11 ms·

Managers and managers of managers, absent a few limited scenarios (vocation, edge case personal finance stuff) your high performers are seeking more comp. No fl

Managers and managers of managers, absent a few limited scenarios (vocation, edge case personal finance stuff) your high performers are seeking more comp. No fluff or hallway conversation will make up for that. You’ve got to make their lives decent and win the end of FY comp knifefight. You can safely ignore everything this person wrote.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
Not ignore, but carefully consider. At certain point, money stops being the only motivator that can be used. Few years ago, I wouldn't be trading money for spending more time with my kid, but now I am willing to make that trade. I guess what I am saying is that thing do differ and while it makes for an easy quip 'pas d'argent pas de suisse'. I mean, it is true in general, but not an absolute truth without exceptions and edge cases. << You’ve got to make their lives decent And this is where we agree. If you can make the performer life better ( not automatically with money ), you got their attention.
- spunker540 2y ago
  This may be true— but I also think few “high performers” are seeking less responsibility/commitment. They are working hard to be recognized for it, and the recognition ought to be financial in most cases. I totally agree with your sentiment but I think “more free time” is a difficult award in general. Most managers would probably look at most high performers and say “you want more time? Then work less! You are already over performing” it’s somewhat out of their hands how much someone chooses to work, but they can more directly control how much they pay and award via bonuses.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    I think you are right in terms of an employee class. Anecdotally, my buddy ( I don't see myself as a high performer those past few years ), is going out of his way to make things work, while I kinda drift along. He is definitely more stressed and he should get cash money for it, while it is still an option AND he is not burnt out.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      I feel that 'burn out' in many cases is realizing the futility in 'working hard and giving your best' for someone else without being compensated for it. Note that I am not denying pathalogical burn out is a thing.
      - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        Yeah, but I think a lot of the compensation people in this situation need comes from recognition and autonomy. Like, money is great and all, but as long as you have "enough" then those other factors are super important. Like, I'm currently willing to take a pay cut to get more autonomy and a better (for me) workplace environment.
ozim 2y ago
I think a lot of people will quit on the spot when having high compensation but no say and being just a ticket closer and being scoffed at by not making quota. I’d rather lower compensation but actually being heard out by business. It also of course usually works that having higher compensation goes in hand with business listening to people with higher comp.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, in practice more often than not, the people who respect you enough to pay you well often also respect you enough to treat you well (and the opposite). It's less of a trade-off than it's often portrayed as.
  - WJW 2y ago
    There's probably a causal relation too: both the compensation AND the desire to take ideas seriously come from the same source, which can generally be summarized as "respect for the way specific expertise can help along a shared cause".
  - hobs 2y ago
    The fact that we are arguing about the basic rules of money still is amusing. Any corporate drone can tell you that allocating budget is the main way a corporation identifies what is important. If it wasn't, why is the CEO getting paid so much? Why are the biggest problems and the dearest things allocated the most budget? How many backflips do we perform for said things? Any other interpretation is ignoring the most basic power dynamics at play.
  - jjav 2y ago
    > Yes, in practice more often than not, the people who respect you enough to pay you well often also respect you enough to treat you well (and the opposite). In practice, these are not the same people. The people who have a direct impact on empowering and respecting you are your manager and their manager. These people also have (having been one) surprisingly little say in how much you get paid. HR rules that land. We can present arguments and beg and plead, but ultimately don't really have any decision making power on the paycheck side.
applesauce004 2y ago
This comment above is absolutely gold and true! An organization can offer the following benefits to employees: Comp(salary, bonus, etc), health Benefits(health, insurance, counselling), autonomy, interesting/challenging work, push you out of your comfort zone, a non-toxic environment, etc. The key is to recognize the Maslow's hierarchy here as well (hierarchy of benefits, instead of hierarchy of needs). Once you offer someone top comp and top health benefits, you have crossed the hygiene layer. Then you go to the social layer (recognition, awards, non-toxic env) and finally the self-actualization layer (autonomy, pushing them harder, long-term aspirations). Dont cheap out on the hygiene factors!!
- hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
  > An organization can offer the following benefits to employees: Comp(salary, bonus, etc), health Benefits(health, insurance, counselling), autonomy, interesting/challenging work, push you out of your comfort zone, a non-toxic environment, etc. A non-toxic work environment isn’t a “benefit”, it’s a basic requirement. Same for autonomy. Healthcare is just compensation. In the end, compensation is what matters.
  - pm90 2y ago
    Non toxic environments are rare and are absolutely, 100% a benefit. If you don’t believe this Im genuinely happy that youve had such good experiences.
bko 2y ago
Can't speak for everyone but most times I left jobs for those with lower comp. I wanted to do something else or have more autonomy. Basically non salary concerns. If it was just salary you wouldn't see turnover at FAANG companies of 2-3 years. A ton of people leave and take huge pay cuts because they don't like the work or feel bored
- agumonkey 2y ago
  golden handcuffs are real, you rapidly stop caring about compensation if you don't wake up interested in the goal or how it's done a good team and good project is worth a lot
captain_coffee 2y ago
Correct! In the vast majority of cases we're talking about base salary or daily rate increases exclusively. Money. Now. End of story.
jjav 2y ago
> You can safely ignore everything this person wrote. I could say we can safely ignore everything you wrote. Not everyone is driven solely (or even primarily) by money alone. Some/many people are, so your take is one of many valid ones but not the only one. So managers, you actually need to understand what drives your high performers. I have never quit a job due to pay, it has always been due to other factors.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

