4 ms·

> I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that

by swombat 10y ago

> I don't see why paying people less would lead to an improvement in love, family, being a good person, respect, transparency, etc -- unless you're saying that due to pay difference vs market, you'll also expect less work out of them. There's definitely no necessary causal link here. We aim to pay enough that they won't leave because it's too little but not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. It's a pretty hard balance to achieve... not sure if we have. We used to phrase it as "pay people fairly" but then "fairness" is so relative as a concept that it is essentially useless. Having transparent pay does have a clear link with creating a good working environment, in our experience, however - and transparent pay doesn't mix well with having salaries basically based on people's negotiation skills (rather than a more open system like I've described), in backroom deals. > And money is rarely the actual motivator. Often times, money is the mediator to the things that really motivate people, such as purchasing daycare and enrichment activities, splurging on medical care plans, financial security, etc. I wish that were always true... my observation is that some people are in fact motivated by the money, and the status that comes with being paid more than others, more than by the things they can actually do with the money. I find it puzzling, but so it is...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joshuahutt 10y ago
> not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. I can imagine a case in which a sufficiently high salary could lead to someone staying in a position for which they have no passion. Still, like you say, it's a delicate balance, and on either side you of not getting good work out of your people. On the low end, you just wouldn't be able to secure high-value candidates. On the high end, you might keep people who have no interest in their roles. I do think the latter case is less likely, though.
JamesBarney 10y ago
I can't find the study, but a South American government(I forgot which country) had the same fears. They wanted better employees and they were afraid if they paid them too much they would get people primarily interested in the money and not the job. But they decided to try it anyway, and lo and behold they were surprised to find the higher played employees were not only better employees but also more motivated intrinsically by the job. I would be curious to find any evidence to the contrary. I try to be very suspicious when my views about how the world works line up with some way that I'm benefited monetarily. For instance it's very hard for me to have a clear and accurate opinion of oursourcing and h1-b's.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Practical example: my current employer pays me the same in base salary as my previous employer paid me in base salary + duty + overtime. Oh, and they do it without ever telling me I ough to work more. For me this translates to happily walking the extra mile. It also means my wife is ok with me working a bit extra here and there because I love my job. And it means a whole less paperwork and talk about overtime or not.
  - swombat 10y ago
    I would float to you the idea that what you're reacting to is not necessarily the higher wage but the fact your new employer seems to trust you more and perhaps even care about you more.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Very possibly yes. But it sure helps when telling my wife I should work a couple of extra hours.
basseq 10y ago
> You say I'm worth $X. I go get a job offer for $Y. If $Y > $X, you were mistaken. Here's the disconnect. In this scenario, I'm not saying, "you're worth X". I'm saying, "I'm willing to pay someone $x to do this job." If someone else is willing to pay you more for the same job (all else being equal), I'd advise you to take the other job. If I can't find anyone qualified to take the job for $x within a reasonable period of time, then I'm below market and should adjust. The beauty of that analysis is that it ties to current employee compensation as well. If my offers are below-market, then I have a much larger people problem: either my current team members are below market skills (bad) or are at risk of being poached (also bad). As a candidate, I might look at that and value the culture it represents: transparency, fairness, likely diversity, people-centric... The "we like people who care about more than money" (the passion gambit) can be a a giant warning sign. And is at the root of the "why would I accept less money from you than my market rate, so that you, the founder, can make more money" concern. But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will. Everything's a trade-off. No one is forcing you, as a candidate, to act against your best interests. There are just different kinds of interests.
- swombat 10y ago
  Exactly. We know and recognise that pay scales are arbitrary. We are trying to get it right by neither underpaying nor overpaying. We are also trying to get it right by enabling a mature conversation on the topic, so instead of feeling undervalued and quitting after finding a better job, people within GrantTree can simply start some sort of process to get their pay adjusted to what they believe is a fair market value for their work. Alternatively, they might find out, through the process, that their work is not valued as much by others as they value it. This, if they are humble enough, is a signal that either they should be working on something else, or clarify to the rest of the company what the impact of their work is. Either way, this is an open process accessible to all, instead of something behind closed doors only available to those who are ballsy enough to ask for a pay raise. It's far from perfect, and it's often difficult and demanding of people (particularly those who are on the various pay task forces that assemble and disband to make changes or evaluate people), but it's working alright so far for us. It's also a huge learning opportunity for everyone involved. > But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will. There is no good idea humanity has ever had that cannot be twisted into a trap to fool people... unfortunately every good thought ends up being used by someone somewhere to screw someone else over. I like to think we (my cofounder and I) are on the good side of that assumption, but it's important for us to remember that if we shift to the wrong side of it then the whole system becomes polluted by this desire - or rather, this fear of not having enough.

