — that is a substantial increase. So yeah, it could make a difference

    4. The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon*

      Yes! I think the new CEO should be prioritizing the shortest path to getting the underpaid employees up to market value. If Jasper is standing in the way of that or even if his situation is distracting the CEO from it, he needs to go. Spending a lot of time and energy on Jasper could easily lead to losing the best employees (if it hasn’t already).

    5. Ann O'Nemity*

      10-15% over market isn’t that outrageous if everything else was working.

      The problem is that Jasper isn’t meeting expectations and his salary is higher than colleagues with more experience, higher level responsibilities, and better performance.

      1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        10-15% over market isn’t that outrageous if Jasper is performing at rock-star level, but he’s very much underperforming, so it is outrageous.

      3. Dido*

        10-15% might not be a lot if you’re making $50k, but it sounds like Jasper is well into the 6 figures, and paying an incompetent employee $15k+ more than his peers is sure to inspire resentment in them

        1. LB33*

          I think the worse part is that the other employees are making 20% less than they should regardless of Jasper’s pay

    7. Zombeyonce*

      It’s not really 10-15%, though. In this company, the average is 20% below market value and Jasper’s being paid 10-15% over market value, so he really has a 30-35% higher salary than is average in the company. That’s egregious.

      2. Alice*

        Sure, but even if his salary is 35% above average, the savings from bringing his role back to market value isn’t going to cover increases to market rate for more than a very small group of underpaid people. Unless the thinking is to find the money for the increases by laying him off *and* not backfilling his job?

  9. Smurfette*

    Ouch, this is messy. Personally I’d probably go with the severance option, because it’s the simplest. But also because I have no experience with this type of situation and no inclination to deal with messy people issues.

    1. UKDancer*

      Yes sometimes it’s easier to pay for things with money. Give him a decent amount of severance to leave quietly because the job has changed. I think that’s the best solution personally.

    2. I Count the Llamas*

      I know someone that had to deal with a somewhat similar situation, including the performance issues. They chose to frame it as a layoff because the job description for the position was changing. The framing also made it easier for the other employees in the office to accept the replacement that started a few weeks later.

      1. Melicious*

        Yes, this framing is the most generous one, and it’s not even untrue! There are always changes, sometimes major ones, when a CEO changes. What’s required for his role has changed significantly, so a layoff with generous severance has a decent chance of everyone parting on decent terms.

        1. BigLawEx*

          My only worry is employee morale. It depends if everyone *knows* Jasper can’t do his job…or if they’re going to think layoffs are coming for more people and quit/move on in anticipation.

          1. Happily Retired*

            Have the meeting with Jasper where you kindly let him go due to restructuring – layoff! not firing!, offer a generous severance plus health insurance, and let him leave with dignity. (Don’t fill his position for a while, as you determine what you need.)

            Announce to employees that due to restructuring specifically and only at Jasper’s level (exec? C-suite? I’ve lost track), his position has been eliminated as it is written, and that he’s leaving with severance and health insurance for X period, and that we’re grateful for his contributions here, and that we wish him the best.

            Then tell them that going forward, we do not anticipate any more layoffs (and if you like, that if so, severance would be paid), and that starting Jan 1 2025, all employee pay will be raised to bring it in line with the market, as you want your org to be known as a place where employees are valued and paid and treated fairly.

            Not many people will feel like layoffs are coming when they realize that they’re getting up to 20% increase in pay.

          2. I Count the Llamas*

            That’s why having the convenient reasoning of “the job description changed” heads off these kinds of worries. Then when the new employee started that had a much more advanced skill set, it was very obvious it was a one-off and not something other people needed to be worried about.

            It was a very low-drama, face-saving approach.

      2. El l*

        Yes. Seen this done too. Do a quick strategic review if you have to, but – just fire now.

        “What we need from the job has changed since Last CEO thanks to change in strategy. He’s not what the org needs for this strategy, and so I’d being let go with severance and good references. Nobody’s fault, but not a fit.”

  10. Selina Luna*

    Okay, this might seem minor, but not taking control of pest issues to the point that there are mouse remnants everywhere is not a small issue. Mouse remnants are how people get Hantavirus. If you’re not sure of the severity of Hantavirus, look it up. It kills people.

    2. Joana*

      Was going to say this. I worked in a restaurant for a while where I pointed out to the manager there were ants and she just told me “There’s nothing we can do about it.” I’ve warned every single person I can about it.

    4. Hlao-roo*

      The letter-writer might have meant “minor” in terms of “how much effort I personally have to spend to solve this issue.”

      For pest control, the letter-writer needs to direct the appropriate facilities person to hire a pest-control company to deal with the mice. There might be a few follow-up conversations about budget and scheduling, but I don’t think that will take more than a few hours of the LW’s time.

      For Jasper, that’s a situation the letter-writer can’t just hand off to someone else within the organization. And whichever way the LW chooses to deal with Jasper, it’s going to take a lot more than a few hours, so it’s more “major” in terms of the LW’s time and effort.

      1. Melicious*

        That’s how I read it. “Minor” meaning a straightforward problem with a clear solution that can be implemented quickly and with relatively low effort on his part.

    5. Margaret Cavendish*

      I boggled at this as well. How does one not believe in pest control? Assuming he believes in the existence of pests…does he think we should just leave the cute little mousies to live their little mousie lives?

      At the risk of heading into advice column fanfic, this does make me wonder what other problems OP has inherited. If Jasper and the mice are the extent of it, it’s probably fine – but if they’re more like the tip of the iceberg, OP is going to have a lot of cleaning up to do, on top of actually running the business.

