I can assure you as a (reluctant) manager I definitely care. Its literally the only reason I'm management. I'm also constantly having discussions with the people who generally make these kind of broad decisions about how unrealistic their decision making processes are. I tend to start those conversations with some variant on "it doesn't matter what you say the raise limits are for a person, the market sets those things and the market right now says you're wrong".
It turns out that deciding what a software developer is worth is a very challenging proposition because deciding which ones are good is an open problem. Probably the central open problem in our industry today. But salary conversations are largely not about that. In sufficiently large organizations they are about how well you, or your manager if they are good, play the game, and in smaller ones its about having the cash flow to back up outstanding liabilities.
In any case, I think its fair to characterize these approaches as a tactic, whether its a negotiation tactic or a real cost limitation varies from organization to organization but its not the employees job to worry about that. If you are in a good organization they are constantly making the value proposition to the company make sense, if not they aren't and you shouldn't feel guilty about either asking for more pay or leaving if it isn't provided.
> it doesn't matter what you say the raise limits are for a person, the market sets those things and the market right now says you're wrong
This is very common. They often justify it with "In this company we're not paying as much, but we have greater freedom/cooler tech/<other benefit>". Well good for you. We have already established that we're a good fit, but I'm not working for 20% less than I can across the street.
I don't think there is anything wrong with justifying a lower pay rate that way. I have definitely taken lower paying jobs for those very reasons. When you are making that value proposition you accept that some potential employees you'll miss out on because the money is not there.
The problematic behavior is when the people setting the pay bands get the value proposition wrong or they think they are paying market when they are not.
Well, ATM I tell everyone that unless they add 15% to my current salary I won't even listen; I love the place I work ATM, they have been consistently nice for 18 months straight and I actually enjoy work.
I also have an OK salary so this is partially about reducing risk and partially about giving something back.
It turns out that deciding what a software developer is worth is a very challenging proposition because deciding which ones are good is an open problem. Probably the central open problem in our industry today. But salary conversations are largely not about that. In sufficiently large organizations they are about how well you, or your manager if they are good, play the game, and in smaller ones its about having the cash flow to back up outstanding liabilities.
In any case, I think its fair to characterize these approaches as a tactic, whether its a negotiation tactic or a real cost limitation varies from organization to organization but its not the employees job to worry about that. If you are in a good organization they are constantly making the value proposition to the company make sense, if not they aren't and you shouldn't feel guilty about either asking for more pay or leaving if it isn't provided.