Not ignore, but carefully consider. At certain point, money stops being the only motivator that can be used. Few years ago, I wouldn't be trading money for spending more time with my kid, but now I am willing to make that trade. I guess what I am saying is that thing do differ and while it makes for an easy quip 'pas d'argent pas de suisse'. I mean, it is true in general, but not an absolute truth without exceptions and edge cases. << You’ve got to make their lives decent And this is where we agree. If you can make the performer life better ( not automatically with money ), you got their attention.

spunker540 2y ago
This may be true— but I also think few “high performers” are seeking less responsibility/commitment. They are working hard to be recognized for it, and the recognition ought to be financial in most cases. I totally agree with your sentiment but I think “more free time” is a difficult award in general. Most managers would probably look at most high performers and say “you want more time? Then work less! You are already over performing” it’s somewhat out of their hands how much someone chooses to work, but they can more directly control how much they pay and award via bonuses.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  I think you are right in terms of an employee class. Anecdotally, my buddy ( I don't see myself as a high performer those past few years ), is going out of his way to make things work, while I kinda drift along. He is definitely more stressed and he should get cash money for it, while it is still an option AND he is not burnt out.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    I feel that 'burn out' in many cases is realizing the futility in 'working hard and giving your best' for someone else without being compensated for it. Note that I am not denying pathalogical burn out is a thing.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Yeah, but I think a lot of the compensation people in this situation need comes from recognition and autonomy. Like, money is great and all, but as long as you have "enough" then those other factors are super important. Like, I'm currently willing to take a pay cut to get more autonomy and a better (for me) workplace environment.

ozim 2y ago

I think a lot of people will quit on the spot when having high compensation but no say and being just a ticket closer and being scoffed at by not making quota. I’d rather lower compensation but actually being heard out by business. It also of course usually works that having higher compensation goes in hand with business listening to people with higher comp.

eru 2y ago
Yes, in practice more often than not, the people who respect you enough to pay you well often also respect you enough to treat you well (and the opposite). It's less of a trade-off than it's often portrayed as.
- WJW 2y ago
  There's probably a causal relation too: both the compensation AND the desire to take ideas seriously come from the same source, which can generally be summarized as "respect for the way specific expertise can help along a shared cause".
- hobs 2y ago
  The fact that we are arguing about the basic rules of money still is amusing. Any corporate drone can tell you that allocating budget is the main way a corporation identifies what is important. If it wasn't, why is the CEO getting paid so much? Why are the biggest problems and the dearest things allocated the most budget? How many backflips do we perform for said things? Any other interpretation is ignoring the most basic power dynamics at play.
- jjav 2y ago
  > Yes, in practice more often than not, the people who respect you enough to pay you well often also respect you enough to treat you well (and the opposite). In practice, these are not the same people. The people who have a direct impact on empowering and respecting you are your manager and their manager. These people also have (having been one) surprisingly little say in how much you get paid. HR rules that land. We can present arguments and beg and plead, but ultimately don't really have any decision making power on the paycheck side.

applesauce004 2y ago

This comment above is absolutely gold and true! An organization can offer the following benefits to employees: Comp(salary, bonus, etc), health Benefits(health, insurance, counselling), autonomy, interesting/challenging work, push you out of your comfort zone, a non-toxic environment, etc. The key is to recognize the Maslow's hierarchy here as well (hierarchy of benefits, instead of hierarchy of needs). Once you offer someone top comp and top health benefits, you have crossed the hygiene layer. Then you go to the social layer (recognition, awards, non-toxic env) and finally the self-actualization layer (autonomy, pushing them harder, long-term aspirations). Dont cheap out on the hygiene factors!!

hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
> An organization can offer the following benefits to employees: Comp(salary, bonus, etc), health Benefits(health, insurance, counselling), autonomy, interesting/challenging work, push you out of your comfort zone, a non-toxic environment, etc. A non-toxic work environment isn’t a “benefit”, it’s a basic requirement. Same for autonomy. Healthcare is just compensation. In the end, compensation is what matters.
- pm90 2y ago
  Non toxic environments are rare and are absolutely, 100% a benefit. If you don’t believe this Im genuinely happy that youve had such good experiences.

bko 2y ago

Can't speak for everyone but most times I left jobs for those with lower comp. I wanted to do something else or have more autonomy. Basically non salary concerns. If it was just salary you wouldn't see turnover at FAANG companies of 2-3 years. A ton of people leave and take huge pay cuts because they don't like the work or feel bored

agumonkey 2y ago
golden handcuffs are real, you rapidly stop caring about compensation if you don't wake up interested in the goal or how it's done a good team and good project is worth a lot

captain_coffee 2y ago

Correct! In the vast majority of cases we're talking about base salary or daily rate increases exclusively. Money. Now. End of story.

jjav 2y ago

> You can safely ignore everything this person wrote. I could say we can safely ignore everything you wrote. Not everyone is driven solely (or even primarily) by money alone. Some/many people are, so your take is one of many valid ones but not the only one. So managers, you actually need to understand what drives your high performers. I have never quit a job due to pay, it has always been due to other factors.