      1. Strive to Excel*

        I don’t think that’s advice column fanfic – I think OP has knowingly stepped into a mess and is actively cleaning it up, based on the description of “problems ranging from minor…to major”. And probably has been doing so for the last 8 months.

        I doubt Jasper & the mice are the extent of it *at all*.

      2. OldHat*

        According to a warehouse manager I use to work with, mice should be able to live their lives. She told facilities not to do any pest management because it might kill animals (and may not be great for humans either). Her solution was to have cups to grab the animal and take them outside. And insects counted as animals.

        Pest control, including spraying, was resumed a few weeks after she left.

        1. Selina Luna*

          Some pest control companies humanely relocate vertebrates, but all of them kill insects (which are, in fact, animals). If you’re against pest control because you don’t want to kill animals and you run a warehouse, you’re not running a safe warehouse. I’m reasonably anti-kill for my traps at home (though I have a cat, so I’m not *that* against it), but when it comes to the health and safety of other humans, insects need to be eliminated from warehouses (yes, even the ones that don’t store food).

        2. AF Vet*

          This is when you check with a local cat rescue to see if they have any mousers that your building can rent. Fun program idea, great way to allow feral cats to USE their skills for a greater good.

          1. MassMatt*

            Great until you have to deal with feral cats and THEIR “remnants” everywhere. Cat pee is awful.

            Australia introduced all sorts of invasive species, and then introduced more of them (such rabbits, and then foxes to kill the rabbits) to “take care of the problem” only to create more and more problems.

            I respect the concept of avoiding causing harm to animals, but at some point a business has a responsibility to keep the premises (not to mention the merchandise) free of pests.

            1. MigraineMonth*

              *Absolutely* do not introduce cats to any part of the world they aren’t already (but honestly there aren’t many of those left). Other than that, there’s a reason cats are the OG rodent control: they’re really effective mousers, and their mere presence scares them off.

              The city of Chicago has a “Cats at Work” program where sterilized feral cats are assigned to work locations such as warehouses and breweries, and the businesses commit to caring for them (including emptying the litter box, I’m sure!) for the rest of their lives.

              1. Disappointing Aussie Office Gumby*

                Our primary cat shelter where I live also has a “Barn Buddies” program that places cats unsuitable as home pets as “barn” (or warehouse or whatever) cats for the purpose of pest control.

            2. allathian*

              Yeah, cat pee is awful, especially that of unneutered males. But even feral cats are fastidious animals and most of them will use a litter box by preference to other places if one’s provided. You can even buy outdoor litter boxes for feral cats, and they will be used if they’re cleaned often enough.

      3. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

        I would love to document all of the weird stuff I have run into, it is bizarre. This is the most complex one, though.

    6. ThursdaysGeek*

      Sure, but most buildings get house mice, not deer mice. It’s still nasty, but hantavirus wouldn’t be a big concern.

      1. Selina Luna*

        Hantavirus can come from any rodent in the US, not just deer mice. I will concede that it’s much less likely outside of the southwest US (and that my fear comes from living in that region my whole life), but the virus has been found in Europe, Asia, and throughout North America, and any rodent can carry it.

    7. Observer*

      but not taking control of pest issues to the point that there are mouse remnants everywhere is not a small issue

      True. But it’s fairly easy to rectify. You don’t even need to be a high level manager to deal with it. You just need to have the blessing of upper management.

      Dealing with people and their non-performance is a much more complex issue, especially when dealing with a role that touches many people and departments.

    8. Jay*

      My mind immediately went to “Not my problem so it doesn’t matter”.
      If the old CEO never had to deal with the mice themselves, they may just not have cared that the rest of the org. did.
      Like, if the CEO had an offsite office, or an office in a separate building on site and just didn’t spend enough time where the mice were to give a damn.
      It would jibe with the whole “hire their failson as an SVP and pay him more than anyone else in the company” vibe they seem to have going.

    9. Isben Takes Tea*

      Lack of pest/vermin control is actually an OSHA violation! There are steps you can take to make a complaint.

    11. goddessoftransitory*

      Thank you! The old CEO sounds like a control freak, to put it mildly, and exposing everyone to vermin is, I think, an OSHA violation.

  11. Chairman of the Bored*

    I would not be receptive to an employer telling me “we did an analysis and need to cut your pay because we’re underpaying a bunch of other people”. They agreed to my salary when I hired on, not my fault they got those numbers wrong.

    At the very least, I would want to see the details of that analysis to see what they were using as the inputs and points of comparison. A 10-15% variance isn’t egregious and (even without parental influence) could result from something like when a person was hired or what other offers they had.

    Does this organization plan to correct the salaries of the underpaid people with the same urgency, or are they focusing solely on the employee who they deem to expensive?

    More broadly, executive parents should just give their kids an allowance vs going through the theater of giving them a make-work job and putting them on the payroll.

    1. Zombeyonce*

      “executive parents should just give their kids an allowance vs going through the theater of giving them a make-work job and putting them on the payroll.”

      But then how can nepo babies think they’re special and “worked hard” for what they have? /s

      1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        It’s not a “make-work” job either since OP has clear expectations of what he should be achieving, and there’s a requirement for a degree that he doesn’t have too.

        1. Observer*

          It’s not a make work job NOW. But under the old CEO it was.

          I mean what else can you call a job with a paycheck, but no management, no metrics, no accountability and not even a notional job description?

