6 ms·

I've seen 10x more people on HN criticising their compensation model than being pleased about their honesty about their compensation model, so this is an unders

by mst 6y ago

I've seen 10x more people on HN criticising their compensation model than being pleased about their honesty about their compensation model, so this is an understable reaction to incentives as created. I am not attempting to promulgate any opinion about their compensation model or their chosen level of openness, only to point out that if the compensation model is working for them and they want to keep it, closing it off is a logical choice on their part.

tehjoker 6y ago
I would point out that transparency is a good value, but often is highly overvalued. Not a commentary on gitlab in particular necessarily, but if someone is screwing you behind closed doors vs doing it openly which is worse? Should you not criticize? I think transparency is so highly promoted by the managerial class and their media because by appearing to have a certain kind of ethics and virtue that do not impact the bottom line, it allows them to rationalize their actions to themselves or to others. For example, if a powerful person performs an action in the open that is kind of sneaky and underhanded and no one says anything because they're afraid, then to the powerful person it seems like it's A-OK. That said, I prefer transparency to opacity because without information you are blind and have to criticize the lack of information rather than material conditions.
- hitekker 6y ago
  I'll take your good points one step further: transparency without honesty is like a window on a blackbox, in a room with no light. Let say there's a CEO who presents facts and figures signalling their company's success. Investors are happy, employees are happy, regulators are happy. A month later, the company goes bankrupt. How did no one see it coming? Chances are the CEO did but knew other people wouldn't. She knew the decay was not yet solid enough, not yet visible enough, for outsiders to recognize it as decay. So, she chose not to highlight it. She gave their followers a nice, wide window into the company's activities as required by law, focusing on the easy parts, while leaving the decaying lines between the parts decaying in the dark. The journalist phrase "shine a light" comes to mind: if leaders don't give followers a true belief they need (honesty) to organize the information they're given (transparency), then outsiders must bring or draw their own insight instead. To peer through the cracks and connect the dots while others fumble in the dark. Effectively, transparency without honesty becomes a tool for manipulation. It enables the powerful to appear clear while maintaining their invisibility, and therefore their invulnerability.
temp667 6y ago
Same applies to giving candidates you don't hire feedback. It's 100% a disaster. Most folks trying that learn pretty quickly!
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  To give a counter-example, Riot Games does a pretty good job of giving that feedback though.
- vasco 6y ago
  I've given feedback to dozens of candidates over the last 3 years, only when the candidate has specifically asked for it. In all cases people appreciated that another human gave them an honest impression of the interview. Perhaps "quickly enough" is over 3 years. Regardless even when it does go poorly with one candidate, I've had 3 years of people I've at least been a normal person to, instead of acting like a drone who is constantly afraid of the proverbial lawsuits from candidates.
- duncan_bayne 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. My experience with that has been positive, _especially_ when candidates request detailed feedback and I provide it. Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation The situation in the EU is the exact opposite. As any company can be compelled to disclose electronic records, and all recruitment is done that way now, good companies get ahead of GDPR requests by proactively providing feedback. Source: recent experience on both sides of the table. Location: South Wales.
    - duncan_bayne 6y ago
      The EU situation sounds much better. To be super clear, we ignored the legal advice, because we considered that it was much fairer to provide the best feedback possible to clients who asked.
a_imho 6y ago
I think you are overestimating HN's influence. Not sure if honesty is the right word here either. The open compensation model was probably deemed a competitive advantage for their target audience and it is no longer the case. Taking a side on some controversial topic will always invite criticism.
- mst 6y ago
  > I think you are overestimating HN's influence. I was using HN as a proxy for "geeks being Mad Online" on the basis that reactions everywhere else were probably if anything worse. I agree re competitive advantage, though, I was explaining one of the reasons I thought that had come to pass.

by mst 6y ago

tehjoker 6y ago

I would point out that transparency is a good value, but often is highly overvalued. Not a commentary on gitlab in particular necessarily, but if someone is screwing you behind closed doors vs doing it openly which is worse? Should you not criticize? I think transparency is so highly promoted by the managerial class and their media because by appearing to have a certain kind of ethics and virtue that do not impact the bottom line, it allows them to rationalize their actions to themselves or to others. For example, if a powerful person performs an action in the open that is kind of sneaky and underhanded and no one says anything because they're afraid, then to the powerful person it seems like it's A-OK. That said, I prefer transparency to opacity because without information you are blind and have to criticize the lack of information rather than material conditions.

hitekker 6y ago
I'll take your good points one step further: transparency without honesty is like a window on a blackbox, in a room with no light. Let say there's a CEO who presents facts and figures signalling their company's success. Investors are happy, employees are happy, regulators are happy. A month later, the company goes bankrupt. How did no one see it coming? Chances are the CEO did but knew other people wouldn't. She knew the decay was not yet solid enough, not yet visible enough, for outsiders to recognize it as decay. So, she chose not to highlight it. She gave their followers a nice, wide window into the company's activities as required by law, focusing on the easy parts, while leaving the decaying lines between the parts decaying in the dark. The journalist phrase "shine a light" comes to mind: if leaders don't give followers a true belief they need (honesty) to organize the information they're given (transparency), then outsiders must bring or draw their own insight instead. To peer through the cracks and connect the dots while others fumble in the dark. Effectively, transparency without honesty becomes a tool for manipulation. It enables the powerful to appear clear while maintaining their invisibility, and therefore their invulnerability.

temp667 6y ago

Same applies to giving candidates you don't hire feedback. It's 100% a disaster. Most folks trying that learn pretty quickly!

Nuzzerino 6y ago
To give a counter-example, Riot Games does a pretty good job of giving that feedback though.
vasco 6y ago
I've given feedback to dozens of candidates over the last 3 years, only when the candidate has specifically asked for it. In all cases people appreciated that another human gave them an honest impression of the interview. Perhaps "quickly enough" is over 3 years. Regardless even when it does go poorly with one candidate, I've had 3 years of people I've at least been a normal person to, instead of acting like a drone who is constantly afraid of the proverbial lawsuits from candidates.
duncan_bayne 6y ago
I strongly disagree. My experience with that has been positive, _especially_ when candidates request detailed feedback and I provide it. Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation The situation in the EU is the exact opposite. As any company can be compelled to disclose electronic records, and all recruitment is done that way now, good companies get ahead of GDPR requests by proactively providing feedback. Source: recent experience on both sides of the table. Location: South Wales.
  - duncan_bayne 6y ago
    The EU situation sounds much better. To be super clear, we ignored the legal advice, because we considered that it was much fairer to provide the best feedback possible to clients who asked.

a_imho 6y ago

I think you are overestimating HN's influence. Not sure if honesty is the right word here either. The open compensation model was probably deemed a competitive advantage for their target audience and it is no longer the case. Taking a side on some controversial topic will always invite criticism.

mst 6y ago
> I think you are overestimating HN's influence. I was using HN as a proxy for "geeks being Mad Online" on the basis that reactions everywhere else were probably if anything worse. I agree re competitive advantage, though, I was explaining one of the reasons I thought that had come to pass.