9 ms·

It's a nice idea to things like this _in theory_. Medium has something similar they called Snowflake - https://github.com/Medium/snowflake https://github.com/Me

by harryf 4y ago

It's a nice idea to things like this _in theory_. Medium has something similar they called Snowflake - https://github.com/Medium/snowflake https://github.com/Medium/snowflake ... but note the disclaimer... > Heads up: Medium isn’t using this tool anymore, but you’re welcome to! The problem with things like this is the typical engineering mindset, when shown a graphical or numerical analysis of their performance will zoom into analyse every detail and in the end it's just backed by the managers impressions and judgement. For similar reasons I have a strong opinion that engineers shouldn't be paid performance related bonuses, because no matter what happens, it's just going to upset them - the best case - maximum bonus - just equates to a "meh". Better to pay a good base salary upfront ... Anyway use tools like this with caution IMO.

maest 4y ago
> the best case - maximum bonus - just equates to a "meh" Can you elaborate on this? I find it surprising since bonus pays are very commonly used in many industries (and, in fact, relied on very heavily in e.g. finance)
- blowski 4y ago
  I remember going through performnace-related bonuses. If somebody tried super-hard and got a "level 5", they got a £5K bonus. Somebody ticking along without being outstanding got £3K. Most people realised the extra £2K wasn't worth the extra effort required to get it.
  - yakak 4y ago
    A raise of even a small amount makes a big difference over time because raises continue and even compound a little. Consequently, a cheap company will try to make the near certain portion of a bonus feel like part of your negotiated salary and extract effort with bonuses as ephemeral raises.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      It doesn’t compound at all. If the going rate is $200k and I switch jobs my previous salary doesn’t matter, and therefore compounding doesn’t matter.
      - dzolvd 4y ago
        in what industry does your previous salary not matter? (Not a snarky ask btw.) I have never entertained an offer blow my current salary, so personally find them highly correlated (sw eng).
        pc86 4y ago
        Nobody is talking about previous salary, the $3k/$5k thing was about yearly performance bonuses.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        My argument is general enough to cover that case too. Performance bonuses don't compound long term for the same reason.
        jasongi 4y ago
        Previous salary can’t affect future salary unless you let the previous salary be known.
        artwr 4y ago
        There is a bit of a bias to this. Higher salaries will get disclosed more, because if I get an offer below my current salary, then I can disclose and at the very least get a match or refuse the offer. At a lower salary, there is a higher probability that the offer is higher, and my current salary does not matter. I believe that people more rarely accept a downgrade in salary, so the probably of acceptance is also conditioned on the current salary. What this means is that the effect is biased and probably non-linear, but I wouldn't qualify it as non effect.
  - pjbeam 4y ago
    The bonuses where I am now are a % of the employee's base salary. A mid-level "meets" engineer can expect something like $20-25k during an average year for the company. Up to twice that for a strong year.
- romanovcode 4y ago
  It's different in finance because a finance guy can go to his boss with hard proof and say "I made your company 10 million last year" and ask for 500k bonus. But developers do not have hard proof and they will be getting 10k bonus instead.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    See also, sales.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Except it's not hard proof at all - no one person in a company can ever be even the primary reason for that 10 million profit. Further what happens in the years that by the same metric they lose a company 10 million... Btw my current company offers bonus vacation days instead of financial incentives, and they go to every one in the team responsible for achieving product goals. I feel a little guilty as I'm enjoying that benefit today despite not having been at the company at the point the goals were met! I like the idea though...