    2. Person from the Resume*

      Jasper’s “employer” did not set his salary. Jasper’s PARENT is the one who made the determination of his initial salary. The ex-CEO did not make the decision as a CEO/manager/employer, they made the decision as a parent making a nepo hire.

      This is an entirely different scenario from if this were happening to a non-nepo hire.

      And frankly Jasper quitting is win for the current CEO (not his parent).

    3. Happy meal with extra happy*

      Well, part of the hope is that he isn’t receptive to it either. OP doesn’t need to prove their math. If he leaves over the pay reduction (totally valid!), that’s not a bad outcome.

    4. honeygrim*

      10-15% above the average salary may not be egregious, but OP is talking about the average salary for the job, a job Jasper can’t do. So, the ratio of “Jasper’s pay” to “Jasper’s contributions” is probably far wider than 10-15% above average. And if his position is sufficiently high enough, that extra percentage could equal a huge amount of money.

      I agree that correcting the salaries of the underpaid staff is far more important, but it may not be completely possible as long as Jasper’s being overpaid.

    5. Insert Pun Here*

      It’s not a 10-15% variance if other employees are underpaid relative to market rate, though. Based on what the OP says (up to 20% underpaid), it’s more like a 20-35% variance. That’s an awful lot.

    6. Starbuck*

      Well, it doesn’t matter if Jasper is receptive or not, I don’t think he has much leverage. You can demand all the documentation you like, but LW could just say “here’s what we can offer you based on the actual market, with that in mind are you going to stay” and that’s it.

    7. Observer*

      I would not be receptive to an employer telling me “we did an analysis and need to cut your pay because we’re underpaying a bunch of other people”. They agreed to my salary when I hired on, not my fault they got those numbers wrong.

      Fine. So go find another job.

      Think about it. If you decide that the job is not paying enough, would you be “receptive” to your employer telling you “that’s what you agreed to”? Unless you’ve only been working there for a very short time, odds are that you would not.

      The company agreed to something. Things have changed. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to change the agreement. You don’t like that change? You have the right to find a job that will pay you what you consider is a fair wage.

      Does this organization plan to correct the salaries of the underpaid people with the same urgency, or are they focusing solely on the employee who they deem to expensive?</I.

      They certainly should. But that has nothing to do with the fact of significant over-payment to someone who is probably not even working to the level that is standard pay level would require.

      More broadly, executive parents should just give their kids an allowance vs going through the theater of giving them a make-work job and putting them on the payroll.

      Yes! the the Nth degree.

      1. Chairman of the Bored*

        “If you decide that the job is not paying enough, would you be “receptive” to your employer telling you “that’s what you agreed to”? Unless you’ve only been working there for a very short time, odds are that you would not.”

        This is called “asking for a raise and being turned down” and it happens to employees all the time.

        1. Observer*

          Sure, people’s raises get turned down all the time. But if they told you that the reason was because “that’s what you agreed to”, you’re likely to be looking for a new job if you’ve been there a while and you’ve been doing well.

          “That’s what you agreed to” is not always a reasonable response.

        2. DisgruntledPelican*

          Yes, and a lot of people are angry when that happens and leave their jobs over it. Which is the point being made.

    8. lyonite*

      Also, if Jasper is still living at home, and presumably contributing to the household (or at least not requiring support from his parents), at what point do you cross over from nepotism to embezzlement? Ex-CEO hired their kid, gave them minimal responsibilities and funneled company money into their own household. We learned upthread that ex-CEO wasn’t the owner of the company, so at the very least it’s the opposite of paying an allowance out of their own pocket.

    9. AD*

      Does this organization plan to correct the salaries of the underpaid people with the same urgency, or are they focusing solely on the employee who they deem to expensive?

      This is addressed by the OP in the letter

    10. MigraineMonth*

      The thing is, a 10-15% variance due to when a person was hired or how they negotiated is still very likely to be illegal under the Equal Pay Act if it results in men and women being paid differently for a role with substantially the same skill, effort and conditions.

      The kind of company-wide salary analysis LW is doing to bring everyone in line is really important for reducing pay inequality, and I support them. From the LW’s comments, the vast majority of employees will be getting a pay increase in January, with some receiving a 20% raise.

      I’m a lot more concerned with what the company is doing to support the employees who have been underpaid by up to 20% for years, than for what it’s doing to avoid upsetting one nepotism hire who wasn’t qualified for the job he was hired for, has never actually done that job, and was paid significantly over market anyway.

      Oh, there is another overpaid employee whose salary LW is planning to decrease next year: their own.

  12. Smithy*

    I do think that honestly severance and an exit plan is likely the kindest/face saving way out.

    In my case the situation was more cronyism vs nepotism – but someone making far more than is industry standard for their job AND not performing at a high level is a great way to get someone to see zero other path forward. If this person does go out into the job market and sees jobs that would pay similar or more (which is a normal desire when job hunting), and they’re jobs that appear to be WAY above their ability as well as far more work. This creates an environment where there’s no motivation to apply for any new positions, while also having growing pessimism about their profession/sector. Essentially, the see no pathway forward and have no incentive to grow their skill set.

    In my case it was a former boss, and he was just so blinded to how overpaid he was for what he was doing. He was wildly pessimistic about the whole sector, because surely anytime he interviewed for jobs that sounded interesting – they were for a pay cut. Or similar/greater pay and WAY more work/expectations. He only left that job when he was let go.

