7 ms·

Patio11 is very respected in the community, but I can't help but feel that most points in here are not applicable to all software engineers. This seems to be mo

Patio11 is very respected in the community, but I can't help but feel that most points in here are not applicable to all software engineers. This seems to be mostly for people starting off in their careers, or people that feel that work is a major part of their life. I am sure there must be more people out there like me who: - Dont care about getting the best-ever salary thats on offer. If the developer finds out that other companies are offering better salaries, they dont hesitate to re-negotiate or jump ship. - Put more emphasis on the work-life balance rather than the work. This means one may not get excited enough about the work to seek out people and companies, but when they get emails from companies or recruiters, they dont mind starting a discussion if the work is decent and the people are good to work with. This doesnt in anyway mean that the developer doesnt like coding. Just that they feel that its not worth the effort to fight for more money if they feel that what they are making is giving them a pretty good living.

rhodysurf 11y ago
Thats how I feel. I have a good job that pays me a bit below than my market value, but it makes up for it in work-life balance. Heck just today I came to work an hour and a half late because I was surfing and I didn't have to notify anyone that I would be late. That freedom is something I havent been able to put a price tag on yet, and its why I've turned down much higher salaries the last few years.
- kzhahou 11y ago
  But the question is whether you could have negotiated an extra $15K --for the SAME surf-friendly job you have now-- just by holding out for 1 more day during the interview/hiring process.
  - cgopalan 11y ago
    If the $15K is guaranteed when you hold out for 1 more day, sure. If not, its like any other trade-off between your mental peace and more effort.
  - rhodysurf 11y ago
    Of course I would, but a company saying they are flexible about the hours you work and them actually being flexible are two different things. Its always going to be a risk. There are other factors, such as the level of autonomy I have, that weigh into things too.
  - noxToken 11y ago
    Isn't that typically the question when negotiating anything? How often do we truly walk away with the absolute best deal that we can get? Even if, how often can we say with 100% confidence that the deal was the best that can be offered? I think people hate to admit that things can just be "good enough", because the phrase "good enough" sounds like we settled without putting forth enough effort. It's a false dichotomy. Things can be good enough in one area yet outstanding in others.
    - kzhahou 11y ago
      We're taking about whether to negotiate vs. just taking first offer from company. Even if money isn't your TOP priority (vs flexible hours, etc) and you love the work opportunity being offered to you, you should still negotiate up front and try to get the company to come up higher. It's MUCH easier than asking for a raise or promotion later -- something as simple as saying "can you come up a bit higher?" on a phone call --those seven little words-- could pay for your summer vacation!
- thedufer 11y ago
  > That freedom is something I havent been able to put a price tag on yet Keep your eyes open! I thought the same thing about six months ago, but it turns out my price tag just sat in the area between what I thought people were willing to pay me and what they actually were.
potatolicious 11y ago
I disagree heavily - I think his advice is actually equally, if not more, relevant for people like yourself. Being a shrewd negotiator is an absolutely critical skill in life, even if you don't want the best-ever-salary. If you know how to negotiate the best-ever-salary, you can trade it in for things that do matter to you. Don't want tons of money but want great work-life balance? You can turn part of that salary into more vacation time, more flexible working conditions (remote?), one day off every single week, more benefits, and other things that matter to you. Money can be used to purchase many things - the ability to negotiate for more and take less can also be used to purchase things - in fact they can purchase things not available in cash (see: extra vacation).
- tetraodonpuffer 11y ago
  : you can turn part of that salary into more vacation time there are not many companies hiring you for full time at $x that will allow you to work 3 days a week for 50% of $x, much more likely they will let you go and hire somebody else (unless you've been there forever and are the only person that can do something, in which case the company should worry about you getting hit by a bus) money can be used to purchase many things, but in our field work/life balance is not one of them, unless of course you mean be lucky to have a good exit and then for the rest of your career you can work on what you like for part-time, but that is not realistic if you need a salary to put food on the table
  - chris11 11y ago
    I wouldn't exactly say that. I just had a friend get a full-time position. He negotiated his work week to less than 40 hours, with full benefits. That said his hourly pay did seem on the low side.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    > there are not many companies hiring you for full time at $x that will allow you to work 3 days a week for 50% of $x, much more likely they will let you go and hire somebody else (unless you've been there forever and are the only person that can do something, in which case the company should worry about you getting hit by a bus) Your calculus is a bit off. A company will not hire you part time because employees need time to learn the job. This includes the culture and political aspects. Once you've been there for awhile, that all changes. Now you're a part of the company, so the company is going to be way more willing to jump through hoops to keep you around. The reason they wouldn't let you come in at 3 days a week, is the same reason they will start letting you (if you negotiate it right) after you've been there a year or so. It's tougher and more expensive to assimilate a new employee than it is to make a productive current employee happy. If you can show to the company that the bottom line won't get impacted by a proposed change, make it clear that you'll leave unless you get your way, (hard to do convincingly) and offer an acceptable path to move from A to B, then you too can find work/life balance. It's not impossible, but it's not easy either. I'd put it as being slightly harder than getting a 20% raise, which I've done. Now that I think about it, if you want a 20% raise, then one path to getting it might be to start the process of negotiating something like this, (to let them know you're serious about not being happy) and then come in one day and ask for more money. If you play your cards right, they'd be much happier to open up the checkbook than to deal with the prospect of having half their workforce ask for the same thing you just got. (that's the real reason they don't want part-timers. Even if they can trust you not to abuse it, what about the next three people that ask?)
Spooky23 11y ago
Negotiation is about getting both parties closer to what both parties want. In one gig I got 6 weeks vacation, workweek not to exceed 45 hours and an Aeron chair. You still need to grok your value, but fringe benefits are usually more flexible because you can establish a value for them that is often more valuable than the value to the counter-party.
nickbauman 11y ago
The key idea behind Starfighter: "Rather than measuring proxies for talent, we just decided to try to measure talent directly." The problem with this is that the technical side of things is much less important than how people work together. Google's Project Aristotle has shown that technical chops matter far less than people being empathetic, tolerant and good listeners.
- phil21 11y ago
  While perhaps obvious to the crowd here, how you work together only matters if the team is talented enough to begin with. I've worked for companies where the primary focus was put on "empathetic, tolerant, and good listeners" where everyone was afraid to rock the boat. These were the least favorite environments of my career as they attracted lets just say not A players - and the inability to get things done was astounding. Any talent that accidentally found it's way into the company never lasted beyond 6 months. There is a balance. You need the raw tech talent to be there to get the project completed, but I agree you want those folks to play relatively nicely together. The most functional teams I've been on have been relatively small, full of very opinionated but extremely talented people, and to an outsider it would have looked like organizational and social chaos. However we all loved that period of our lives, and speak about it fondly. When you're on a team that is rapidly getting things done, but is passionate enough about the work to scream and yell it's refreshing vs. the banality of the typical corporate dev/tech/IT job no one actually cares about. So for me, I'd much rather work on a team of highly talented opinionated assholes than a team of untalented nice folks.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    I think you've hit the nail on the head. Empathy, tolerance, and social cohesion are all valuable things. However, if they are valued to the exclusion of ability to get work done, then you don't have an engineering team. You have a very expensive group therapy session.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    According to the results of Project Aristotle, empathy, tolerance and good listening was what made people feel like they could "rock the boat". Maybe you should read the article? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learn...

