4 ms·

I've done exactly that, and very deliberately, with GrantTree. All salary and bonus information is available (anyone in the company can log in to the accounting

by swombat 14y ago

I've done exactly that, and very deliberately, with GrantTree. All salary and bonus information is available (anyone in the company can log in to the accounting system and check it, along with all the other company financials). It does mean that there's some people you won't be able to hire, if they demand a higher salary than their peers and won't budge on it - but then again, I'm of the view that I'm better off not hiring those anyway. I think the benefits of having an open, trusting, transparent culture far outweigh any benefits a single individual can bring to the company. Someone who's willing to damage the culture of the company for their individual benefit is probably not someone I want in this company. What are those cultural benefits? Well, for example, because we are transparent all the way through, this is also reflected in the very open and relaxed culture, and it then is reflected onto our clients - after all, your employees will treat your clients in the same way you treat them. Most companies are "open" in quotes, but then when you get to sensitive information they closed up, which sets up an uneasy tension. We don't have any uneasy tensions at GrantTree. That's a huge benefit to me. I don't like dealing with uneasy tensions and lying to people and hiding stuff. It's important to combine transparent salaries with transparent ways for people to increase those salaries, in my opinion. If you don't, people will feel stuck (transparently so). But if you do, people will feel that there is a known path for them to increase their pay and they'll work on that path rather than try to ingratiate themselves to get a pay raise in private. Any further questions about this - feel free to ask. I'll do my best to respond. PS: If you're in London and looking for a client management, sales or office manager/admin/support role, or if you know someone who is, we're hiring! Client Manager (x2): http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/45842335082/join-us-at-granttree http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/45842335082/join-us-at-gran... Office Manager/Admin/Support (I really don't know what to call that role): http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/43396425717/come-work-with-granttree http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/43396425717/come-work-with-... Sales: http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/38246842231/join-granttrees-sales-team http://blog.granttree.co.uk/post/38246842231/join-granttrees...