    1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Severance is probably on the table. Just because maybe people didn’t get advance notice before is not a reason to do it now. You are setting new precedents here. It can be explained that way. A lot of things are changing, why can’t being kind to people who are being moved on through no fault of their own be part of the change. Jasper just happens to be the first one affected by the change. But if you make it clear this is the norm going forward for all employees, it might tamp down some of the resentment that he got alleged special treatment again.

      Plus once he’s gone and everyone doesn’t daily see the special boy, they will resent how he was removed a lot less.

      1. Nicosloanicota*

        TBH it’s not the worst thing in the world to ask yourself, “how would I treat our employees if they were important people?” and be like, “why does it seem only fair to give Jasper severance, whereas other hardworking people are dismissed same-day?”

        1. LB33*

          I would say everyone should get severance – if others haven’t up until now that’s a poor way of doing business but things are changing and going forward everyone who qualifies will get severance

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Yeah, I’m not against giving Jasper a month to job search, generous severance, or a face-saving “layoff due to change in job description” (which wouldn’t even be inaccurate). But if you’re going to do it for him, you should do it for everyone.

          He may be a nepo-baby, but he isn’t a literal baby. We should treat everyone with respect, yes, but I think that includes treating him like an adult rather than someone who’s been so coddled he’s too fragile to be told the truth.

      2. Smithy*

        Agreed.

        I think whenever someone is let go, doing so in a way that appears to be kind and thoughtful matters. Even when it’s someone that people resent. I used to work with a generically “awful” Finance Director where loads of people wondered how he still had his job.

        However, the way he was fired abruptly was also truly disruptive and painful. Essentially, we wanted him gone, but had he been let go in a manner that didn’t leave our finances in utter chaos would have been greatly desired. Like, he was allowed to stay for years being a menace – giving him a face saving way out so that some kind of transition could happen would have also helped us.

    2. Ann O'Nemity*

      Severance would be my choice too. Easiest way to handle it.

      You can try increasing responsibilities, but that probably won’t work out long-term. The employee will struggle, and it’s going to put a bunch of extra work on the manager and HR.

      You can try demotion and pay cuts, but I’ve only ever seen that work for employees who are close to retirement and want a gentle off-ramp.

  13. Zombeyonce*

    First order of business: fire Jasper
    Second order of business: use the extra money to hire a pest control company

    2. LB33*

      I’d also want to do something about the rest of the staff being 20% underpaid – I realize LW said they couldn’t make everyone whole, but as CEO there must be something she can do to help a little.

      Firing Jasper is fine, but if I’m one of the underpaid employees, his leaving hasn’t done anything to improve my situation

      1. Archi-detect*

        “so staff, today will will be voting to decide if Jasper should stay with us- if ‘fire him’ wins, you guys will have to pick up the work he does but his salary will be spread out amongst you”

        terrible idea but it seems fun

      2. AF Vet*

        I’m honestly thinking that if she is in the six+ figure range and her employees are low 5 figures, it might behoove her to also take a pay cut in order to bring the rest up to par, ESPECIALLY if she is over market rate, and DOUBLY ESPECIALLY if she is significantly wealthier than most of her employees. (I’m thinking of CEOs who make their average employee’s salary by 1 Mar… or sooner. Yes, you have value. No, you don’t have THAT much.)

        Let’s say she gets 500k. If she takes a 10% pay cut, equaling 50k, that could bring 5 people from 40k to 50k. Yeah, it might cut into her own fun, but it’s an easy source of payroll excess, and I would be much more loyal of an employee when I see a CEO realizing pay inequity and doing what she needs to bring everyone up.

        1. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

          All other staff salaries will be brought up as of Jan 1. I will note that I am also slightly overpaid and will be taking a pay cut as part of this. (Or a freeze, at minimum. My discrepancy is relatively small comparatively but pay equity is very important to me.)

      3. Perihelion*

        In a comment, LW said that they will be adjusting people’s raises to market rate within the next few months. My reading was that they couldn’t afford to raise everyone to the 10-15% *over* market rate that would make them equitable with Jasper.

  14. amoeba*

    As a third option, I’m wondering whether moving him to a lower role more in line with what he’s actually capable of might be an option? And then offering whatever pay is in accordance with that new role, obviously.
    He might not want that, but if he’s genuinely making an effort and seems interested in staying on, I’d think it might be a kindness to offer it if possible?

    1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

      Said the same thing below before seeing your comment. He may or may not take it, but it’s a kindness to present the option, since it sounds like he’s handling this big change professionally and making the effort to improve.

      1. Archi-detect*

        if nothing else it would help him get real work to put on a resume in line with the next job he could take rather than trying to apply at his current level elsewhere and being underqualified or looking like you are taking a three level drop

    2. Turquoisecow*

      I mean if you fire him today he won’t be able to get a new job unless his parent can use their connections to get him one. So, “we’re restructuring, do you want (new position) or severance?” seems a fair question. It sounds like he knows he’s under qualified for the current job might guess his position might be in danger under new leadership, especially if people have been coaching him.

  15. KitKat*

    This is great advice.

    >> I’m always curious about what parents who set up these situations think will happen to their kid when they’re no longer there to champion/protect them!

    I think they probably think their kid is going to learn and perform! If I’m CEO and I install my kid as VP of Great New Ideas, it’s probably because I think they’re going to have great ideas, and I’m going to mentor them on other aspects of business until they’re ready to be a CEO. I’m not thinking through the possibility that they’ll stink at their job, since they’re my kid (and I’m great, I raised them, they share my genetic material, and of course I love them).

    1. Poison I.V. drip*

      Or, alternatively, you’ve seen them grow up and you know they suck and have no talent, so you hire them as a form of support, Arrested Development style, and just cling to some kind of faith that things will work out.

