4 ms·

I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money...

by s0rce 4y ago

love2read 4y ago
what else are people motivated by?
jiggawatts 4y ago
You can motivate juniors by things other than money: experience, gaining industry contacts, and filling a resume so that they can move on to… … more senior roles with actual money on offer instead of intangibles. You’re trying to hire senior staff the same way as junior staff. This won’t work. PS: I’m starting to suspect why you’re losing your juniors as soon as they get some experience…
- s0rce 4y ago
  I'm not the OP
enasterosophes 4y ago
Even people who aren't motivated by money will still follow the money, because unless you know the new employers personally, it's the most reliable indicator that your work is valued. And then, if it turns out that you don't really enjoy it for whatever reason, at least you know you are getting something for it.
phyzome 4y ago
Why exactly do they think people look to get hired? For fun? It's important to me that I think my employer is doing good stuff for the world, but I'm there to be paid so I can get food and housing and internet.
LargeWu 4y ago
If I'm making $XXX,XXX, why am I even going to waste my time if I think there's a decent chance you'll offer $XXX,XXX - 20,000? I think what you'll find is that people aren't motivated by money, per se, but they have obligations: mortgages, car payments, retirement savings. An established standard of living. Especially the more senior they get. I don't do better work for money, but at this point in my career you can be damned sure I'm not going to lower my standard of living just to work at a company with free soda and a ping pong table. I'd put up with a lot of bullshit in my current situation before taking a pay cut. The unlikely exception would be a mission-driven company (if your company is for-profit, this is not you) that is highly congruent with my values and truly makes the world a better place.
mooreds 4y ago
Colorado, USA now forces companies to post salary bands on job listings. It's quite refreshing and obviates this excuse.
- s0rce 4y ago
  Apparently the law in California is that salary ranges must be provided to candidates when they ask but I haven't found that to actually happen in practice.
__d 4y ago
Respectfully, I think that's nonsense. It's called "work" because it's what you do to get money. It's not a hobby, nor an idealistic crusade (both of those are fine things, but they're different to "work"). The reason you work is to get money. That's the only motivation. You might choose between different work options on another basis, but the reason you're there at all is money. Anyone trying to recruit people who doesn't accept this will fail.
- texasfarmer2032 4y ago
  > Anyone trying to recruit people who doesn't accept this will fail. 100% agree.
earlyriser 4y ago
This is like saying we don't want companies primarily motivated by candidates' competence.
rtpg 4y ago
The counter to this is that many people aren't motivated by money, but need to actually make sure the job offers enough money. "Does the salary range enter into what I need for my life" is the question, not "what job ad has the maximum possible salary". A checkbox, not a parameter that needs to be globally maximal
- s0rce 4y ago
  This is what I've been told but it looks like all the other responses to my comment are arguing this isn't really true and people will switch jobs to a higher paying one even if both provide sufficient income to live off.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    It probably depends on how much more the other job is paying. For example, I would ignore a 10% raise; my reaction to 20% raise would depend on whether I like my current job; and a 50% would certainly be a strong temptation, unless it is a kind of job that predictably sucks. The companies that complain that they cannot find a senior developer, they usually do not offer 50% more; or if they do, they carefully hide the fact from the unsuspecting audience. It is their choice, of course. I am just saying that it indeed is their choice.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
What a tremendously facile argument. Either they genuinely believe it, or they have a very low opinion of you. Why are you still there?
mdavis6890 4y ago
Sounds like you're underpaid ;-)
randomdata 4y ago
What other motivators do they think they offer? I mean, I am primarily motivated by the work, being something that I enjoy, but I already have a job that provides that. I need that and more to consider a move to another job.
dmitrygr 4y ago
> I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money... Oh good, i do not want bosses only motivated by my work output either :)
gwbas1c 4y ago
I happily give the "I like the job discount." (I have 20 years professional development experience.) What's critical is that you still need to be "market rate." You don't have to be the highest compensation on the market, but you need to pay me around the 60th percentile. Edit: I should add that, in the two times I was below market rate, once I became indispensable, I threatened to leave unless my pay was jacked up. The "I like the job discount" only goes so far.
InefficientRed 4y ago
This is one place where growing up in a midwestern megachurch serves me well. Just like my childhood megachurch pastor, I mostly believe in what you pay me to believe. Actual believers are marks. If my employer said this to me, I'd think: "Wait... am I the mark?"
brnt 4y ago
That's why you should show the salary, to get the money out of the way...
Apofis 4y ago
So, who would still show up for work if they didn't pay money?
scarface74 4y ago
Why else would someone go to work for a for profit company?
solatic 4y ago
There's a vein of truth here, but it's a bit navel-gazing. The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. For knowledge workers of all stripes, unhappiness is very, very rarely about compensation. The second truth is that high compensation keeps people where they are. If a recruiter is offering $200k, you'll listen if you're making $180k. You won't listen if you're making $250k. If you're making $180k, the $20k bump becomes a socially acceptable reason to tell your employer you're leaving, but it's not the true reason you're leaving, because every time you switch jobs, you run the risk of bad management, mistreatment, etc. There's a price to taking that risk and it's not usually worth small bumps to people. When you post a salary band, 90% of the time, people who respond are not looking for the pay bump, they're just considering you before the 90+% of employers who are not posting pay bands or whose pay band is uncompetitive. And they know that they're that much more likely to stay because it'll be that much more difficult to persuade them to leave after they join. The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  > The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. This is only true for small sums. No one leaves a job over a 5% raise. Some will jump ship over 20%. But most people absolutely will jump ship for 50% or 200% raises. And, unfortunately for small companies, that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co. The numbers you are using here -- 180-250 -- are illustrative; total comp for true Senior at FAANG is comfortably in the 400s. > The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private. People talk. They're going to find out eventually. If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.
scotty79 4y ago
But >90% of people are primarily motivated by money even if they overtly claim not to be. If you are ok passing 90% of qualified people that could do the job you need done then you have, of course, the right to do that, but don't complain that you have trouble attracting senior talent. I don't even begin reading an ad that doesn't post salary and I don't really need any more money. Just a force of habit.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
A job posting without a salary is like a Tinder profile without a picture. The description is nice, but it's not what grabs your attention
noasaservice 4y ago
> I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money... Says people at the top who exclusively care about the money. Do these people think we're THAT stupid? So, how much percentage of the business are they offering then? Oh, they don't do that? Its about... the money? Yep.
yourapostasy 4y ago
> ...we don't want people primarily motivated by money... ...as if that's the kind of investors the C-suite courts?

