6 ms·

Very true. For both of our companies [1][2] we pay a fair salary plus a quarterly bonus on top of that based on what we can give (based on the company's quarter

by znq 10y ago

Very true. For both of our companies [1][2] we pay a fair salary plus a quarterly bonus on top of that based on what we can give (based on the company's quarterly profit results). We also offer remote retreats (so far Cape Town, Thailand, Martinique, Spain and Skiing in the Alps) and the biggest contributor to everyone's satisfaction is that we let everyone work from where ever they want and as much as they want as long as it is planned properly. The result: we've had a couple of employees who received job offers from companies like Apple, Google and Facebook. But after going to the interview process and talking to other employees there they've all (with the exception of one) decided to stay with us, with a significantly lower salary, but a lot more freedom and work-life balance. Not saying that we've a better offer than Google & co, but saying that our offer is different than theirs and there are enough people out there who care more about other things than just money. [1] https://mobilejazz.com https://mobilejazz.com [2] https://bugfender.com https://bugfender.com EDIT: formatting

charleslmunger 10y ago
Out of curiosity, what makes your salary "fair", if it results in an offer that's significantly lower than BigCo? How do you decide what's fair?
- chillydawg 10y ago
  Both sides are happy with it?
  - znq 10y ago
    > Both sides are happy with it? Just wanted to reply exactly that. Obviously fair is very subjective and different to both parties involved. But we try to find a good combination of salary + bonus and also investment in the company itself (be it retreats or taking risks with new products like Bugfender), which then results in temporarily lower bonuses, but an expected bigger payoff and possibilities for everyone in the long turn.
  - jfim 10y ago
    Yep, exactly that. A while ago I took a consulting gig where the company couldn't afford my rates; we just negotiated working 30 hours instead of 40 at a weekly rate that fit within their budget. They got the expertise they wanted, while I got time on the side to work on other stuff. Win-win. If you can't match salaries, then you can move other levers (work/life balance, flexibility, etc.) in order to get an agreement that's suitable for both parties. For example, I don't think Google allows for part-time engineers for the majority of the rank and file. For a startup, if they're more concerned about results than butt-in-chair hours, it might work out depending on the role.
joelrunyon 10y ago
Is this Stefan or someone else? :)
RamshackleJ 10y ago
I'm always curious about companies who talk about "caring about things other than just money". Maybe I'm missing somethings but if you are a for-profit company by definition you care about money, any claims other wise feel like marketing.
- znq 10y ago
  Never said we don't care about money. But we care also about other things than just money. And that a lot more than most other for-profit companies out there. There's nothing wrong with making a profit either. The more profit we make the better. But it's important to decide what you do with that profit. And I much rather pay for our employees to join me for a week of skiing in the Alps than buying myself a Ferrari. I don't want to make this look like marketing (as you already mentioned), but if you're really curious I talked a bit about it just recently on this podcast: https://mobilejazz.com/blog/our-ceo-stefan-klumpps-interview-with-happy-melly/ https://mobilejazz.com/blog/our-ceo-stefan-klumpps-interview...
  - 086421357909764 10y ago
    This is the right approach. Build a business you want to work at and your employees want to work at. Focus on maintaining operating costs and expenses, everything else is gravy. The buy in and work output isn't necessarily greater or worse than others, but I would argue the quality of life is through the roof. Kudos on what you're doing.
- 086421357909764 10y ago
  I think the distinction isn't making money as that's necessary to keep the doors open, it's more about corporate motivations. Some firms want to be a unicorn and some like where I work are more focused on building a business we all want to work at. While both are motivated, there are different buy in strategies with the employees. We have great growth, but we regularly turn down clients because they're not a fit for our team. I realize this isn't as feasible in all areas of expertise. There definitely is a bit of marketing though and too much talk of culture is usually a good red flag.
- 10y ago
thesmallestcat 10y ago
The problem is there's no way to know how true the promises are. What do "flex hours" mean to them? Is it conditional, if so, on what? How far does their trust really go? Compensation doesn't have this problem. You can't offer me $160k and then pay me $120k six months down the road. I mean, you can, but not with a straight face. The soft benefits you described are one CTO/manager/investor change, or engineer bus accident, away from vanishing and it's not looked at the same way as cutting pay, furloughs, and things of that nature. While I want to take one of these "work to live" jobs, I always end up taking the salary. I have a much easier time carving out a bastion of sanity in a given company that doesn't advertise the benefits, than to take a significant pay cut along with the risk I just described.
- beambot 10y ago
  So you're saying startups are riskier...? Don't think anyone here will disagree with that. ;)
  - thesmallestcat 10y ago
    The risk I described is separate from startups. A company of any size/age/growth rate can substitute soft benefits for compensation. To be clear, I was not talking about the job stability risk of working at a startup, or startups at all.
    - beambot 10y ago
      Fair enough.
- wpietri 10y ago
  I think the "not with a straight face" thing depends on what you're willing to get in writing up front and then insist on. As you say, companies can cut pay like they can change any other terms (depending on jurisdiction, natch, but mostly true in the US). The difference is that they know people take that very seriously. So if you want those other things to stay true, you have to be just as serious. Agreements don't enforce themselves.
bdcravens 10y ago
Am I the only one that when I hear about retreats wonders how much it costs per employee, and given the same situation would rather have that money in my pocket?
NicoJuicy 10y ago
I like the apply for jobs with json ;)

by znq 10y ago

charleslmunger 10y ago

Out of curiosity, what makes your salary "fair", if it results in an offer that's significantly lower than BigCo? How do you decide what's fair?