      1. Zombeyonce*

        I think it’s even simpler than all that. They want to provide for their children but since rich people are notoriously cheap, they don’t want to provide an allowance. Instead, they want it to be via payroll, which is a business expense with very different tax rules.

        1. Smithy*

          This also serves to keep the parent in control of their adult children – as well as the money they have access to.

          In many situations where this is done – either well or poorly – the adult child is given jobs/titles/salaries at the 1% upper end of what they qualify for. Then based on that child’s performance – both at the job and in regards to other potential familial expectations, they are promoted or given raises. And that may be on an expedited table.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            Being royalty/dynasty sounds much less appealing when you realize that until your grandparents die, your sole job is meeting their expectations, and until your parents die, your sole job is meeting their expectations.

        2. Kes*

          I think it’s this, plus, they want their kid to be able to say they have whatever prestigious job title.
          And that “having experience” in that kind of role may set them up to get other prestigious and well paying positions. Of course, this works better if kid is actually competent, but plenty of execs fail up/around different positions, especially if they’re good at BS/putting up a good front

  16. Llellayena*

    It seems like Jasper was dropped into a role higher than his skill level because of his connections. Can you approach it as seeking a way to bring his role in line with his skills? Is there another role within the company that he could move into (assistant to his current position?) while building his skills back toward the role he’s currently in? Basically a “temporary” demotion that comes with a pay cut. It seems like Jasper himself realizes that his skills aren’t where they need to be so maybe he’d welcome this? He may just need to be in a position where he can succeed and build skills at a normal pace and not “drop the baby into the river and hope they learn to swim” pacing.

    1. Zombeyonce*

      Is this something they’d do for other employees? I doubt it. Jasper shouldn’t get even more hand-holding because he was lucky enough to have a CEO for a parent, who can surely take care of him or find him another job he’s unqualified for.

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        It’d be worth considering for other employees who also seem to be decent people doing their best to improve, but are unlikely to meet expectations fast enough. If you can find a spot for them that better aligns with where they’re currently at and helps meet operational needs, that’s a good thing. It shows you value your employees.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Moving Jasper into a role he’s qualified for (with the accompanying pay cut) would be fine.

          Holding his current role just for him while giving him opportunities for skill-building no one else gets is just a continuation of the nepotism. I’ve never heard of an employee getting “temporarily” demoted while being promised a return to the high-ranking role again (presumably without having to compete with other candidates).

          That’s not showing you value your employees, that’s spitting in the face of every employee who’s been working hard and meeting the requirements (including an advanced degree, which Jasper doesn’t even have). How is “We’re promoting him again because his father, the former CEO, promoted him beyond his competence previously” not just nepotism?

    2. Gumby*

      A demotion is what I would suggest too. That way he can grow into his previous role, or not. And his pay can reflect the role he actually has.

      He might be offended and flounce – but that sounds like it wouldn’t devastate the org. Or he could appreciate the chance to learn and really do his role. Sometimes nepo babies *know* they are nepo babies and aren’t actually thrilled with it.

      It does work. I can think of at least 2 people at my current company (of fewer than 100 employees) who stepped back from management-type roles into individual contributor roles because they just weren’t suited to it and didn’t like it. In their cases, because their technical knowledge was quite advanced, there was close enough overlap in the salary bands that they didn’t take pay cuts but they did not get raises for a few years. Both were happier for it.

  17. JFC*

    I kind of feel for Jasper. For all we know, he felt forced by his parents to work for the family business even if he doesn’t feel passionate about it. I can see how someone in that spot would try to do the best they can even knowing this isn’t their interest or skill set. At least, that’s the vibe I’m getting here. It’s also not necessarily his fault that he’s being overpaid — he may not have any sense of what’s normal for his skill/experience level.

    I think the conversation that needs to happen is along the lines of, “Is this really what you want to be doing?” That way, Jasper has an out with a non-family member to openly say no. If that’s the answer, perhaps you can emphasize his strong suits and suggest alternative career paths. If he says yes, you can come up with a plan for improvement.

    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      Jasper lives with his parents. His dad drives him to and from work. I think this might influence Jasper’s willingness to say, “naw, I don’t like this job as a matter of fact.” What if his current living situation depends on his staying in the company? With these factors, I just don’t see him calling dad at noon, “Hey, Pops, can you pick me up early? Yeah, I quit for other opportunities.”

    2. Rainy*

      Well, it’s not the family business, as his dad was just the CEO, not the owner. Even if he “felt forced”, plenty of people “feel forced” by their parents to make all kinds of bad or unsuitable life choices and they don’t do it because it’s it a bad or unsuitable choice.

      This reminds me significantly more of one of my aunts, who was given the family business because her siblings were all actually successful and self-supporting. She promptly ran it into the ground and sold it for less than its value to someone who was able turn it around and make a serious profit within a matter of months. Due to the way the business premises were set up, by selling the business and all associated buildings, she also made herself and her husband and kids homeless by selling, and moved in yet again with her parents.

      Jasper may have felt forced to work for the company his dad ran, but it’s just as (if not more) likely that he was offered a seat on the gravy train and took it knowing full well that he was unqualified and overpaid.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        It doesn’t seem clear whether the prior CEO ever owned it, just that they don’t currently. Maybe it was a family business that has now been sold off?