I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money...

by s0rce 4y ago

I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money...

love2read 4y ago

what else are people motivated by?

jiggawatts 4y ago

You can motivate juniors by things other than money: experience, gaining industry contacts, and filling a resume so that they can move on to… … more senior roles with actual money on offer instead of intangibles. You’re trying to hire senior staff the same way as junior staff. This won’t work. PS: I’m starting to suspect why you’re losing your juniors as soon as they get some experience…

s0rce 4y ago
I'm not the OP

enasterosophes 4y ago

Even people who aren't motivated by money will still follow the money, because unless you know the new employers personally, it's the most reliable indicator that your work is valued. And then, if it turns out that you don't really enjoy it for whatever reason, at least you know you are getting something for it.

phyzome 4y ago

Why exactly do they think people look to get hired? For fun? It's important to me that I think my employer is doing good stuff for the world, but I'm there to be paid so I can get food and housing and internet.

LargeWu 4y ago

If I'm making $XXX,XXX, why am I even going to waste my time if I think there's a decent chance you'll offer $XXX,XXX - 20,000? I think what you'll find is that people aren't motivated by money, per se, but they have obligations: mortgages, car payments, retirement savings. An established standard of living. Especially the more senior they get. I don't do better work for money, but at this point in my career you can be damned sure I'm not going to lower my standard of living just to work at a company with free soda and a ping pong table. I'd put up with a lot of bullshit in my current situation before taking a pay cut. The unlikely exception would be a mission-driven company (if your company is for-profit, this is not you) that is highly congruent with my values and truly makes the world a better place.

mooreds 4y ago

Colorado, USA now forces companies to post salary bands on job listings. It's quite refreshing and obviates this excuse.

s0rce 4y ago
Apparently the law in California is that salary ranges must be provided to candidates when they ask but I haven't found that to actually happen in practice.

__d 4y ago

Respectfully, I think that's nonsense. It's called "work" because it's what you do to get money. It's not a hobby, nor an idealistic crusade (both of those are fine things, but they're different to "work"). The reason you work is to get money. That's the only motivation. You might choose between different work options on another basis, but the reason you're there at all is money. Anyone trying to recruit people who doesn't accept this will fail.

texasfarmer2032 4y ago
> Anyone trying to recruit people who doesn't accept this will fail. 100% agree.

earlyriser 4y ago

This is like saying we don't want companies primarily motivated by candidates' competence.

