4 ms·

Stack Overflow employee here, here's some answers (or at least, my take). Regarding point 1, remember that there are no salary negotiations at Stack Overflow.

by sklivvz1971 10y ago

Stack Overflow employee here, here's some answers (or at least, my take). Regarding point 1, remember that there are no salary negotiations at Stack Overflow. No one gets a raise because they ask. People get raises because they demonstrate skills, increase experience, etc... A candidate will have an initial skill evaluation they might not like, but they are pretty much guaranteed to have a much better one after one year, and if it is a big positive correction, then be it! There are no negative corrections btw - previous years salaries are at least maintained. Secondly, I sincerely doubt we'd make an offer to a candidate that assumes their skills are all at the top of the range. "Fives" are extraordinarily rare, most employees have no fives, and the ones that do have one five. Regarding point 2, as an employee I am not concerned with the salary of others per se. I know that they have the salary which corresponds to their perceived skills. It's likely that I would object to some evaluations of skills if I saw them, but that's an order of magnitude healthier than having salary envy. In fact, keeping evaluations fair and in check is a very good thing for the company.

fecak 10y ago
Thanks for sharing, and I hope employees keep us updated on this experiment (because transparency). My reference to negotiations was mostly for a negotiation upon hire. A job is advertised at a certain range, and the applicant expects the top of that range. I know that Stack Overflow's process might be a bit more evolved, but most companies that advertise a range probably leave a little wiggle room at the top and don't expect to be negotiating with candidates asking the minimum. >Secondly, I sincerely doubt we'd make an offer to a candidate that assumes their skills are all at the top of the range. This comes across more like assessing candidates for hire based on ego or confidence rather than actual skills. Of course, companies don't want to hire people with inflated beliefs about their own abilities - those who "don't know what they don't know". If you would object to the skills evaluations, and if we assume some of those people are earning more than you, how is that different than "salary envy"? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just not sure I understand the thought process.
- sklivvz1971 10y ago
  > This comes across more like assessing candidates for hire based on ego or confidence rather than actual skills. Our hire/no-hire policy is only based on competence, however true competence includes the capacity for realistic self-assessment. Keep in mind that our skill scale, especially for core skills, goes from "I could be better" to "I am world famous for this skill", so it's fairly easy to prove or disprove whether someone is at the top of the ladder. > If you would object to the skills evaluations, and if we assume some of those people are earning more than you, how is that different than "salary envy"? Big caveat: this works for us, but of course each company is different. Our skills are based on measurable stuff and generally do not represent a "career achievement". An employee can't say "I'm better than Marco, so I should be paid more". An employee might say "This year I've done better than Marco at SQL, but Marco has a better score in it, can you review mine?". In most cases, we simply look at the evidence: has the employee actually been better than Marco in the last year in doing SQL? Also keep in mind that there's a huge gap between categories. We've four, B, A, A+, A+++. They start at "B" which means that someone did not do much on that skill in the past year. For example, I've got a B in sysadmin stuff which I never need to do. In order to get an "A" one needs to be completely proficient in the skill, no obvious gaps, so for example I've (IIRC) an A in SQL, which means I can do SQL as well as anyone else in the team. In order to be "A+" one needs to be really good at the skill, someone that is recognized in the team for it, if I were to get it for SQL I'd need to go above and beyond the average. Patrol SQL for misbehaving query plans. Perform DBA tasks. Et cetera. An A+++ means that one is actually famous for the skill, for example a Microsoft MVP, or a famous blogger, etc. A guru level of skill is needed in SQL. Probably something which would take me 10 years to achieve.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Don't people find it very demotivating to look at their work and go "yeah, I think I did pretty good" then look at some scale and go "huh. 0-1 across the board."
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
> Secondly, I sincerely doubt we'd make an offer to a candidate that assumes their skills are all at the top of the range. "Fives" are extraordinarily rare, most employees have no fives, and the ones that do have one five. I don't understand the rationality behind this. Why have (nearly) impossible to reach ratings? I mean, by this logic, the most talented people will only ever be a 4, yes? So make 4 the limit. You just came off of saying you'd never make an offer to an 80K candidate who thinks they're worth 100K[0]. Yet, you're telling your very best that they'll never be _the_ very best because basically nobody is a "five". [0] It's what you were basically responding to. Edit: for clarification.
- jc4p 10y ago
  I also work at Stack Overflow. I don't think anyone can be _the_ very best and I think that's not a reasonable or attainable goal. We value T shaped developers, and our salary matrix values both spreading breadth (e.g. as a mobile dev if I up my skills in sysadmin or data science) or depth (which is a bit harder to do if you're already experienced) which fits into that nicely.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    I don't know how to _not_ come off sounding argumentative here, so don't take this harshly, but: > I don't think anyone can be _the_ very best and I think that's not a reasonable or attainable goal. ... kinda proves my point of not needing a "five" rating.
    - sciurus 10y ago
      But then 4 is the best, and you can't be the best, so now you only need 3, but then 3 is the best...
    - ebcode 10y ago
      The problem w/ ranking people (in general) is that it embodies this idea of "the best". At SO, it appears this ranking system is internalized by the employees who are consistently ranked below "the best" (5). So why bother trying to be "the best", when it's made to seem so impossible by the ranking system? Ranking is demoralizing.