rhodysurf 11y ago

Thats how I feel. I have a good job that pays me a bit below than my market value, but it makes up for it in work-life balance. Heck just today I came to work an hour and a half late because I was surfing and I didn't have to notify anyone that I would be late. That freedom is something I havent been able to put a price tag on yet, and its why I've turned down much higher salaries the last few years.

kzhahou 11y ago
But the question is whether you could have negotiated an extra $15K --for the SAME surf-friendly job you have now-- just by holding out for 1 more day during the interview/hiring process.
- cgopalan 11y ago
  If the $15K is guaranteed when you hold out for 1 more day, sure. If not, its like any other trade-off between your mental peace and more effort.
- rhodysurf 11y ago
  Of course I would, but a company saying they are flexible about the hours you work and them actually being flexible are two different things. Its always going to be a risk. There are other factors, such as the level of autonomy I have, that weigh into things too.
- noxToken 11y ago
  Isn't that typically the question when negotiating anything? How often do we truly walk away with the absolute best deal that we can get? Even if, how often can we say with 100% confidence that the deal was the best that can be offered? I think people hate to admit that things can just be "good enough", because the phrase "good enough" sounds like we settled without putting forth enough effort. It's a false dichotomy. Things can be good enough in one area yet outstanding in others.
  - kzhahou 11y ago
    We're taking about whether to negotiate vs. just taking first offer from company. Even if money isn't your TOP priority (vs flexible hours, etc) and you love the work opportunity being offered to you, you should still negotiate up front and try to get the company to come up higher. It's MUCH easier than asking for a raise or promotion later -- something as simple as saying "can you come up a bit higher?" on a phone call --those seven little words-- could pay for your summer vacation!
thedufer 11y ago
> That freedom is something I havent been able to put a price tag on yet Keep your eyes open! I thought the same thing about six months ago, but it turns out my price tag just sat in the area between what I thought people were willing to pay me and what they actually were.

