5 ms·

That may be also a sign of poorly defined levels. If you're calling people the same i.e. set the same expectations, but pay them 3x different amount, something'

That may be also a sign of poorly defined levels. If you're calling people the same i.e. set the same expectations, but pay them 3x different amount, something's weird with the org.

michaelt 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. I mean, titles don't really mean anything to developers. It's not like in the army where everyone knows the difference between a colonel and a general. You could run an organisation where everyone from a new graduate right up to Linus Torvalds has the same title, just a different level of pay.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  You could, but you would implicitly give them titles and have different expectations. No one is expecting a junior to define the technical roadmap for the next 6 months and coordinate it's implementation across 5 teams* and be the final judge on disagreements. Edit: typo
- viraptor 3y ago
  > I mean, titles don't really mean anything to developers. To the developers themselves? Yeah, it does to many. To the company in general - there's a reason level descriptions exist. They define expectations for a given person. Let's say you create a new team for project X: you want someone who can plan the project out. Are you going to give that to any "developer" who all exist at the same level? If no, then you have different levels, you're just pretending they don't exist. It also makes things more clear for the pay. Let's say you get some good mid level dev who gets bumped many times for being really good. If they're just doing well at that level but not advancing, are you going to pay them more than senior devs with more responsibility at some point? Is that a wise decision?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 3y ago
> poorly defined levels Obsession over crisply-defined levels is a sign of an organization that is too far up its own a*** to actually get work done.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  There’s a difference between obsession over clearly defined levels and someone making 3x what everyone else at their level is making. When you’ve got a team of midlevel engineers making $150k and one guy making $450k maybe it’s time to bump that person up.
abigail95 3y ago
I think having the same requirements you should expect more than 3x deviance for a lot of roles. We aren't talking about an observation between the random difference between two average people. We're talking about the most performant and least performant people who could potentially share the same job description. The entry level is full of this. If you hire a bunch of engineers with no experience, how often will you see a difference of 3x or larger between the top and bottom. I would say often, and it doesn't show anything bad about the organisation.

That may be also a sign of poorly defined levels. If you're calling people the same i.e. set the same expectations, but pay them 3x different amount, something's weird with the org.

michaelt 3y ago

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, titles don't really mean anything to developers. It's not like in the army where everyone knows the difference between a colonel and a general. You could run an organisation where everyone from a new graduate right up to Linus Torvalds has the same title, just a different level of pay.

jabradoodle 3y ago
You could, but you would implicitly give them titles and have different expectations. No one is expecting a junior to define the technical roadmap for the next 6 months and coordinate it's implementation across 5 teams* and be the final judge on disagreements. Edit: typo
viraptor 3y ago
> I mean, titles don't really mean anything to developers. To the developers themselves? Yeah, it does to many. To the company in general - there's a reason level descriptions exist. They define expectations for a given person. Let's say you create a new team for project X: you want someone who can plan the project out. Are you going to give that to any "developer" who all exist at the same level? If no, then you have different levels, you're just pretending they don't exist. It also makes things more clear for the pay. Let's say you get some good mid level dev who gets bumped many times for being really good. If they're just doing well at that level but not advancing, are you going to pay them more than senior devs with more responsibility at some point? Is that a wise decision?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bpodgursky 3y ago

> poorly defined levels Obsession over crisply-defined levels is a sign of an organization that is too far up its own a*** to actually get work done.

sarchertech 3y ago
There’s a difference between obsession over clearly defined levels and someone making 3x what everyone else at their level is making. When you’ve got a team of midlevel engineers making $150k and one guy making $450k maybe it’s time to bump that person up.

abigail95 3y ago

I think having the same requirements you should expect more than 3x deviance for a lot of roles. We aren't talking about an observation between the random difference between two average people. We're talking about the most performant and least performant people who could potentially share the same job description. The entry level is full of this. If you hire a bunch of engineers with no experience, how often will you see a difference of 3x or larger between the top and bottom. I would say often, and it doesn't show anything bad about the organisation.