3 ms·

I have said this and I'll say this again: executives should never have a disproportionate pay comparing to their most senior trench workers (think a very senior

I have said this and I'll say this again: executives should never have a disproportionate pay comparing to their most senior trench workers (think a very senior, lead engineer). 3-5x should be the maximum. The saying of "oh if you don't give big bucks then you won't hire good talents" is only true to certain extends. Einstein doesn't figure out GR because he wants the cash from Nobel's prize, actually none of the winners probably achieve because of the money. Scientists won't stop inventing because they don't get the big bucks (most don't get big bucks anyway). Carmack would still pump out great code if he stays indie. As long as properly paid, pretty much every real talent would be happy and do whatever they love to do. Giving disproportional pay to executives ONLY attract bad players and TBH some 500 are probably better NOT have an executive. It also creates sort of toxic culture everywhere that people are forced to chase big bucks because average pay is screwed.

passwordoops 2y ago
Also, the only reasonable response to the saying of "oh if you don't give big bucks then you won't hire good talents" is "you mean the same talent that got you into this mess in the first place?"
triceratops 2y ago
Pretty much this. If a potential leadership hire is willing to walk away solely because of the pay then they are clearly not the right hire. Of course they should be well-paid. But the job is about the job, not about the money. If they aren't sufficiently excited by the mere idea of being in charge of the company's products, services, and future direction, doing a good job for customers, shareholders, and employees, then they should look for a different job.
ericd 2y ago
My reply to this is that the potentially outsized rewards gives Carmack de facto leadership of his next project, because he’s the one paying the bills, and it lets him work on whatever he wants, in perpetuity, without ever having to consider money again. In a system where that’s not the case, then maybe his superior skills are enough to secure a leadership spot, or maybe not, because maybe he hasn’t invested enough in developing his political skills. This is generally a failing of engineers versus business people. Many of the engineer-led companies you see these days are because they were founders.

passwordoops 2y ago

Also, the only reasonable response to the saying of "oh if you don't give big bucks then you won't hire good talents" is "you mean the same talent that got you into this mess in the first place?"

triceratops 2y ago

Pretty much this. If a potential leadership hire is willing to walk away solely because of the pay then they are clearly not the right hire. Of course they should be well-paid. But the job is about the job, not about the money. If they aren't sufficiently excited by the mere idea of being in charge of the company's products, services, and future direction, doing a good job for customers, shareholders, and employees, then they should look for a different job.

ericd 2y ago

My reply to this is that the potentially outsized rewards gives Carmack de facto leadership of his next project, because he’s the one paying the bills, and it lets him work on whatever he wants, in perpetuity, without ever having to consider money again. In a system where that’s not the case, then maybe his superior skills are enough to secure a leadership spot, or maybe not, because maybe he hasn’t invested enough in developing his political skills. This is generally a failing of engineers versus business people. Many of the engineer-led companies you see these days are because they were founders.