rational_indian 14y ago
>It does mean that there's some people you won't be able to hire, if they demand a higher salary than their peers and won't budge on it - but then again, I'm of the view that I'm better off not hiring those anyway. So what you are saying is that you are perfectly happy hiring average people and you won't hire people who are better than those already in your employ?
- swombat 14y ago
  Not at all. You're assuming there's a correlation between demanding a high starting salary and being "better". That's a load of crap. There are a lot of benefits to working in a company like GrantTree that are worth more than the money - and you can get the money eventually, anyway, you just have to earn it. At this stage, though, if your main concern is getting a high initial base salary, don't work with us. In my experience, concern about initial base pay is entirely uncorrelated to how good you are. Edit: another way to look at it, is that what you're describing is someone who is both exceptional and an asshole. My view is, if you interview someone who is like that, don't hire them. Hire only people who are exceptional but not assholes.
  - charlieflowers 14y ago
    Wanting to maintain a salary consistent with what you've been earning before you join a company does not make you an asshole. This "asshole" label comes off as a strong-arm negotiation tactic on your part. (I may be wrong, but that's how it appears. If I am wrong, please enlighten me). And there is at least decent correlation between ability and the compensation you've received over the past several years.
    - swombat 14y ago
      Wanting to maintain a salary consistent with what you've been earning before you join a company does not make you an asshole. Agreed. But we're talking about desires, not actions, then. This "asshole" label comes off as a strong-arm negotiation tactic on your part. (I may be wrong, but that's how it appears. If I am wrong, please enlighten me). Not at all... However, if/when on the end of a conversation with someone we're hiring, they say "But I need more money", then I explain the system to them. If they then say "I really like your company, but I'm afraid I won't be able to take the offer because it's too low" that's fine. That's not being an asshole, that's just being realistic about what kind of role is a good fit for you. After all, if you have a massive mortgage and 3 kids, getting a massive pay cut - however short-term it may be - is simply not an option, no matter how much you want the role. If, on the other hand, having all the stuff in this discussion basically explained to them, including why I can't give them extra pay initially because it will damage the company culture, they then proceed to insist that they want to get some extra money somehow "because they're worth it", and start explaining to me why they're worth the extra money, and so on, then either they just don't get it (and then they're a bit stupid), or they just don't care about the company they're thinking of joining, and in that case I would be happy to declare them an asshole. And there is at least decent correlation between ability and the compensation you've received over the past several years. Agreed, but I didn't talk about "earning a higher salary", I talked about demanding a higher starting salary in a context where it has been explained that that's not possible.
MetaCosm 14y ago
A few questions. Doesn't this create a culture of constant value fixation and envy? People think in terms of comparisons rather than absolutes, doesn't this encourage comparison thinking? Doesn't this create an odd culture setup where you can't promote superstars without getting clearance from everyone else (or at least creating drama), even those who are in no place to judge, or even understand what the superstar does for the company? Does this work as a sort of mob-justice system for keeping employees from asking for more money... because now they have to do it in public and get labelled / deal with the politics of it?
- swombat 14y ago
  > Doesn't this create a culture of constant value fixation and envy? People think in terms of comparisons rather than absolutes, doesn't this encourage comparison thinking? The way this manifested itself is that after the first salesperson earned their first bonus (pretty substantial), there was certainly a bit of envy. The solution to that was to create a relevant bonus scheme for the operations/client management side that enables them to earn bonuses as well. For client management, instead of being based on new sales, the commissions are based on client retention and getting referrals. This way, client managers know they can earn good money too - they just need to do stuff that brings income to the company. > Doesn't this create an odd culture setup where you can't promote superstars without getting clearance from everyone else (or at least create drama), even those who are in no place to judge, or even understand what the superstar does for the company? Bearing in mind we're a relatively young company, this problem hasn't occurred and I don't see it occurring any time soon, for two simple reasons: 1) the "superstars" can see what the benefits of this open, transparent system are, and they want it to continue, so they don't want to break it for their own personal benefit, and 2) if they're superstars, then they're already earning a good bit of money in commissions. > Does this work as a sort of mob-justice system for keeping employees from asking for more money... because now they have to do it in public and get labelled / deal with the politics of it? I guess you can see it that way. The way I look at it is not that anyone is afraid to ask for more money - in fact, I would hope everyone wants more money. But they know what the answer will be. There's a known, proven way to increase their base salary quite substantially every 3 months if they put in the effort, and there are known, proven ways for them to earn commissions. So if someone wants more money, it's there for the taking. Why break the system by asking for an exception, when there's ways to achieve the same result relatively quickly within the system, that don't break the transparency culture?
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
I really love the concept. This is something I'd like to do myself. My biggest worry/concern is with people who would take that information and use it against you. In particular the whole "lies and statistics" thing. For example, what if someone ran the numbers and found that across your entire company women got paid on average 10% less than men. Then tried to start a class action suit or otherwise create a huge hassle about it. Even if your procedures are entirely fair and transparent, there are a great many people, I have found, who will intentionally ignore facts that go against their preconceived notions (like the media for one example). Does this kind of thing worry you? Would you change the policy if someone did make a huge stink about it?
- noelwelsh 14y ago
  That kind of bullshit doesn't happen in the UK. Not to say that bullshit doesn't happen in the UK, or there isn't bullshit that is unique to the UK, but bullshit lawsuits are very very rare.
- swombat 14y ago
  I'm not sure how that could happen, since the entire system is transparent and entirely objective. There is no management discretion in how the system works. If you achieve objective X, you get a bonus. If you complete your monthly tasks for the month for 3 months, you get a pay raise. Ok, perhaps there is some management discretion in setting the goals, but it'd be pretty obvious to the whole company if someone is being set harder/more goals than someone else, so I think this sort of stuff would be dealt with pretty quickly. There's always a chance that someone will try and sue you for random reasons, even in the UK. This is the kind of thing I'm not going to worry about until it actually becomes a problem, though. Hopefully I will not hire the kind of person who would pull that sort of shit... interesting point though.
francesca 14y ago
I really love this philosophy as well, but if this is in place, you need to be very clear as to why someone makes more money than another. There needs to be standards in place, time limitations etc. Transparency is great, but often times one person makes more money than another because of a combination of skill set, negotiating power, gender and relationship status, not to mention relationships with other people in the company and the word we hate (favoritism). So while I am 100% on board with transparency, I also believe it can have a backlash. There's no way to predict it, but creating path for someone to increase their salary and letting it be known before they sign the contract is a good idea.
- swombat 14y ago
  There needs to be standards in place, time limitations etc. Absolutely. You can't have transparency and no way for people to raise their salary. Transparency is great, but often times one person makes more money than another because of a combination of skill set, negotiating power, gender and relationship status, not to mention relationships with other people in the company and the word we hate (favoritism). There's a way to sidestep all those. First of all, negotiating power does not enter into the equation at all, since the pay is all public. It's (rightly) illegal to discriminate on gender (and I'll go headbutt a wall quite hard if the thought "we can pay her less because she's a woman" ever dares to enter my head). Skill set is measured by the results you bring to the company, not by some vague abstract measure. As for nepotism or favouritism, that just takes some minimal self-discipline, imho... So while I am 100% on board with transparency, I also believe it can have a backlash. There's no way to predict it, but creating path for someone to increase their salary and letting it be known before they sign the contract is a good idea. Too many people, entrepreneurs and others, seem to be afraid of paying more money to employees... I find this whole fear ridiculous. I want to have a good reason to pay someone more, because that means they're bringing a multiple of that extra value to the company. If I pay someone £16k a year, it means they're bringing relatively little value to the company. If I pay someone £50k a year, that means they're bringing several times that value to the company. In short, being afraid of offering ways for people to earn more seems silly to me.
  - 14y ago
Bjoern 14y ago
Curious, what kind of software do you guys use internally to track financials which is also accessable to the rest of the employees ?