rtpg 4y ago

The counter to this is that many people aren't motivated by money, but need to actually make sure the job offers enough money. "Does the salary range enter into what I need for my life" is the question, not "what job ad has the maximum possible salary". A checkbox, not a parameter that needs to be globally maximal

s0rce 4y ago
This is what I've been told but it looks like all the other responses to my comment are arguing this isn't really true and people will switch jobs to a higher paying one even if both provide sufficient income to live off.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  It probably depends on how much more the other job is paying. For example, I would ignore a 10% raise; my reaction to 20% raise would depend on whether I like my current job; and a 50% would certainly be a strong temptation, unless it is a kind of job that predictably sucks. The companies that complain that they cannot find a senior developer, they usually do not offer 50% more; or if they do, they carefully hide the fact from the unsuspecting audience. It is their choice, of course. I am just saying that it indeed is their choice.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago

What a tremendously facile argument. Either they genuinely believe it, or they have a very low opinion of you. Why are you still there?

mdavis6890 4y ago

Sounds like you're underpaid ;-)

randomdata 4y ago

What other motivators do they think they offer? I mean, I am primarily motivated by the work, being something that I enjoy, but I already have a job that provides that. I need that and more to consider a move to another job.

dmitrygr 4y ago

> I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money... Oh good, i do not want bosses only motivated by my work output either :)

gwbas1c 4y ago

I happily give the "I like the job discount." (I have 20 years professional development experience.) What's critical is that you still need to be "market rate." You don't have to be the highest compensation on the market, but you need to pay me around the 60th percentile. Edit: I should add that, in the two times I was below market rate, once I became indispensable, I threatened to leave unless my pay was jacked up. The "I like the job discount" only goes so far.

InefficientRed 4y ago

This is one place where growing up in a midwestern megachurch serves me well. Just like my childhood megachurch pastor, I mostly believe in what you pay me to believe. Actual believers are marks. If my employer said this to me, I'd think: "Wait... am I the mark?"

brnt 4y ago

That's why you should show the salary, to get the money out of the way...

Apofis 4y ago

So, who would still show up for work if they didn't pay money?

scarface74 4y ago

Why else would someone go to work for a for profit company?

solatic 4y ago

There's a vein of truth here, but it's a bit navel-gazing. The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. For knowledge workers of all stripes, unhappiness is very, very rarely about compensation. The second truth is that high compensation keeps people where they are. If a recruiter is offering $200k, you'll listen if you're making $180k. You won't listen if you're making $250k. If you're making $180k, the $20k bump becomes a socially acceptable reason to tell your employer you're leaving, but it's not the true reason you're leaving, because every time you switch jobs, you run the risk of bad management, mistreatment, etc. There's a price to taking that risk and it's not usually worth small bumps to people. When you post a salary band, 90% of the time, people who respond are not looking for the pay bump, they're just considering you before the 90+% of employers who are not posting pay bands or whose pay band is uncompetitive. And they know that they're that much more likely to stay because it'll be that much more difficult to persuade them to leave after they join. The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private.

InefficientRed 4y ago
> The first truth is that people don't leave their current jobs because someone else is offering more. They leave because they're unhappy. This is only true for small sums. No one leaves a job over a 5% raise. Some will jump ship over 20%. But most people absolutely will jump ship for 50% or 200% raises. And, unfortunately for small companies, that's often the wage differential between FAANG and the Small Co. The numbers you are using here -- 180-250 -- are illustrative; total comp for true Senior at FAANG is comfortably in the 400s. > The third, deeper, more cynical truth is that posting salary bands probably signals to employees internally that they are being underpaid, and can provoke discontent and departures. Rather than fix the problem with a long-term solution of unilaterally issuing raises internally before posting salary bands, most companies take the shortcut and keep the salary band private. People talk. They're going to find out eventually. If you're having trouble hiring seniors, ensuring that you retain your existing seniors is probably step zero.

scotty79 4y ago

But >90% of people are primarily motivated by money even if they overtly claim not to be. If you are ok passing 90% of qualified people that could do the job you need done then you have, of course, the right to do that, but don't complain that you have trouble attracting senior talent. I don't even begin reading an ad that doesn't post salary and I don't really need any more money. Just a force of habit.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

A job posting without a salary is like a Tinder profile without a picture. The description is nice, but it's not what grabs your attention

noasaservice 4y ago

> I've tried to advocate for this at my organization and been told that we don't want people primarily motivated by money... Says people at the top who exclusively care about the money. Do these people think we're THAT stupid? So, how much percentage of the business are they offering then? Oh, they don't do that? Its about... the money? Yep.

yourapostasy 4y ago

> ...we don't want people primarily motivated by money... ...as if that's the kind of investors the C-suite courts?