    3. LW/Vanquisher of Mice*

      When I’m feeling nice, this seems to be the situation. He was handed a thing by a domineering parent and never held to expectations that met industry standard. I doubt he knows the pay discrepancy.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, a lot of people are unaware that they’re getting paid more because they’re male/white/straight/go to the same college as the boss. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if ex-CEO’s son thought the company paid everyone as well as him.

    4. goddessoftransitory*

      I feel awful for Jasper. His entire adult life sounds like a nightmare, and now that Daddy has retired he still lives at home with him and gets a RIDE FROM HIM EVERY DAY?

      That is what you do with your dad when you are in grade school, not as an adult.

  18. EA*

    I definitely agree with letting Jasper go ASAP. I know it’s hard, but I encourage OP to stop thinking about Jasper and start thinking about the role. What do you need from the role and what is market rate for that role? He’s clearly not fitting, and it’s better to be candid about that and cut ties now. Then worry more about getting raises to the people who are being underpaid!

    1. MigraineMonth*

      For that matter, do you need the role? It sounds like the position description is brand new and Jasper hasn’t actually been doing it. Eliminating the role/laying off Jasper may be one of the cleanest ways to handle this situation.

  19. Smurfette*

    Many moons ago, I worked in a decent enough company, in a dysfunctional business unit. After I left they did some kind of restructure, and my (incompetent) manager’s role was bumped up several levels – with a significant pay rise.

    New leadership came in and put things back the way they were – but they couldn’t adjust the salaries down again (I’m not in the US, my country has employment contracts and proper labour laws). An even bigger restructure happened and he was moved to another BU as an IC – he wasn’t even a manager any more. But his salary stayed the same.

    So this guy was being paid a huge amount for a mid-level job, and he basically was stuck there because he would never get another job that paid the same amount. And he obviously wasn’t prepared to move for a market-related salary, having got used to being in the pound seats.

    1. ThursdaysGeek*

      The company my spouse retired from seemed to do something similar. It is a government research company (in the US). If someone can’t do the science, they get moved into management, with a corresponding raise. If they can’t do management either, they get moved to the side, where they can’t do any damage, and still get the good pay. It annoys me so much that I decided I’d rather be underpaid at a company I can respect, than get way more pay by moving to that company.

  20. Rusty Shackelford*

    I’ve just completed a comprehensive wage review to ensure we are competitive and equitable within our industry, and it all balances out … except for Jasper. He is being paid 10-15% over what is appropriate for his role, where other employees are being paid as much as 20% under their market value.

    I do not understand what you mean by “it all balances out.” Even if you take Jasper out of the equation, you have employees being paid up to 20% less than their market value.

    1. Dust Bunny*

      I think they mean that everyone else’s pay is in line withing the company, meaning that nobody else is wildly overpaid for what they’re doing, not that the pay is in line with broader market rates.

    2. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      Our company recently did this. Their first round of raises was to bring everyone who was below 90% of FM to 90%. In theory they will incrementally bring the bottom up. But I am not holding my breath

    3. Willow*

      In another comment LW said they meant they had a plan to raise salaries to market rates, and that was what they meant balanced out.

  21. Nonsense*

    Example #496, and second this week, on why family businesses are awful to work for. Not only does Jasper have a cushy job he didn’t earn, but the other employees have been severely underpaid and had to work with constant mouse droppings. May Jasper’s ex-CEO parent step on Legos forever for subjecting their employees to that.

    1. MigraineMonth*

      Except this isn’t even a family business! I don’t think the ex-CEO owned the business, and I don’t think he has other family members employed there or on the board.

      It’s just a rogue CEO who decided to hire and manage his own son, and not tell the board about it.

  22. Susie and Elaine Problem*

    Rip off the bandaid. Send Jasper on his way. It might be difficult at first but will surely be beneficial in the long term. I can’t imagine the morale problems that must be simmering in the office… even if the other employees don’t know Jasper’s pay they surely must have in inkling.

  23. George*

    Jasper presumably is not underperforming in the general sense, only not performing to salary expectations for his role. I would offer him a 15% salary decrease, or an end date 6 months or so in the future. The fact that he is the CEO’s son means nothing. He is not an owner. If the CEO was the owner, firing the CEO’s son would be more complicated. It is appropriate to give him a pay cut in this situation for responsibilities he doesn’t have. You may want to part ways if he doesn’t take the paycut.

    2. sparkle emoji*

      The letter makes it seem as if Jasper is in no way qualified for his title and is not performing duties that would be expected for the role. That seems like underperforming to me. Maybe he would meet expectations in a different role, but he is not in his current one.

  24. Cake or Death*

    So Jasper lives with his parents, they bring him to work everyday and his father is the ex-CEO that hired him for a position far above his skill and overpaid him. Jasper’s father seems quite involved in his life; I wonder how much influence he is behind the scenes in regards to Jasper’s work and company information?
    IMO, I think severance and layoff is the best option. A clean break will really help in this situation.

    1. LaurCha*

      I know it’s a minor point, but I did notice that his mommy and daddy drive him to work every day. What on earth is THAT about?

      1. Heffalump*

        I thought of the letter (and follow-up) from the Welsh woman (in the US) who worked in the same company as her cousin, whose helicopter parents drove him to work.

        1. Evan Þ*

          Tangent, but I momentarily misread that as “… whose parents drove him to work in a helicopter.”

          If my parents had a helicopter, that’d be one great reason for them to drive/fly me!

      2. Banana Pyjamas*

        There’s plenty of reasons people don’t drive that are none of our business (usually medical).

        In my case it wasn’t medical. Nobody would take me for my driving hours. I didn’t get my license until I was 19, and I only got it because the HR lady took pity on me oversaw my driving hours. Some states are really strict and required driving hours for adults too.