by swombat 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joshuahutt 10y ago

> not so much that they will stay just because of the salary is too high. I can imagine a case in which a sufficiently high salary could lead to someone staying in a position for which they have no passion. Still, like you say, it's a delicate balance, and on either side you of not getting good work out of your people. On the low end, you just wouldn't be able to secure high-value candidates. On the high end, you might keep people who have no interest in their roles. I do think the latter case is less likely, though.

JamesBarney 10y ago

I can't find the study, but a South American government(I forgot which country) had the same fears. They wanted better employees and they were afraid if they paid them too much they would get people primarily interested in the money and not the job. But they decided to try it anyway, and lo and behold they were surprised to find the higher played employees were not only better employees but also more motivated intrinsically by the job. I would be curious to find any evidence to the contrary. I try to be very suspicious when my views about how the world works line up with some way that I'm benefited monetarily. For instance it's very hard for me to have a clear and accurate opinion of oursourcing and h1-b's.

reitanqild 10y ago
Practical example: my current employer pays me the same in base salary as my previous employer paid me in base salary + duty + overtime. Oh, and they do it without ever telling me I ough to work more. For me this translates to happily walking the extra mile. It also means my wife is ok with me working a bit extra here and there because I love my job. And it means a whole less paperwork and talk about overtime or not.
- swombat 10y ago
  I would float to you the idea that what you're reacting to is not necessarily the higher wage but the fact your new employer seems to trust you more and perhaps even care about you more.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Very possibly yes. But it sure helps when telling my wife I should work a couple of extra hours.

basseq 10y ago

> You say I'm worth $X. I go get a job offer for $Y. If $Y > $X, you were mistaken. Here's the disconnect. In this scenario, I'm not saying, "you're worth X". I'm saying, "I'm willing to pay someone $x to do this job." If someone else is willing to pay you more for the same job (all else being equal), I'd advise you to take the other job. If I can't find anyone qualified to take the job for $x within a reasonable period of time, then I'm below market and should adjust. The beauty of that analysis is that it ties to current employee compensation as well. If my offers are below-market, then I have a much larger people problem: either my current team members are below market skills (bad) or are at risk of being poached (also bad). As a candidate, I might look at that and value the culture it represents: transparency, fairness, likely diversity, people-centric... The "we like people who care about more than money" (the passion gambit) can be a a giant warning sign. And is at the root of the "why would I accept less money from you than my market rate, so that you, the founder, can make more money" concern. But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will. Everything's a trade-off. No one is forcing you, as a candidate, to act against your best interests. There are just different kinds of interests.

swombat 10y ago
Exactly. We know and recognise that pay scales are arbitrary. We are trying to get it right by neither underpaying nor overpaying. We are also trying to get it right by enabling a mature conversation on the topic, so instead of feeling undervalued and quitting after finding a better job, people within GrantTree can simply start some sort of process to get their pay adjusted to what they believe is a fair market value for their work. Alternatively, they might find out, through the process, that their work is not valued as much by others as they value it. This, if they are humble enough, is a signal that either they should be working on something else, or clarify to the rest of the company what the impact of their work is. Either way, this is an open process accessible to all, instead of something behind closed doors only available to those who are ballsy enough to ask for a pay raise. It's far from perfect, and it's often difficult and demanding of people (particularly those who are on the various pay task forces that assemble and disband to make changes or evaluate people), but it's working alright so far for us. It's also a huge learning opportunity for everyone involved. > But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will. There is no good idea humanity has ever had that cannot be twisted into a trap to fool people... unfortunately every good thought ends up being used by someone somewhere to screw someone else over. I like to think we (my cofounder and I) are on the good side of that assumption, but it's important for us to remember that if we shift to the wrong side of it then the whole system becomes polluted by this desire - or rather, this fear of not having enough.