3 ms·

This is a fantastic side-effect of transparent cultures and salary structure: people like you who, for reasons good or bad, do not want to work in this kind of

by swombat 10y ago

This is a fantastic side-effect of transparent cultures and salary structure: people like you who, for reasons good or bad, do not want to work in this kind of environment, don't apply. You may believe that sets you apart as an "A player" and means we only hire B players. I believe the concept of A players and B players is false, and have discussed this here: http://danieltenner.com/2014/09/11/there-are-no-b-players/ http://danieltenner.com/2014/09/11/there-are-no-b-players/ . That said it is your right to believe this dichotomy exists and that you are on the right side of it. I put it to you that if you insist on having an A/B player dichotomy your desire for an environment which makes you feel worthy through paying you more makes you inherently a B player in the environment at Buffer or GrantTree, where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you. Almost all the people who we interview are very keen to work in this kind of environment. The last job we had opened (admittedly a relatively low skilled job) we had 200 applicants, interviewed about 20, and almost all those 20 were really, really keen to work in this open environment (and none found it a turnoff, though some didn't really understand what it meant). I like to think we hired someone who will be able to do the role very well and be happy doing it in our company. What I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply. That's a win on both sides: you don't waste your time interviewing with us, and we don't waste our time interviewing you.

15155 10y ago
> where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you. I find it difficult to work with people who are compensated less than me. I want my coworkers to be better than me. I do not want to work with people assessed as "masters" making $155,000/year in San Francisco, CA. I am accustomed to working with people being paid more. Full disclosure: Over four years ago, I was receiving offers $10,000+/year more for like roles (SF, FTE, backend development). I would certainly not proclaim myself a "master," either. Especially not 4 years ago. > I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply. Please do not turn this into a matter of "culture." I find nothing wrong with a culture of transparency. I find Buffer's actual compensation packages problematic. The lack of negotiation ability makes what might otherwise be a fruitful business relationship impossible. I do not believe that transparency and negotiations are mutually exclusive. Sincere counter-question: how can you retain talent with fixed salary ceilings? Why would someone stick around when they're leaving a ton of money on the table? Entirely my opinion: this is potentially the A/B dichotomy. If someone is developing their skills, is extremely productive, is increasing their worth, at one of these companies they can choose to leave money on the table (altruistically donating their higher value to a for-profit company) or leave. Are they a "bad culture fit" because they wanted to make what they are worth?
- swombat 10y ago
  Thanks for the open follow-up response. Re-reading, I realise my previous response was a bit unnecessarily snarky. Sorry for that. > I find it difficult to work with people who are compensated less than me. I want my coworkers to be better than me. I much prefer that attitude to the opposite :-) Though surely even better is to work with great people whom you're learning from in a variety of ways, whether or not they are paid more or less or the same. A lot of the value that someone can bring to your life is not correlated with their value to the market. > The lack of negotiation ability makes what might otherwise be a fruitful business relationship impossible. I do not believe that transparency and negotiations are mutually exclusive. I can't speak for Buffer, but in GrantTree it is not that you cannot negotiate, but that you cannot negotiate in secret - so it's more a discussion than a negotiation (I hope... sample size is limited at the moment!). As I mentioned in my original post, we start the ball rolling by saying where we think you fit on the pay scale and why, and if that's not where you think you should fit you are welcome to engage in a discussion to help us get it right! > Sincere counter-question: how can you retain talent with fixed salary ceilings? Why would someone stick around when they're leaving a ton of money on the table? > If someone is developing their skills, is extremely productive, is increasing their worth, at one of these companies they can choose to leave money on the table (altruistically donating their higher value to a for-profit company) or leave. Are they a "bad culture fit" because they wanted to make what they are worth? There's a really good question here and I don't have a great answer to it. If you or anyone has any suggestions I'd love to hear them. To an extent, part of my answer would be: surely that's true of any small company. People might grow faster than the company. When that happens, I guess they leave and move on to something else. I guess that's ok. It's not like everyone has to keep working for GrantTree for the rest of their life! People might leave for this reason or for another reason. I hope they then look back at GrantTree as a place where they grew and learned a lot, had a great time, made some great friends and did some worthwhile work. In that time, they contributed to GrantTree's growth as well as their own, so it's not like the company is left high and dry here. And no, I don't think that makes them a "bad culture fit" in that sort of insulting way. It might mean they are no longer a good fit for working here. That's ok. People change. Companies change. Someone that was a good fit to work in a small 3-people startup is not necessarily a good fit to work in that company 20 years later, obviously. That doesn't have to be an insult or a put-down.
dandandan 10y ago
Does "people like you" mean individuals who want to be compensated appropriately? How much can the transparency of an organization be valued at?