        Honestly, given that he lives at home, and his parents had control over his work, the lack of transportation is alarming. The whole combination makes him very vulnerable to financial abuse. How is he making so much but his life isn’t improving? It reminds me of a friend whose parents took her paychecks and gave her an allowance.

      3. JanetM*

        Completely unrelated to Jasper and his situation, my husband drives me to and from work because my eyesight has deteriorated such that I’m not safe to drive on a busy highway.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Thank you for making that decision to protect yourself and others.

          I don’t think that Jasper getting a ride is surprising. Lots of people don’t drive, don’t have access to a car (at least at that moment), or carpool to save money. However, it is another possible sign of enmeshment with his parents.

    2. Jellyfish Catcher*

      Yikes, good point. Jasper could very well be pressured / interrogated by daddy. You don’t want company information floating around, whether true or not.

      Be kind but let him go with severance. In many ways, it could be the best for him. He won’t be tied to a place where he was infantilized, or felt resentment from employees and probably knew that he was not doing good work.
      He needs a fresh start, and I hope he has that courage. He can get money directly deposited to him, get driving lessons, a car and hopefully gets out from under daddy.
      I wish him well.

      1. Jellyfish Catcher*

        PS: Jasper should ask for his payment history while he was employed.
        I wonder if daddy was actually paying him that amount , or “‘paying and pocketing” and giving Jasper an “allowance”.
        Jasper, some of us are pulling for you to have a better life.

  27. George*

    Firing Jasper won’t help your salary issues; 20% of his salary won’t increase the salaries of anyone else much.

    1. HonorBox*

      I don’t think we can assume that. We don’t know how big the team is. We don’t know exactly what Jasper’s pay is. Nor do we know exactly what he does. But just hypothetically, if he’s doing things that can be separated out and others can pick up a task or two, you can use his salary to bump others’ up. If you have a team of 10 and Jasper earns $75,000, you’d have opportunity to increase salaries by an average of $7500. Even if you had to bring someone new in and paid them in line with other salaries, you’d have savings from his salary that you could put toward increasing the others.

    2. Willow*

      I think the bigger issue is that they can’t afford to raise everyone’s salaries to be in line with Jasper’s. In another comment LW said they had a plan worked out that would raise everyone’s salaries (except Jasper and their own) to market rates. But that would still be unfair because Jasper is making above market.

  28. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

    Might it be worth considering having that same conversation and offering Jasper another role that fits better, with appropriate pay? Yeah, it could be awkward, since it’s a demotion and pay cut. He may not be willing to accept that option, since it sends a pretty clear message that he doesn’t have the core competencies for the job he’s currently in. It sounds like Jasper is a decent human, in a difficult situation that isn’t primarily his fault, who is trying his best to reach this new bar. It’s worth considering whether there is another option if it’s unlikely he’ll be able to get where he needs to for his current role in a reasonable amount of time.

  29. HonorBox*

    I feel a bit bad for Jasper. He was set up to fail. When parent retired, they really put him in a bad spot.

    On to the advice… I think the idea of letting him go with severance is probably the best path. There are other ways to adjust things as others have pointed out above, but all of those have a larger chance of creating some other ripples that negatively impact the business. If there are ways to have others take on some of his responsibilities for a while, you can just frame this as taking the role/business in a different direction. You give him a cushion so it isn’t awful for him. But you also give yourself a cushion because you’re less likely to have to fight fires elsewhere on your team if this continues.

  30. Parenthesis Guy*

    I don’t think the issue is his pay. Even if he’s making $200k when he should be making $170k, that’s still only $30k right there. Probably not something you want to eat, but it’s not going to break the company. If that was the issue, I’d probably freeze his salary for three years and then give him below average raises for another three.

    The issue is his performance. He’s in a high-impact role and he’s not doing it as well as you need.
    I’d probably go the severance route to give him a fresh start to give him a fresh start elsewhere.

    1. Observer*

      Disagree. It’s still a lot of money. While the rest of the company is being underpaid.

      So you have the equity issue and the morale issue. But also, if the company cannot afford to bring up the rest of the staff to industry standard, the idea of wasting money on someone who can’t perform to standard is insane.

      I’d probably go the severance route to give him a fresh start to give him a fresh start elsewhere.

      I do think that this is a good idea, though.

  31. CountessofBeans*

    To be clear, the OP said the *rate* being paid to Jasper implies he has more responsibility than he really has, not the position. I understand the OP wants to realign the rate to the position. No where did OP say they were open to terminating Jasper to recapture these funds, OP spoke only of having unbiased information for measuring performance.

    1. Hlao-roo*

      Above the commenting box there’s a link to report “an ad, tech, or typo issue here.” Submitting issues via the link is more likely to lead to a solution than posting a comment.

      1. Beany*

        Worth trying. But it assumes that the ad is malfunctioning. It might be doing exactly what it was designed to do … and be highly annoying.

  34. Sparkles McFadden*

    You stated that you “now have the documentation in place to work through his performance in a specific, unbiased way that may or may not lead to a future for him with the organization.” Jasper’s salary is his compensation, so it’s big part of whatever discussion you are going to have. Since that has to be a blunt discussion anyway, just add “I need to bring your salary in line with company norms. Your new salary will be [insert new salary here] effective as of [insert specific date here].” If you feel the need, you could add “You do not have supervisory functions or any advanced degrees, so your salary was outside of the guidelines even without these performance issues.” Be clear. Don’t let Jasper think he’s got a chance at earning the old, inflated salary.