    - romanovcode 4y ago
      Sales, stock traders and I assume many others definitely have a hard proof of how much money they made. Regarding when they lose money - at best they get no salary or they just get fired.
- kqr 4y ago
  Performance bonuses the way they are commonly done doesn't work in finance and sales either -- they're just so in-grained in the culture that it's impossible to hire a finance or sales person without offering bonuses the common way. The problem is that individual performance is a much smaller factor of outcome than commonly believed. Organisational structure, luck, social standing in the organisation, etc play a much bigger role. So in the end, performance bonuses usually reward random variation more than individual prowess (as much as the recipients would like to think otherwise.) This one-armed bandit type compensation, when disguised as a performance bonus, creates confusion, weird incentives, limits creativity and experimentation, and breeds bad blood.
sokoloff 4y ago
> Better to pay a good base salary upfront ... Bonuses that are variable with company performance are a common way to manage the reality for many businesses of “some years we have more money than others”. It seems better to pay bonuses that vary than to set high base salaries and lay people off in cyclical lean years.
- kqr 4y ago
  That can work, if the scheme is (a) fair, and (b) transparent. I.e. something like "this is the formula we apply to the quarterly report to get everyone's bonuses". Anything else just ends up being a lottery that helps no-one.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    > Anything else just ends up being a lottery that helps no-one. I've seen several occasions when corporate bureaucracy has prevented or delayed raises and promotions because of policy or budget wrangling, but not bonuses or stock grants. Bonuses are a tool for managers to reward and retain their high performers when those other options are not available during that fiscal year.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Oh it's not usually "fair" per se, but it's not like some people would get more than others (if done well), it's more like you don't always control all of the factors that get used to determine your bonus. Like a QA engineer probably isn't directly tied to overall revenue, but it is a topline number that can be applied to everyone generally, so it can get used (in a general sense, I'm sure there are lots of specifics and nuances here).
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Profit sharing is a great idea, and a lot more equitable than a "bonus" for individual performance.
dasil003 4y ago
> The problem with things like this is the typical engineering mindset, when shown a graphical or numerical analysis of their performance will zoom into analyse every detail and in the end it's just backed by the managers impressions and judgement. The point of leveling frameworks is not to magically make everything objective and quantifiable—though I agree that is what many smart young people want and expect (after a decade+ in our Victorian education system)—it's to channel and provide a rubric that many different engineering leaders' (both EMs and ICs) impressions can be compared and contrasted in a structured and relatively fair way. The last thing you want to do is remove expert judgement from the equation, but in a medium to large org it shouldn't be one person.
charlie0 4y ago
I agree, pay them more. Nowadays, the best "bonus" is switching jobs.
rufius 4y ago
I think your point is a good one. Though I'd say, that's why it's good to describe these as frameworks. They set the rough bounds of expectations, but much like API frameworks, the business logic is specific to your company and its culture. Anyway - agreed that you cannot just blindly follow one of these. Also, this level of complexity in leveling is something that is best left to bigger organizations. It's almost limiting to impose it on smaller orgs.