by swombat 10y ago

15155 10y ago

> where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you. I find it difficult to work with people who are compensated less than me. I want my coworkers to be better than me. I do not want to work with people assessed as "masters" making $155,000/year in San Francisco, CA. I am accustomed to working with people being paid more. Full disclosure: Over four years ago, I was receiving offers $10,000+/year more for like roles (SF, FTE, backend development). I would certainly not proclaim myself a "master," either. Especially not 4 years ago. > I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply. Please do not turn this into a matter of "culture." I find nothing wrong with a culture of transparency. I find Buffer's actual compensation packages problematic. The lack of negotiation ability makes what might otherwise be a fruitful business relationship impossible. I do not believe that transparency and negotiations are mutually exclusive. Sincere counter-question: how can you retain talent with fixed salary ceilings? Why would someone stick around when they're leaving a ton of money on the table? Entirely my opinion: this is potentially the A/B dichotomy. If someone is developing their skills, is extremely productive, is increasing their worth, at one of these companies they can choose to leave money on the table (altruistically donating their higher value to a for-profit company) or leave. Are they a "bad culture fit" because they wanted to make what they are worth?

swombat 10y ago
Thanks for the open follow-up response. Re-reading, I realise my previous response was a bit unnecessarily snarky. Sorry for that. > I find it difficult to work with people who are compensated less than me. I want my coworkers to be better than me. I much prefer that attitude to the opposite :-) Though surely even better is to work with great people whom you're learning from in a variety of ways, whether or not they are paid more or less or the same. A lot of the value that someone can bring to your life is not correlated with their value to the market. > The lack of negotiation ability makes what might otherwise be a fruitful business relationship impossible. I do not believe that transparency and negotiations are mutually exclusive. I can't speak for Buffer, but in GrantTree it is not that you cannot negotiate, but that you cannot negotiate in secret - so it's more a discussion than a negotiation (I hope... sample size is limited at the moment!). As I mentioned in my original post, we start the ball rolling by saying where we think you fit on the pay scale and why, and if that's not where you think you should fit you are welcome to engage in a discussion to help us get it right! > Sincere counter-question: how can you retain talent with fixed salary ceilings? Why would someone stick around when they're leaving a ton of money on the table? > If someone is developing their skills, is extremely productive, is increasing their worth, at one of these companies they can choose to leave money on the table (altruistically donating their higher value to a for-profit company) or leave. Are they a "bad culture fit" because they wanted to make what they are worth? There's a really good question here and I don't have a great answer to it. If you or anyone has any suggestions I'd love to hear them. To an extent, part of my answer would be: surely that's true of any small company. People might grow faster than the company. When that happens, I guess they leave and move on to something else. I guess that's ok. It's not like everyone has to keep working for GrantTree for the rest of their life! People might leave for this reason or for another reason. I hope they then look back at GrantTree as a place where they grew and learned a lot, had a great time, made some great friends and did some worthwhile work. In that time, they contributed to GrantTree's growth as well as their own, so it's not like the company is left high and dry here. And no, I don't think that makes them a "bad culture fit" in that sort of insulting way. It might mean they are no longer a good fit for working here. That's ok. People change. Companies change. Someone that was a good fit to work in a small 3-people startup is not necessarily a good fit to work in that company 20 years later, obviously. That doesn't have to be an insult or a put-down.

dandandan 10y ago

Does "people like you" mean individuals who want to be compensated appropriately? How much can the transparency of an organization be valued at?