11 ms·

This method leaves the minimum on the table in theory, so I see why you find it attractive. But it also leads to the situation where people's compensation is m

by emmett 14y ago

This method leaves the minimum on the table in theory, so I see why you find it attractive. But it also leads to the situation where people's compensation is mostly based on how good they are at negotiation, not how good they are at their job. I would argue that this is not only unjust, but actually in the long term poisonous to your business. People talk. They compare salaries. If the results are out of whack with perceived contribution, people get upset. If they're the kind of person who wouldn't negotiate a higher salary with you in the first place, they simply leave the company. And you're out a valuable employee because you tried to screw them on the margin for not negotiating. Not a quick effect, granted, but if you plan to operate your business for longer than a couple years it seems to be very important to me.

vidarh 14y ago
I don't agree people's compensation will be mostly based on how good they are at negotiation. The range we'd consider will be based on our understanding of their skill. But within that range, we'd never start at the top, not least because we need a buffer to deal with the candidates we really want that do negotiate. If the rest are the kind of persons that don't know their worth and can't stand up for themselves enough to ask what they think they're worth, perhaps they're not worth that much in the first place. I'm about as left wing as you get (enough so that I know plenty of people who where openly watched by security services in Norway back in the day...), but I also realized a long time ago that I was wasting my time (being politically active) fighting for what was in fact other peoples benefits, as I could easily get jobs at well above average rates while the people whose interests I fought for had no interest in it, or actively disagreed with the level of redistribution I believe is fair. As long as the vast majority of people support a system that makes the above the natural corporate response, I don't see it as screwing them. I see it as rewarding the people who have skills that are valuable to the business (ability to stand up for themselves, and to negotiate) at the expense of those who can't really be bothered taking responsibility for themselves. This isn't an issue where someone for whatever reason can't - everyone can look at the offer and say "is that the best you can do?", or "I was looking for X amount more; if you can meet that I can sign right away". If someone is so scared about standing up for themselves or care so little, I really don't want to pay them more. If that makes them leave sooner, then so be it.
- emmett 14y ago
  Your argument makes great sense if you're hiring business development people, or sales people. Both of those kinds of jobs reward skill at negotiation. But if you're hiring software engineers, it's just not true. There's a pretty strong negative bias against negotiation for most engineers, and it's not useful to the job. Being good at demanding higher compensation does not correlate with programming skill. I don't know what kind of employee you're hiring, but you really might be driving away some of the best people that way. That said, I'd advise really just about anyone to get over themselves if they don't negotiate. You should always negotiate when you take a job, or at least try.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    > and it's not useful to the job. I absolutely can't agree with that at all. Any developer that needs to talk to product people, customers or other teams spend a substantial amount of time negotiating. Even when dealing with other team members you're constantly engaged in negotiation. In my experience there's a strong correlation between ability to assert yourself and negotiate, and your ability to get your point of view through to a team and develop consensus around your solutions. A developer can write brilliant code, but if they struggle to assert themselves enough or negotiate to get buy in for their views, they can often get steamrollered completely and the team end up shipping some mediocre solution that wasn't as hard to defend, written by someone who isn't afraid to make their voice heard. Conversely, I've seen teams where some "high profile rock star" team member leaves, only for the rest of the team to breathe a collective sigh of relief that it's now ok to throw out his code and change most of the decisions he made that they disagreed deeply with but that they were unable to stand up to, despite in some cases outranking said developer. As a result of those experiences, I want developers that can stand their ground and that are not afraid of fighting for what they want and believe is right, and that know how to do it in a manner that isn't confrontational but wins them respect. And no, I don't believe for a second that the meriot of the code itself is sufficient - so often it boils down to heated opinions.

by emmett 14y ago

vidarh 14y ago

I don't agree people's compensation will be mostly based on how good they are at negotiation. The range we'd consider will be based on our understanding of their skill. But within that range, we'd never start at the top, not least because we need a buffer to deal with the candidates we really want that do negotiate. If the rest are the kind of persons that don't know their worth and can't stand up for themselves enough to ask what they think they're worth, perhaps they're not worth that much in the first place. I'm about as left wing as you get (enough so that I know plenty of people who where openly watched by security services in Norway back in the day...), but I also realized a long time ago that I was wasting my time (being politically active) fighting for what was in fact other peoples benefits, as I could easily get jobs at well above average rates while the people whose interests I fought for had no interest in it, or actively disagreed with the level of redistribution I believe is fair. As long as the vast majority of people support a system that makes the above the natural corporate response, I don't see it as screwing them. I see it as rewarding the people who have skills that are valuable to the business (ability to stand up for themselves, and to negotiate) at the expense of those who can't really be bothered taking responsibility for themselves. This isn't an issue where someone for whatever reason can't - everyone can look at the offer and say "is that the best you can do?", or "I was looking for X amount more; if you can meet that I can sign right away". If someone is so scared about standing up for themselves or care so little, I really don't want to pay them more. If that makes them leave sooner, then so be it.

emmett 14y ago
Your argument makes great sense if you're hiring business development people, or sales people. Both of those kinds of jobs reward skill at negotiation. But if you're hiring software engineers, it's just not true. There's a pretty strong negative bias against negotiation for most engineers, and it's not useful to the job. Being good at demanding higher compensation does not correlate with programming skill. I don't know what kind of employee you're hiring, but you really might be driving away some of the best people that way. That said, I'd advise really just about anyone to get over themselves if they don't negotiate. You should always negotiate when you take a job, or at least try.
- vidarh 14y ago
  > and it's not useful to the job. I absolutely can't agree with that at all. Any developer that needs to talk to product people, customers or other teams spend a substantial amount of time negotiating. Even when dealing with other team members you're constantly engaged in negotiation. In my experience there's a strong correlation between ability to assert yourself and negotiate, and your ability to get your point of view through to a team and develop consensus around your solutions. A developer can write brilliant code, but if they struggle to assert themselves enough or negotiate to get buy in for their views, they can often get steamrollered completely and the team end up shipping some mediocre solution that wasn't as hard to defend, written by someone who isn't afraid to make their voice heard. Conversely, I've seen teams where some "high profile rock star" team member leaves, only for the rest of the team to breathe a collective sigh of relief that it's now ok to throw out his code and change most of the decisions he made that they disagreed deeply with but that they were unable to stand up to, despite in some cases outranking said developer. As a result of those experiences, I want developers that can stand their ground and that are not afraid of fighting for what they want and believe is right, and that know how to do it in a manner that isn't confrontational but wins them respect. And no, I don't believe for a second that the meriot of the code itself is sufficient - so often it boils down to heated opinions.