28 ms·

Thanks for sharing, and I hope employees keep us updated on this experiment (because transparency). My reference to negotiations was mostly for a negotiation u

by 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."

by fecak 10y ago

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."