by harryf 4y ago

maest 4y ago

> the best case - maximum bonus - just equates to a "meh" Can you elaborate on this? I find it surprising since bonus pays are very commonly used in many industries (and, in fact, relied on very heavily in e.g. finance)

blowski 4y ago
I remember going through performnace-related bonuses. If somebody tried super-hard and got a "level 5", they got a £5K bonus. Somebody ticking along without being outstanding got £3K. Most people realised the extra £2K wasn't worth the extra effort required to get it.
- yakak 4y ago
  A raise of even a small amount makes a big difference over time because raises continue and even compound a little. Consequently, a cheap company will try to make the near certain portion of a bonus feel like part of your negotiated salary and extract effort with bonuses as ephemeral raises.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    It doesn’t compound at all. If the going rate is $200k and I switch jobs my previous salary doesn’t matter, and therefore compounding doesn’t matter.
    - dzolvd 4y ago
      in what industry does your previous salary not matter? (Not a snarky ask btw.) I have never entertained an offer blow my current salary, so personally find them highly correlated (sw eng).
      - pc86 4y ago
        Nobody is talking about previous salary, the $3k/$5k thing was about yearly performance bonuses.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        My argument is general enough to cover that case too. Performance bonuses don't compound long term for the same reason.
      - jasongi 4y ago
        Previous salary can’t affect future salary unless you let the previous salary be known.
        artwr 4y ago
        There is a bit of a bias to this. Higher salaries will get disclosed more, because if I get an offer below my current salary, then I can disclose and at the very least get a match or refuse the offer. At a lower salary, there is a higher probability that the offer is higher, and my current salary does not matter. I believe that people more rarely accept a downgrade in salary, so the probably of acceptance is also conditioned on the current salary. What this means is that the effect is biased and probably non-linear, but I wouldn't qualify it as non effect.
- pjbeam 4y ago
  The bonuses where I am now are a % of the employee's base salary. A mid-level "meets" engineer can expect something like $20-25k during an average year for the company. Up to twice that for a strong year.
romanovcode 4y ago
It's different in finance because a finance guy can go to his boss with hard proof and say "I made your company 10 million last year" and ask for 500k bonus. But developers do not have hard proof and they will be getting 10k bonus instead.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  See also, sales.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Except it's not hard proof at all - no one person in a company can ever be even the primary reason for that 10 million profit. Further what happens in the years that by the same metric they lose a company 10 million... Btw my current company offers bonus vacation days instead of financial incentives, and they go to every one in the team responsible for achieving product goals. I feel a little guilty as I'm enjoying that benefit today despite not having been at the company at the point the goals were met! I like the idea though...
  - romanovcode 4y ago
    Sales, stock traders and I assume many others definitely have a hard proof of how much money they made. Regarding when they lose money - at best they get no salary or they just get fired.
kqr 4y ago
Performance bonuses the way they are commonly done doesn't work in finance and sales either -- they're just so in-grained in the culture that it's impossible to hire a finance or sales person without offering bonuses the common way. The problem is that individual performance is a much smaller factor of outcome than commonly believed. Organisational structure, luck, social standing in the organisation, etc play a much bigger role. So in the end, performance bonuses usually reward random variation more than individual prowess (as much as the recipients would like to think otherwise.) This one-armed bandit type compensation, when disguised as a performance bonus, creates confusion, weird incentives, limits creativity and experimentation, and breeds bad blood.

sokoloff 4y ago

> Better to pay a good base salary upfront ... Bonuses that are variable with company performance are a common way to manage the reality for many businesses of “some years we have more money than others”. It seems better to pay bonuses that vary than to set high base salaries and lay people off in cyclical lean years.

kqr 4y ago
That can work, if the scheme is (a) fair, and (b) transparent. I.e. something like "this is the formula we apply to the quarterly report to get everyone's bonuses". Anything else just ends up being a lottery that helps no-one.
- twblalock 4y ago
  > Anything else just ends up being a lottery that helps no-one. I've seen several occasions when corporate bureaucracy has prevented or delayed raises and promotions because of policy or budget wrangling, but not bonuses or stock grants. Bonuses are a tool for managers to reward and retain their high performers when those other options are not available during that fiscal year.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Oh it's not usually "fair" per se, but it's not like some people would get more than others (if done well), it's more like you don't always control all of the factors that get used to determine your bonus. Like a QA engineer probably isn't directly tied to overall revenue, but it is a topline number that can be applied to everyone generally, so it can get used (in a general sense, I'm sure there are lots of specifics and nuances here).
nerdponx 4y ago
Profit sharing is a great idea, and a lot more equitable than a "bonus" for individual performance.

dasil003 4y ago

> The problem with things like this is the typical engineering mindset, when shown a graphical or numerical analysis of their performance will zoom into analyse every detail and in the end it's just backed by the managers impressions and judgement. The point of leveling frameworks is not to magically make everything objective and quantifiable—though I agree that is what many smart young people want and expect (after a decade+ in our Victorian education system)—it's to channel and provide a rubric that many different engineering leaders' (both EMs and ICs) impressions can be compared and contrasted in a structured and relatively fair way. The last thing you want to do is remove expert judgement from the equation, but in a medium to large org it shouldn't be one person.

charlie0 4y ago

I agree, pay them more. Nowadays, the best "bonus" is switching jobs.

rufius 4y ago

I think your point is a good one. Though I'd say, that's why it's good to describe these as frameworks. They set the rough bounds of expectations, but much like API frameworks, the business logic is specific to your company and its culture. Anyway - agreed that you cannot just blindly follow one of these. Also, this level of complexity in leveling is something that is best left to bigger organizations. It's almost limiting to impose it on smaller orgs.