chillydawg 10y ago
Both sides are happy with it?
- znq 10y ago
  > Both sides are happy with it? Just wanted to reply exactly that. Obviously fair is very subjective and different to both parties involved. But we try to find a good combination of salary + bonus and also investment in the company itself (be it retreats or taking risks with new products like Bugfender), which then results in temporarily lower bonuses, but an expected bigger payoff and possibilities for everyone in the long turn.
- jfim 10y ago
  Yep, exactly that. A while ago I took a consulting gig where the company couldn't afford my rates; we just negotiated working 30 hours instead of 40 at a weekly rate that fit within their budget. They got the expertise they wanted, while I got time on the side to work on other stuff. Win-win. If you can't match salaries, then you can move other levers (work/life balance, flexibility, etc.) in order to get an agreement that's suitable for both parties. For example, I don't think Google allows for part-time engineers for the majority of the rank and file. For a startup, if they're more concerned about results than butt-in-chair hours, it might work out depending on the role.

joelrunyon 10y ago

Is this Stefan or someone else? :)

RamshackleJ 10y ago

I'm always curious about companies who talk about "caring about things other than just money". Maybe I'm missing somethings but if you are a for-profit company by definition you care about money, any claims other wise feel like marketing.

znq 10y ago
Never said we don't care about money. But we care also about other things than just money. And that a lot more than most other for-profit companies out there. There's nothing wrong with making a profit either. The more profit we make the better. But it's important to decide what you do with that profit. And I much rather pay for our employees to join me for a week of skiing in the Alps than buying myself a Ferrari. I don't want to make this look like marketing (as you already mentioned), but if you're really curious I talked a bit about it just recently on this podcast: https://mobilejazz.com/blog/our-ceo-stefan-klumpps-interview-with-happy-melly/ https://mobilejazz.com/blog/our-ceo-stefan-klumpps-interview...
- 086421357909764 10y ago
  This is the right approach. Build a business you want to work at and your employees want to work at. Focus on maintaining operating costs and expenses, everything else is gravy. The buy in and work output isn't necessarily greater or worse than others, but I would argue the quality of life is through the roof. Kudos on what you're doing.
086421357909764 10y ago
I think the distinction isn't making money as that's necessary to keep the doors open, it's more about corporate motivations. Some firms want to be a unicorn and some like where I work are more focused on building a business we all want to work at. While both are motivated, there are different buy in strategies with the employees. We have great growth, but we regularly turn down clients because they're not a fit for our team. I realize this isn't as feasible in all areas of expertise. There definitely is a bit of marketing though and too much talk of culture is usually a good red flag.
10y ago

thesmallestcat 10y ago

The problem is there's no way to know how true the promises are. What do "flex hours" mean to them? Is it conditional, if so, on what? How far does their trust really go? Compensation doesn't have this problem. You can't offer me $160k and then pay me $120k six months down the road. I mean, you can, but not with a straight face. The soft benefits you described are one CTO/manager/investor change, or engineer bus accident, away from vanishing and it's not looked at the same way as cutting pay, furloughs, and things of that nature. While I want to take one of these "work to live" jobs, I always end up taking the salary. I have a much easier time carving out a bastion of sanity in a given company that doesn't advertise the benefits, than to take a significant pay cut along with the risk I just described.

beambot 10y ago
So you're saying startups are riskier...? Don't think anyone here will disagree with that. ;)
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  The risk I described is separate from startups. A company of any size/age/growth rate can substitute soft benefits for compensation. To be clear, I was not talking about the job stability risk of working at a startup, or startups at all.
  - beambot 10y ago
    Fair enough.
wpietri 10y ago
I think the "not with a straight face" thing depends on what you're willing to get in writing up front and then insist on. As you say, companies can cut pay like they can change any other terms (depending on jurisdiction, natch, but mostly true in the US). The difference is that they know people take that very seriously. So if you want those other things to stay true, you have to be just as serious. Agreements don't enforce themselves.

bdcravens 10y ago

Am I the only one that when I hear about retreats wonders how much it costs per employee, and given the same situation would rather have that money in my pocket?

NicoJuicy 10y ago

I like the apply for jobs with json ;)