4 ms·

The article's title is pure click-bait. It would be more accurate if it were "How to Keep Your Engineers Interested in Sticking Around" Very little of the arti

by zffr 6y ago

The article's title is pure click-bait. It would be more accurate if it were "How to Keep Your Engineers Interested in Sticking Around" Very little of the article says anything about how much to pay engineers. I only found 2 paragraphs about engineering compensation: > The most comprehensive study, though, is Daniel H. Pink’s Drive, which is summarized in this animation from the RSA. Pink suggests that money isn’t the main driver for highly skilled workers who choose to stay in their jobs. Instead, he identifies a combination of three factors: the ability to be self-directed, getting better at the job, and having a purpose in one’s endeavors. In other words, once a person’s basic financial needs are met, money starts to become less and less relevant as a criterion for job satisfaction, especially compared to purpose, self-improvement and self-direction. > Unsurprisingly, this conclusion mostly matches my own experience with engineers. Whether companies pay at market level or 20%-30% above market makes very little impact on staff retention. You might stretch retention slightly in the latter case, but the investment is often not worth the net result. Keeping your engineers engaged and motivated makes a much more substantial difference, so that’s what we’re going to look at next. Even these paragraphs are primarily about how money is not the primary way to keep engineers engaged and motivated.

js8 6y ago
Be careful though. For example, I don't really care that much about money, but I do care very strongly about fairness. So if you try to cheat me by paying me unfairly (for example, compared to coworkers), even if I would be happy with the money all things considered, I could be unhappy just because you're being unfair.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I'll even add that engineers should understand the value they bring to the company and adjust their concept of fair not just against their peers but against what the company is earning from their labor.
  - clairity 6y ago
    not just engineers, everyone. that's the unfair advantage that companies especially have over lower wage workers. we need fairer, more transparent and liquid labor markets everywhere, not just in the upper echelons.
  - Domenic_S 6y ago
    This is one of those things that sounds reasonable but is impossible to compute. Does the company earn more from the developer who makes the product, or the infra engineer who keeps it online? Well, without either they're not making anything... Also, if the company makes a bit less money this year vs last year, are you willing to take a pay cut?
    - js8 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 It might be impossible to compute, but we still want to compute it. Or rather, get some agreement. I would say not only it is impossible to compute, the question of relative human pay for different types of work is a meaningless question, like asking, what is more important on a car, tires or engine?
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    That isn't how salaries work. If there are many people who are willing to do the work at a given salary, it doesn't matter if the company earns 5x from that labor. Supply and demand are obviously not the only factors, but they are very important and must be considered when looking at compensation for employment.
- tj0 6y ago
  This was exactly why I left my previous position. Place was great to work, brilliant team, laid back culture. But refusing to give me an annual raise, on top of paying me below market value (and below my peers) for my experience and skill set was precisely what triggered my departure a month later for a nearly 90% raise. Sacrificed other things, but at the end of the day, "thank you's", "good jobs", and a kegerator doesn't feed my family. Money isn't everything, but competitively compensating engineers is still a big factor for retention imo.
  - drivebycomment 6y ago
    > paying me below market value (and below my peers) for my experience and skill set was precisely what triggered my departure a month later for a nearly 90% raise. I'm curious - how did you end up accepting that job in the first place that was underpaying by nearly 100% ?
    - tj0 6y ago
      They offered me nearly the same kind of raise over the position I was in before it. The first company I worked for paid me $36k/yr. Given I don't have a degree, and it was the first offer I received (was my break-into-the-industry offer), I took it. After nearly two years, I was still below $40k/yr. Couldn't afford to rent a two bedroom apartment by myself, let alone support a then pregnant girlfriend. That's when the next company offered right below market value, but when I started with them, it seemed like a fair offer given I had to learn new frameworks, containerization, etc. After a year, and the value I'd added to the company, I assumed I'd receive a raise. Low and behold, it didn't happen, so like the previous position, I found somewhere offering a median salary for my region. Still not where I should be with all the responsibilities and skills I have now, but at least the financial stress isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. Plus, I'm secure in my position, so that's helpful.
clairity 6y ago
yes, this is explicitly taught in business school--that companies and managers should strive to develop intrinsic over extrinsic motivation (lke pay), to both increase productivity and create a good working environment (whether students paid much attention is a different matter).
- bluGill 6y ago
  Pay is a sign of how valued I am. If my pay is low I might not need more money but I need the recognition that I'm valued that comes from more pay.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I’ve previously read the the number one employee complaint is not pay but feeling under-appreciated. I think the difficulty for managers is knowing an employee’s particular language of appreciation. One may value being lauded in front of the company with an award or snazzy new title while another couldn’t care less and would rather be shown appreciation through a behind-the-scenes bonus.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, that's part of the underpinnings of intrinsic motivation, that you'll be rewarded appropriately for achievement, not just monetarily, but also in status and esteem. expectancy theory [0] is one of the frameworks for understanding this. as others have pointed out, pay is inextricably tied with perceptions of fairness, so it's a highly relative measure. if programmers are paid 30k on average, then getting 35k seems fair to you. but if the average is 60k, then 35k seems insulting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory
    - Fargren 6y ago
      I like being praised for my work, and would be annoyed if I was never congratulated for doing a good job. But if I'm often praised and never see a compensation increase, that will make me feel the praise is fake: if my work is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?
goatinaboat 6y ago
Pink suggests that money isn’t the main driver for highly skilled workers Consider that the people who benefit from convincing engineers that other engineers aren’t motivated by money are those who hoover up that money for themselves. Or alternatively, managers aren’t “highly skilled”, can’t have it both ways!

