3 ms·

While this sounds awesome in theory, I don't think I'd find it fun to have everyone deciding on what everyone in the company should be paid. It seems like weird

While this sounds awesome in theory, I don't think I'd find it fun to have everyone deciding on what everyone in the company should be paid. It seems like weird office politics, jealousy, and unrelated things would get involved. This is all just my opinion, but I feel like even though this idea is good in theory, it will be ruined by people, just like valve's org structure model. The truth is, no one knows what anyone should be paid, really. The market decides it. I feel like this kind of policy just creates a powderkeg of opinion and emotion. Maybe it works for a team of 25 (at least as far as we can see), but definitely not for a company of 500. Please everyone just put your salaries in Glassdoor and call it a day. Everyone make sure they get paid market or above, be a responsible adult and look out for yourself.

pawelbrodzinski 10y ago
Similar systems built around transparent salaries work for companies bigger than 500. Look for stories from Morning Star or Semco for example. Obviously, with a few thousand people you need at least a bit more structure, but in principle the model is the same: people collectively set their own salaries with respect to economical constraints of an organization.
- hardwaresofton 10y ago
  I was wrong to generalize so much and say it wouldn't work for companies bigger than 500, but my problem with it is this -- I don't care about the economical constraints of any individual organization. I care about which organization is able to pay me the most, for my labor. I also have near-zero faith in my peers to determine what I am worth, to any given company. People have to somehow pick "reasonable" salaries for themselves, and it seems like a thin layer of bullshit. If I could set my own salary, I'd set it way higher than any company is willing to pay me, because I'd rather make tons of money then NOT work anymore. Obviously, that's not a thing that is sustainable, and it's up to me to find a business that pays me as close to that impossible number as possible. This whole like "let's work together and make reasonable salaries for everyone" smells like bullshit to me because no one knows what a reasonable salary is. In the extreme (not so extreme in bubbles) case, if the market moves and all of a sudden your position is worth 30% more than it was a year or two before, will everyone in the company be fine with you getting a 30% raise? Maybe not. I don't ever want to deal with the situation that someone who either doesn't value or understand (completely) tries to value my work. What do developers know about how much project managers should be paid? or vice versa? A good project manager will make or break an entire initiative at times, but I bet most developers can't properly understand their value (and vice versa). Openness in salaries is one thing. I'm all for knowing what people are worth to a give company, and knowing what the market rate for your position is. This lets-all-decide-everyones-salaries-together system is definitely an idea that grows in parallel, and is very closely related, but I think they're separate things. Or maybe the reasonable solution to such a mismatch in perceived value is that good employees who can make more money elsewhere just leave (at the risk of maybe entering a less open and enjoyable atmosphere)?

pawelbrodzinski 10y ago

Similar systems built around transparent salaries work for companies bigger than 500. Look for stories from Morning Star or Semco for example. Obviously, with a few thousand people you need at least a bit more structure, but in principle the model is the same: people collectively set their own salaries with respect to economical constraints of an organization.

hardwaresofton 10y ago
I was wrong to generalize so much and say it wouldn't work for companies bigger than 500, but my problem with it is this -- I don't care about the economical constraints of any individual organization. I care about which organization is able to pay me the most, for my labor. I also have near-zero faith in my peers to determine what I am worth, to any given company. People have to somehow pick "reasonable" salaries for themselves, and it seems like a thin layer of bullshit. If I could set my own salary, I'd set it way higher than any company is willing to pay me, because I'd rather make tons of money then NOT work anymore. Obviously, that's not a thing that is sustainable, and it's up to me to find a business that pays me as close to that impossible number as possible. This whole like "let's work together and make reasonable salaries for everyone" smells like bullshit to me because no one knows what a reasonable salary is. In the extreme (not so extreme in bubbles) case, if the market moves and all of a sudden your position is worth 30% more than it was a year or two before, will everyone in the company be fine with you getting a 30% raise? Maybe not. I don't ever want to deal with the situation that someone who either doesn't value or understand (completely) tries to value my work. What do developers know about how much project managers should be paid? or vice versa? A good project manager will make or break an entire initiative at times, but I bet most developers can't properly understand their value (and vice versa). Openness in salaries is one thing. I'm all for knowing what people are worth to a give company, and knowing what the market rate for your position is. This lets-all-decide-everyones-salaries-together system is definitely an idea that grows in parallel, and is very closely related, but I think they're separate things. Or maybe the reasonable solution to such a mismatch in perceived value is that good employees who can make more money elsewhere just leave (at the risk of maybe entering a less open and enjoyable atmosphere)?