I am a junior developer for a medium-sized firm in the UK and my manager recently left leaving me as the only person on my team. I have discussed a promotion and wage increase with my new line manager (who isn't a developer themselves) and they have presented me with two options:

1. I try to push for a title and wage change now. This will apparently be heavily scrutinized due to the time of year and the fact it would interfere with the current budget.




2. Get a title change now and wait for the end of the year when everyone's pay is reviewed to get an increase. Apparently finance compares everyone's wages to the market rate and as mine is significantly lower (this was my first IT job and as a full dev it is about 10k lower) I would have a better chance of getting an even higher wage.

Now, I'm a bit of a cautious type and aren't a fan of being rigorously questioned so my inclination is to go with the second option as it doesn't seem too much like rocking the boat and my line manager has indicated it's his preferred option. I don't think my manager has suggested this to subvert my getting more money somehow as he did suggest applying for jobs so I could use any potential offers as leverage but I would just like to hear an opinion from someone who might have been in a similar position as this is my first ever opportunity to get a rise in my working life and I'd like to get the best for me.

Never let talk of budget considerations stand in the way of getting ahead. Without you they have no team and they're currently not having to pay a manager who I assume was making more than you.

The thing about leverage is that it's often temporary, you use it or you lose it.

If your responsibilities and tasks will increase, your pay should at the same time, not later when it's convenient.

A lot depends on your risk assessment of the situation and knowledge of the people. From a comment about goodwill there is a valid point about taking option 2 which would make things easier for your line manager and the company, in the hopes that this will be repaid in some way. This can happen, and if it's an easy ride you're after may be the way to go. The danger is it may never eventuate and they have had ample time to replace you or change their minds once the crisis is over.

The other danger is that anytime you push forwards there is an implication that you're looking at leaving if your needs are not met.

Option 3: If you're not confident and committed it's usually best just to stay quiet and see what happens, bluffing weakens any negotiating stance you may have, both now and in the future.

Fast tracking a career requires some ruthlessness and risk, which may not be suitable for everyone's temperament.

Accepting a title change without a corresponding pay bump puts you at a serious disadvantage. There's nothing stopping the company from saying "Congratulations on your promotion, we've given you the maximum allowable 5% increase!" or even "We don't feel you're fully up to speed on the additional responsibilities of your new role, so we're not offering you a pay rise this year"

I'd be inclined to approach your new manager with something like this:

Hey boss, I understand the budget constraints of handing out promotions so close to annual review time. I'm happy to stay in the junior role right now, but I still want to push for the full developer role, and I'd like to be considered for promotion as part of my annual review. I wanted to give you a heads up about my intentions so that if you feel there are other skills I need to pick up or if you have any concerns about my ability to perform in the full role, I can work to address them well ahead of the annual review.

Of course, the unspoken part of that conversation is "I'd like you to consider my new salary as part of your budget for next year" but it also means your boss is in a good place to go to bat for you with his boss, and you avoid any difficult conversations about your salary later, since it will simply form part of the discussion around your promotion.

This will apparently be heavily scrutinized due to the time of year and the fact it would interfere with the current budget

Budgets are always scrutinized, but to play Devil's Advocate, I'd argue that your manager's departure has freed up plenty of planned expenses that could defray the cost of increasing your salary.

The two options you outlined are both maybes:

1. 
   Maybe we can get you a raise right now, or


2. 
   Maybe we can get you a better raise if you wait until EOY

Are these options substantially different in the short- to medium-term?

How much better if you wait until EOY? There's still a full Quarter of the year outstanding. A few percent maybe? Let's say you can get that $10K bump right now, or maybe a $12.5K bump in 3+ months. You'll earn an extra $2500 this year, and $10K more next year. At any point between now and 31/12/2020, you'll have earned cumulatively more money by taking the early, but smaller raise.

We can illustrate that with a few different potential increases starting on Jan 1 versus the smaller increase effective 1 October 2019:

Regardless of title/salary increase, your responsibilities are going to change, RIGHT NOW.

As someone who's survived several rounds of RIFs (reduction in force/headcount), I can give you my anecdotal experience:

When people leave, their responsibilities don't follow them. They're absorbed by other members of the team or department or whatever. If you're the only other member on that team, you're going to (obviously) incur the bulk of this. Some responsibilities may be tabled indefinitely or go away, but not all of them.

Unless the company has very good succession plans in place to reduce this sort of friction when employees/managers leave, you're going to start accumulating additional responsibilities that were previously your manager's. Right now. Some of these will be mundane, but some will not be. You're going to be doing 2 jobs, instead of 1. (OK, you'll be doing 1 < job < 2)

So you maybe don't have experience in all of those responsibilities, but who else is going to do them, if you don't? And what is the cost to the business if those things don't get done at all? It's probably significant.

I would push strongly for the title + wage change, effective ASAP. Balance this with your understanding of a skill shortfall and try to get a plan of action in place to bring you up to speed as quick as possible; this may involve shadowing someone in another similar role in a different department, or attending internal or external training (on the company's dime), or online tutorials, etc.

Also note that in a year's time you'll ideally be on par, or if not, you'll have a year's experience and better prospects for seeking other opportunities.

From personal experience, "Pay Raise Later" never materializes.

Tellign you now that they'll pay you more later is easy... and every time I've had a company tell me that, it fell through for one reason or another. There is always a reason to not pay you more. Fundamentally, unless you know for a fact that the person who is in charge of deciding your pay values their word and is willing to give it, a company's promise to give you a raise at some point in the future means bupkis. The budget wont' allow it, or someone from higher office countermands it or... or anything, really. For the significant majority of companies, if you let them blow you off now with "sure, we'll pay you more later" then it's that much easier to blow you off later with even less. With very few exceptions, promises of that nature mean nothing.

The fact that it's a "medium sized company" makes it even less likely to mean anything. The few exceptions tend to be quite small - small enough that decisions like that are handled by individuals, rather than at an organizational level. The organization will look out for itself, and they will almost never decide that it's in their best interests to pay you more when they could get away with paying you less.