potatolicious 11y ago

I disagree heavily - I think his advice is actually equally, if not more, relevant for people like yourself. Being a shrewd negotiator is an absolutely critical skill in life, even if you don't want the best-ever-salary. If you know how to negotiate the best-ever-salary, you can trade it in for things that do matter to you. Don't want tons of money but want great work-life balance? You can turn part of that salary into more vacation time, more flexible working conditions (remote?), one day off every single week, more benefits, and other things that matter to you. Money can be used to purchase many things - the ability to negotiate for more and take less can also be used to purchase things - in fact they can purchase things not available in cash (see: extra vacation).

tetraodonpuffer 11y ago
: you can turn part of that salary into more vacation time there are not many companies hiring you for full time at $x that will allow you to work 3 days a week for 50% of $x, much more likely they will let you go and hire somebody else (unless you've been there forever and are the only person that can do something, in which case the company should worry about you getting hit by a bus) money can be used to purchase many things, but in our field work/life balance is not one of them, unless of course you mean be lucky to have a good exit and then for the rest of your career you can work on what you like for part-time, but that is not realistic if you need a salary to put food on the table
- chris11 11y ago
  I wouldn't exactly say that. I just had a friend get a full-time position. He negotiated his work week to less than 40 hours, with full benefits. That said his hourly pay did seem on the low side.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > there are not many companies hiring you for full time at $x that will allow you to work 3 days a week for 50% of $x, much more likely they will let you go and hire somebody else (unless you've been there forever and are the only person that can do something, in which case the company should worry about you getting hit by a bus) Your calculus is a bit off. A company will not hire you part time because employees need time to learn the job. This includes the culture and political aspects. Once you've been there for awhile, that all changes. Now you're a part of the company, so the company is going to be way more willing to jump through hoops to keep you around. The reason they wouldn't let you come in at 3 days a week, is the same reason they will start letting you (if you negotiate it right) after you've been there a year or so. It's tougher and more expensive to assimilate a new employee than it is to make a productive current employee happy. If you can show to the company that the bottom line won't get impacted by a proposed change, make it clear that you'll leave unless you get your way, (hard to do convincingly) and offer an acceptable path to move from A to B, then you too can find work/life balance. It's not impossible, but it's not easy either. I'd put it as being slightly harder than getting a 20% raise, which I've done. Now that I think about it, if you want a 20% raise, then one path to getting it might be to start the process of negotiating something like this, (to let them know you're serious about not being happy) and then come in one day and ask for more money. If you play your cards right, they'd be much happier to open up the checkbook than to deal with the prospect of having half their workforce ask for the same thing you just got. (that's the real reason they don't want part-timers. Even if they can trust you not to abuse it, what about the next three people that ask?)

Spooky23 11y ago

Negotiation is about getting both parties closer to what both parties want. In one gig I got 6 weeks vacation, workweek not to exceed 45 hours and an Aeron chair. You still need to grok your value, but fringe benefits are usually more flexible because you can establish a value for them that is often more valuable than the value to the counter-party.

nickbauman 11y ago

The key idea behind Starfighter: "Rather than measuring proxies for talent, we just decided to try to measure talent directly." The problem with this is that the technical side of things is much less important than how people work together. Google's Project Aristotle has shown that technical chops matter far less than people being empathetic, tolerant and good listeners.

phil21 11y ago
While perhaps obvious to the crowd here, how you work together only matters if the team is talented enough to begin with. I've worked for companies where the primary focus was put on "empathetic, tolerant, and good listeners" where everyone was afraid to rock the boat. These were the least favorite environments of my career as they attracted lets just say not A players - and the inability to get things done was astounding. Any talent that accidentally found it's way into the company never lasted beyond 6 months. There is a balance. You need the raw tech talent to be there to get the project completed, but I agree you want those folks to play relatively nicely together. The most functional teams I've been on have been relatively small, full of very opinionated but extremely talented people, and to an outsider it would have looked like organizational and social chaos. However we all loved that period of our lives, and speak about it fondly. When you're on a team that is rapidly getting things done, but is passionate enough about the work to scream and yell it's refreshing vs. the banality of the typical corporate dev/tech/IT job no one actually cares about. So for me, I'd much rather work on a team of highly talented opinionated assholes than a team of untalented nice folks.
- Kalium 11y ago
  I think you've hit the nail on the head. Empathy, tolerance, and social cohesion are all valuable things. However, if they are valued to the exclusion of ability to get work done, then you don't have an engineering team. You have a very expensive group therapy session.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  According to the results of Project Aristotle, empathy, tolerance and good listening was what made people feel like they could "rock the boat". Maybe you should read the article? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learn...