    I give you a lot of credit for handling this with compassion, LW, but I think you need to be more practical. What would you be doing if it were any other employee and you didn’t have all of the background information? What if Jasper were just the former CEO’s unqualified good buddy? I’m thinking it would be easier to execute the “severance package departure” solution in a case like that. But, if you want to give Jasper a shot, cut the salary now, at the beginning of the process. That’s no more mortifying than “Here are all of the things you need to do to keep your job.”

  35. JoJo*

    If Jasper’s dad isn’t around to cause trouble, I’d get rid of him immediately. Otherwise, the competent employees are going to jump ship.

  36. Observer*

    LW – just a note about one thing you said.

    What you need to do is *reduce* his pay. You are *docking* his pay, which is a punitive measure and you are right to not want to do that. In fact, you would be legally prohibited from doing that.

    But you *can and should* reduce his pay going forward. Will it stink for him? Yes. But you don’t really have a choice.

  38. Former Retail Lifer*

    It’s not Jasper’s fault that he’s in a role he’s not qualified for and that he’s grossly overpaid. To his credit, he’s making more of an effort. I’d gently break it to him that, while we’re seeing some improvement, his qualifications don’t make sense for the role that he’s in. I’d offer him the choice of another role more in line with his qualifications (and corresponding pay) or severance.

  39. Heffalump*

    None of this is Jasper’s fault, and it’s going to be rough on him to have to find a new job, probably for less money than he’s making now. But that’s not reason to keep him. Sometimes people have to take pay cuts for one reason or another.

  40. Cabubbles*

    Another option is Jasper isn’t cut out for the position he was gifted would be to offer to move him into a role that is appropriate. you could create a development plan with his goal being his current position. Naturally a demotion would come with a change of pay.

  42. KOALA*

    Is there a different role that he is qualified for based on the improvements you have seen in his performance but more aligned with his experience and lack of supervisory status? It would still be a tough conversation to effectively be demoting someone. But if there is a role that he would realistically succeed in that’s more aligned salary wise with his skills maybe you could approach it that way. Using Alison’s script but rather than just reducing his pay your aligning his job functions and skills with what makes sense overall.

  43. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

    Jasper also still lives at home with the ex-CEO and receives a ride to and from work from one of his parents. So it’s not like there’s a ton of breathing room for this situation.

    Less emotional breathing room for him, perhaps, but more financial breathing room–he’s probably paying under-market for housing if he’s paying anything at all, and his parents are unlikely to kick him out if he comes home and says “they’re cutting my pay, I can’t contribute as much to the household hudget.” If your landlord evicts you from a rental apartment, they can rent to someone else; fewer people want to rent someone’s old bedroom and negotiate about sharing a kitchen with a landlord who thinks of it as “my house.”

  44. workingdayandnight*

    You’re putting so much thought and care into this and I commend you for it. In my business, it would solve itself by simply sending word up the ladder that the son wasn’t working out. Daddy/Former CEO would get word from a Board Member that his son was going to be let go, and Daddy would hire the kid at his next job or call a friend at another company and get them to hire him.

    2. Polly Hedron*

      It sounds like Daddy is retired and we don’t know if Daddy still has connections at other companies who would hire Jasper.

  45. Raida*

    What do you do?

    You define the role, with a salary.

    He can decide if, now that his old role is being removed and he is redundant, he wants to apply internally for this new role.
    You also allow other people to apply.

    You can also, if he isn’t a crappy worker but is just in the wrong role, give him some help by experiencing other parts of the business, see if there’s somewhere he’d like to work, and keep him abreast of any job openings – but letting him know he’ll need to work hard to replace everyone’s perception of him because you won’t force them to hire him.

    If he’s just made redundant and doesn’t get another internal role you might be up for a severance package – but on the other hand since this was all undocumented in the first place maybe he doesn’t *have* a contract with that included so you could offer something based on how much too much you were paying him.

  46. Coverage Associate*

    I haven’t read all the comments, but I think OP should also be aware that we usually see this level of nepotism in family businesses, not businesses where the CEO is an employee and not also an owner. An owner can do what they want with the business’s revenues, as long as it’s otherwise legal. But a non owner CEO is supposed to manage payroll for the good of the shareholders. A CEO and board that let this happen probably were lax in other ways than pest control.

  47. H3llifIknow*

    I’m almost more concerned by “He is being paid 10-15% over what is appropriate for his role, where other employees are being paid as much as 20% under their market value.”
    Knocking his salary down to a more realistic one isn’t helping those who are being wildly underpaid, not just in comparison to Jasper, but also, apparently to the marketplace!

    1. Beany*

      If the company needs someone (competent) in his role, they can pay market value for it, and distribute the 10-15% freed up to make a small dent in the underpayment of those other employees

      If the company doesn’t really need anyone in that role, they can free up 110-115% of that salary to make a much bigger dent in the underpayment of those other employees.

  49. Polly Hedron*

    It sounds like Daddy is retired and we don’t know if Daddy still has connections at other companies who would hire Jasper.

  50. econobiker*

    Why is Jasper being driven to work by one of his two parents?
    Did he lose his driver’s license due to bad driving record or a DUI? Or due to a medical condition such as seizures or similarly like a handicap recognized by the ADA?

    And since he’s presumably making the large salary that is the issue so why is he still living at home as an adult? Something weird is going on
    here but weirdness isn’t wrong.

    However losing a driver’s license for reasons could be significant signs of other issues such as alcohol abuse.

Comments are closed.