6 ms·

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Years ago they wanted to make sure that everyone in the same job was making the same amount of money (they were especially try

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Years ago they wanted to make sure that everyone in the same job was making the same amount of money (they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men). So they had an outside consulting group look at everyone’s salaries and adjusted them as needed to make sure they were all the same within $1. I ended up getting a $15k bump. They review it again every year to make sure nobody makes more or less than anyone else in the same job. The end result is there are no salary bands and no negotiation. The salary is what it is. You can’t even get $5 more dollars. They did this years ago and so far it hasn’t seemed to negatively affect us.

khazhoux 3y ago
But people will still argue over leveling, no?
victor9000 3y ago
It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Sure, it sounds that way, if we assume that negotiating skill and job performance are tightly correlated. But why should we assume that?
  - NewEntryHN 3y ago
    Above a certain threshold of talent, there is no need to negotiate at all.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    If the two traits are just randomly assorted, then sure, they'll rarely overlap at what is a statistically random rate. But, if we can assume that the "rare talent" is anything other than straight out of college, they will have discovered that they are a rare talent, be aware of it themselves, and barring some sort of crippling neurosis, want to cash in on it. They might not even be skilled at negotiating... they'll just be aware that they have leverage. We might even phrase the problem that way... that it's not so important that they have "negotiating skill", as it is that they have "leverage awareness".
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      If you literally wrote the book on the subject, or something similar, they'll probably just create a job role for you. But that said, not every company is trying to hire the best people. As you note, they're expensive.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        You'd think that, and it's probably even the smart strategy for the employer... But I remember what the guy who wrote homebrew said about his Google interview process. Once an HR culture develops, anything sane or intelligent probably goes out the window.
        nitwit005 3y ago
        Writing a popular app is hardly the same as being the top authority in a field. I guarantee when Google hires someone like Ken Thompson, they do not get the normal Google hiring experience.
        irrational 3y ago
        A popular app? I hardly think homebrew is on the same level as candy crush.
        3y ago
- CodeBrad 3y ago
  You get what you pay for. If there is a one off person who can command a higher salary, its unlikely they alone will make a huge difference to the company anyway. If there are a lot of people who could command a higher salary in that role, the pay is too low. Overall it seems like a pretty good system. You could argue that the current system favors people who are good at negotiating, and not necessarily more skilled workers.
- thedougd 3y ago
  Whenever an employer talks about industry median pay, I ask if they want industry median work, or industry median talent and remind them that half of all will perform better.
  - mateo411 3y ago
    Not if everybody in the entire industry is paid the same. :)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnFen 3y ago
  There are lots of people who aren't choosing jobs based solely on which one pays the most. I have absolutely taken positions that paid much less than I can command elsewhere because the companies in question offered me nonmonetary benefits that were worth more to me than money.
- pcurve 3y ago
  Not having a band is surprising at Fortune 100. I'm guessing the talent retention is still done through bonus and LTI.
  - irrational 3y ago
    Oh, there are band levels (at least, assuming we used band levels in the same way you mean), but everyone in that band level must make the same amount of money. And the band levels are fixed. It's not like talent acquisition can magically make up a new band level to give someone more money.
    - pcurve 3y ago
      If everyone is making the same amount, then there is no band. Band = Range with midpoint. For example, Sr. Software engineer's pay band could be $120,000 - $180,000 with $150,000 roughly being the midpoint, with most people making around the midpoint mark. Now I'm curious what company it is :-)
- gen220 3y ago
  On the other hand, they probably spend significantly less time bickering about their respective salaries. IME, talented people can spend an absurd proportion of their time bickering about how ${other_talented_person} makes ${trivial_number}/year more than they do, all because they're ${some_trait}. Overall, I could imagine this filter being both good and bad. I'm not confident whether it nets out good or bad, but you can't argue it's not a dramatically simpler system, and simple systems are often surprisingly better better. :shrug:
yieldcrv 3y ago
that’s nice but not holistic enough people are overly assuming ingrained bias from a shadowy cabal of hiring managers and not looking at different gendered funnels, attrition, and personal contribution to the outcomes all within the same roles HIRED’s recruitment report, for example, found very gendered compensations asks to begin with similarly, people discount the risk many men take to skew it. for everyone worried about coming across as “too bitchy” there are a bunch of men that came across as “too cocky” and got fired or rejected and kept trying until they were hired at a company who needs someone to “to make the tough decisions” like tough to swallow decisions the observation discounts how many people are overly focused on moving up in one company, versus not being married to any particular company at all, and how gendered even that is, when the latter has a 30% pay bump compared to eking out 5% discretionary promotions within the same company also discounted is how many men would also leave the workforce if there was a reliable option of being subsidized for house work and unpaid emotional labor, you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace and acting confused when the same outcome persists the incentives for men are work or homelessness, unsheltered, outside. there are no classified ads with discounted or free rent “for men only”, or working for the self accolade of proving you didn't do the easy option. these things are all connected to workplace outcomes
- saagarjha 3y ago
  Nobody was talking about gender here until you used it as an excuse to reiterate talking points about how pay disparity is actually explained by women not asking for enough money or how men actually have it hard.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    the person I replied to was in an environment about gender > “they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men” when the incentive models are unequal the behaviors of the market participants will be unequal you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace
closeparen 3y ago
It's obvious to those on the ground that there are vast differences between people doing the same job. You can say "we only want the best" and fire the pretty-good, but the tone that sets is incredibly harsh. You can try to promote your top performers, but L+1 is usually defined as a different nature and scope of work, not the same work done better. This creates perverse incentives like separating people from their mentors so that they can demonstrate leadership, or choosing the most complicated way of getting something done & involving a lot of people so that they can demonstrate scope. Managers play these games because if they don't, they lose their best workers to outside offers.