fecak 10y ago

Thanks for sharing, and I hope employees keep us updated on this experiment (because transparency). My reference to negotiations was mostly for a negotiation upon hire. A job is advertised at a certain range, and the applicant expects the top of that range. I know that Stack Overflow's process might be a bit more evolved, but most companies that advertise a range probably leave a little wiggle room at the top and don't expect to be negotiating with candidates asking the minimum. >Secondly, I sincerely doubt we'd make an offer to a candidate that assumes their skills are all at the top of the range. This comes across more like assessing candidates for hire based on ego or confidence rather than actual skills. Of course, companies don't want to hire people with inflated beliefs about their own abilities - those who "don't know what they don't know". If you would object to the skills evaluations, and if we assume some of those people are earning more than you, how is that different than "salary envy"? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just not sure I understand the thought process.

sklivvz1971 10y ago
> This comes across more like assessing candidates for hire based on ego or confidence rather than actual skills. Our hire/no-hire policy is only based on competence, however true competence includes the capacity for realistic self-assessment. Keep in mind that our skill scale, especially for core skills, goes from "I could be better" to "I am world famous for this skill", so it's fairly easy to prove or disprove whether someone is at the top of the ladder. > If you would object to the skills evaluations, and if we assume some of those people are earning more than you, how is that different than "salary envy"? Big caveat: this works for us, but of course each company is different. Our skills are based on measurable stuff and generally do not represent a "career achievement". An employee can't say "I'm better than Marco, so I should be paid more". An employee might say "This year I've done better than Marco at SQL, but Marco has a better score in it, can you review mine?". In most cases, we simply look at the evidence: has the employee actually been better than Marco in the last year in doing SQL? Also keep in mind that there's a huge gap between categories. We've four, B, A, A+, A+++. They start at "B" which means that someone did not do much on that skill in the past year. For example, I've got a B in sysadmin stuff which I never need to do. In order to get an "A" one needs to be completely proficient in the skill, no obvious gaps, so for example I've (IIRC) an A in SQL, which means I can do SQL as well as anyone else in the team. In order to be "A+" one needs to be really good at the skill, someone that is recognized in the team for it, if I were to get it for SQL I'd need to go above and beyond the average. Patrol SQL for misbehaving query plans. Perform DBA tasks. Et cetera. An A+++ means that one is actually famous for the skill, for example a Microsoft MVP, or a famous blogger, etc. A guru level of skill is needed in SQL. Probably something which would take me 10 years to achieve.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Don't people find it very demotivating to look at their work and go "yeah, I think I did pretty good" then look at some scale and go "huh. 0-1 across the board."

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

> Secondly, I sincerely doubt we'd make an offer to a candidate that assumes their skills are all at the top of the range. "Fives" are extraordinarily rare, most employees have no fives, and the ones that do have one five. I don't understand the rationality behind this. Why have (nearly) impossible to reach ratings? I mean, by this logic, the most talented people will only ever be a 4, yes? So make 4 the limit. You just came off of saying you'd never make an offer to an 80K candidate who thinks they're worth 100K[0]. Yet, you're telling your very best that they'll never be _the_ very best because basically nobody is a "five". [0] It's what you were basically responding to. Edit: for clarification.

jc4p 10y ago
I also work at Stack Overflow. I don't think anyone can be _the_ very best and I think that's not a reasonable or attainable goal. We value T shaped developers, and our salary matrix values both spreading breadth (e.g. as a mobile dev if I up my skills in sysadmin or data science) or depth (which is a bit harder to do if you're already experienced) which fits into that nicely.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  I don't know how to _not_ come off sounding argumentative here, so don't take this harshly, but: > I don't think anyone can be _the_ very best and I think that's not a reasonable or attainable goal. ... kinda proves my point of not needing a "five" rating.
  - sciurus 10y ago
    But then 4 is the best, and you can't be the best, so now you only need 3, but then 3 is the best...
  - ebcode 10y ago
    The problem w/ ranking people (in general) is that it embodies this idea of "the best". At SO, it appears this ranking system is internalized by the employees who are consistently ranked below "the best" (5). So why bother trying to be "the best", when it's made to seem so impossible by the ranking system? Ranking is demoralizing.