by zffr 6y ago

js8 6y ago

Be careful though. For example, I don't really care that much about money, but I do care very strongly about fairness. So if you try to cheat me by paying me unfairly (for example, compared to coworkers), even if I would be happy with the money all things considered, I could be unhappy just because you're being unfair.

Pfhreak 6y ago
I'll even add that engineers should understand the value they bring to the company and adjust their concept of fair not just against their peers but against what the company is earning from their labor.
- clairity 6y ago
  not just engineers, everyone. that's the unfair advantage that companies especially have over lower wage workers. we need fairer, more transparent and liquid labor markets everywhere, not just in the upper echelons.
- Domenic_S 6y ago
  This is one of those things that sounds reasonable but is impossible to compute. Does the company earn more from the developer who makes the product, or the infra engineer who keeps it online? Well, without either they're not making anything... Also, if the company makes a bit less money this year vs last year, are you willing to take a pay cut?
  - js8 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937 It might be impossible to compute, but we still want to compute it. Or rather, get some agreement. I would say not only it is impossible to compute, the question of relative human pay for different types of work is a meaningless question, like asking, what is more important on a car, tires or engine?
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  That isn't how salaries work. If there are many people who are willing to do the work at a given salary, it doesn't matter if the company earns 5x from that labor. Supply and demand are obviously not the only factors, but they are very important and must be considered when looking at compensation for employment.
tj0 6y ago
This was exactly why I left my previous position. Place was great to work, brilliant team, laid back culture. But refusing to give me an annual raise, on top of paying me below market value (and below my peers) for my experience and skill set was precisely what triggered my departure a month later for a nearly 90% raise. Sacrificed other things, but at the end of the day, "thank you's", "good jobs", and a kegerator doesn't feed my family. Money isn't everything, but competitively compensating engineers is still a big factor for retention imo.
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  > paying me below market value (and below my peers) for my experience and skill set was precisely what triggered my departure a month later for a nearly 90% raise. I'm curious - how did you end up accepting that job in the first place that was underpaying by nearly 100% ?
  - tj0 6y ago
    They offered me nearly the same kind of raise over the position I was in before it. The first company I worked for paid me $36k/yr. Given I don't have a degree, and it was the first offer I received (was my break-into-the-industry offer), I took it. After nearly two years, I was still below $40k/yr. Couldn't afford to rent a two bedroom apartment by myself, let alone support a then pregnant girlfriend. That's when the next company offered right below market value, but when I started with them, it seemed like a fair offer given I had to learn new frameworks, containerization, etc. After a year, and the value I'd added to the company, I assumed I'd receive a raise. Low and behold, it didn't happen, so like the previous position, I found somewhere offering a median salary for my region. Still not where I should be with all the responsibilities and skills I have now, but at least the financial stress isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. Plus, I'm secure in my position, so that's helpful.

clairity 6y ago

yes, this is explicitly taught in business school--that companies and managers should strive to develop intrinsic over extrinsic motivation (lke pay), to both increase productivity and create a good working environment (whether students paid much attention is a different matter).

bluGill 6y ago
Pay is a sign of how valued I am. If my pay is low I might not need more money but I need the recognition that I'm valued that comes from more pay.
- bumby 6y ago
  I’ve previously read the the number one employee complaint is not pay but feeling under-appreciated. I think the difficulty for managers is knowing an employee’s particular language of appreciation. One may value being lauded in front of the company with an award or snazzy new title while another couldn’t care less and would rather be shown appreciation through a behind-the-scenes bonus.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, that's part of the underpinnings of intrinsic motivation, that you'll be rewarded appropriately for achievement, not just monetarily, but also in status and esteem. expectancy theory [0] is one of the frameworks for understanding this. as others have pointed out, pay is inextricably tied with perceptions of fairness, so it's a highly relative measure. if programmers are paid 30k on average, then getting 35k seems fair to you. but if the average is 60k, then 35k seems insulting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectancy_theory
  - Fargren 6y ago
    I like being praised for my work, and would be annoyed if I was never congratulated for doing a good job. But if I'm often praised and never see a compensation increase, that will make me feel the praise is fake: if my work is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?

goatinaboat 6y ago

Pink suggests that money isn’t the main driver for highly skilled workers Consider that the people who benefit from convincing engineers that other engineers aren’t motivated by money are those who hoover up that money for themselves. Or alternatively, managers aren’t “highly skilled”, can’t have it both ways!