khazhoux 3y ago

But people will still argue over leveling, no?

victor9000 3y ago

It sounds like a great way to miss out on talent that can command a salary higher than the average, while simultaneously attracting talent for whom this is a good deal.

emodendroket 3y ago
Sure, it sounds that way, if we assume that negotiating skill and job performance are tightly correlated. But why should we assume that?
- NewEntryHN 3y ago
  Above a certain threshold of talent, there is no need to negotiate at all.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  If the two traits are just randomly assorted, then sure, they'll rarely overlap at what is a statistically random rate. But, if we can assume that the "rare talent" is anything other than straight out of college, they will have discovered that they are a rare talent, be aware of it themselves, and barring some sort of crippling neurosis, want to cash in on it. They might not even be skilled at negotiating... they'll just be aware that they have leverage. We might even phrase the problem that way... that it's not so important that they have "negotiating skill", as it is that they have "leverage awareness".
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    If you literally wrote the book on the subject, or something similar, they'll probably just create a job role for you. But that said, not every company is trying to hire the best people. As you note, they're expensive.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      You'd think that, and it's probably even the smart strategy for the employer... But I remember what the guy who wrote homebrew said about his Google interview process. Once an HR culture develops, anything sane or intelligent probably goes out the window.
      - nitwit005 3y ago
        Writing a popular app is hardly the same as being the top authority in a field. I guarantee when Google hires someone like Ken Thompson, they do not get the normal Google hiring experience.
        irrational 3y ago
        A popular app? I hardly think homebrew is on the same level as candy crush.
        3y ago
CodeBrad 3y ago
You get what you pay for. If there is a one off person who can command a higher salary, its unlikely they alone will make a huge difference to the company anyway. If there are a lot of people who could command a higher salary in that role, the pay is too low. Overall it seems like a pretty good system. You could argue that the current system favors people who are good at negotiating, and not necessarily more skilled workers.
thedougd 3y ago
Whenever an employer talks about industry median pay, I ask if they want industry median work, or industry median talent and remind them that half of all will perform better.
- mateo411 3y ago
  Not if everybody in the entire industry is paid the same. :)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 3y ago
There are lots of people who aren't choosing jobs based solely on which one pays the most. I have absolutely taken positions that paid much less than I can command elsewhere because the companies in question offered me nonmonetary benefits that were worth more to me than money.
pcurve 3y ago
Not having a band is surprising at Fortune 100. I'm guessing the talent retention is still done through bonus and LTI.
- irrational 3y ago
  Oh, there are band levels (at least, assuming we used band levels in the same way you mean), but everyone in that band level must make the same amount of money. And the band levels are fixed. It's not like talent acquisition can magically make up a new band level to give someone more money.
  - pcurve 3y ago
    If everyone is making the same amount, then there is no band. Band = Range with midpoint. For example, Sr. Software engineer's pay band could be $120,000 - $180,000 with $150,000 roughly being the midpoint, with most people making around the midpoint mark. Now I'm curious what company it is :-)
gen220 3y ago
On the other hand, they probably spend significantly less time bickering about their respective salaries. IME, talented people can spend an absurd proportion of their time bickering about how ${other_talented_person} makes ${trivial_number}/year more than they do, all because they're ${some_trait}. Overall, I could imagine this filter being both good and bad. I'm not confident whether it nets out good or bad, but you can't argue it's not a dramatically simpler system, and simple systems are often surprisingly better better. :shrug:

yieldcrv 3y ago

that’s nice but not holistic enough people are overly assuming ingrained bias from a shadowy cabal of hiring managers and not looking at different gendered funnels, attrition, and personal contribution to the outcomes all within the same roles HIRED’s recruitment report, for example, found very gendered compensations asks to begin with similarly, people discount the risk many men take to skew it. for everyone worried about coming across as “too bitchy” there are a bunch of men that came across as “too cocky” and got fired or rejected and kept trying until they were hired at a company who needs someone to “to make the tough decisions” like tough to swallow decisions the observation discounts how many people are overly focused on moving up in one company, versus not being married to any particular company at all, and how gendered even that is, when the latter has a 30% pay bump compared to eking out 5% discretionary promotions within the same company also discounted is how many men would also leave the workforce if there was a reliable option of being subsidized for house work and unpaid emotional labor, you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace and acting confused when the same outcome persists the incentives for men are work or homelessness, unsheltered, outside. there are no classified ads with discounted or free rent “for men only”, or working for the self accolade of proving you didn't do the easy option. these things are all connected to workplace outcomes

saagarjha 3y ago
Nobody was talking about gender here until you used it as an excuse to reiterate talking points about how pay disparity is actually explained by women not asking for enough money or how men actually have it hard.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  the person I replied to was in an environment about gender > “they were especially trying to make sure women were making as much as men” when the incentive models are unequal the behaviors of the market participants will be unequal you’ll get workplace equality and wage normalization overnight with that patch to the culture, instead of focusing solely on trying to patch the workplace

closeparen 3y ago

It's obvious to those on the ground that there are vast differences between people doing the same job. You can say "we only want the best" and fire the pretty-good, but the tone that sets is incredibly harsh. You can try to promote your top performers, but L+1 is usually defined as a different nature and scope of work, not the same work done better. This creates perverse incentives like separating people from their mentors so that they can demonstrate leadership, or choosing the most complicated way of getting something done & involving a lot of people so that they can demonstrate scope. Managers play these games because if they don't, they lose their best workers to outside offers.