by swombat 14y ago

rational_indian 14y ago

>It does mean that there's some people you won't be able to hire, if they demand a higher salary than their peers and won't budge on it - but then again, I'm of the view that I'm better off not hiring those anyway. So what you are saying is that you are perfectly happy hiring average people and you won't hire people who are better than those already in your employ?

swombat 14y ago
Not at all. You're assuming there's a correlation between demanding a high starting salary and being "better". That's a load of crap. There are a lot of benefits to working in a company like GrantTree that are worth more than the money - and you can get the money eventually, anyway, you just have to earn it. At this stage, though, if your main concern is getting a high initial base salary, don't work with us. In my experience, concern about initial base pay is entirely uncorrelated to how good you are. Edit: another way to look at it, is that what you're describing is someone who is both exceptional and an asshole. My view is, if you interview someone who is like that, don't hire them. Hire only people who are exceptional but not assholes.
- charlieflowers 14y ago
  Wanting to maintain a salary consistent with what you've been earning before you join a company does not make you an asshole. This "asshole" label comes off as a strong-arm negotiation tactic on your part. (I may be wrong, but that's how it appears. If I am wrong, please enlighten me). And there is at least decent correlation between ability and the compensation you've received over the past several years.
  - swombat 14y ago
    Wanting to maintain a salary consistent with what you've been earning before you join a company does not make you an asshole. Agreed. But we're talking about desires, not actions, then. This "asshole" label comes off as a strong-arm negotiation tactic on your part. (I may be wrong, but that's how it appears. If I am wrong, please enlighten me). Not at all... However, if/when on the end of a conversation with someone we're hiring, they say "But I need more money", then I explain the system to them. If they then say "I really like your company, but I'm afraid I won't be able to take the offer because it's too low" that's fine. That's not being an asshole, that's just being realistic about what kind of role is a good fit for you. After all, if you have a massive mortgage and 3 kids, getting a massive pay cut - however short-term it may be - is simply not an option, no matter how much you want the role. If, on the other hand, having all the stuff in this discussion basically explained to them, including why I can't give them extra pay initially because it will damage the company culture, they then proceed to insist that they want to get some extra money somehow "because they're worth it", and start explaining to me why they're worth the extra money, and so on, then either they just don't get it (and then they're a bit stupid), or they just don't care about the company they're thinking of joining, and in that case I would be happy to declare them an asshole. And there is at least decent correlation between ability and the compensation you've received over the past several years. Agreed, but I didn't talk about "earning a higher salary", I talked about demanding a higher starting salary in a context where it has been explained that that's not possible.

MetaCosm 14y ago

A few questions. Doesn't this create a culture of constant value fixation and envy? People think in terms of comparisons rather than absolutes, doesn't this encourage comparison thinking? Doesn't this create an odd culture setup where you can't promote superstars without getting clearance from everyone else (or at least creating drama), even those who are in no place to judge, or even understand what the superstar does for the company? Does this work as a sort of mob-justice system for keeping employees from asking for more money... because now they have to do it in public and get labelled / deal with the politics of it?

swombat 14y ago
> Doesn't this create a culture of constant value fixation and envy? People think in terms of comparisons rather than absolutes, doesn't this encourage comparison thinking? The way this manifested itself is that after the first salesperson earned their first bonus (pretty substantial), there was certainly a bit of envy. The solution to that was to create a relevant bonus scheme for the operations/client management side that enables them to earn bonuses as well. For client management, instead of being based on new sales, the commissions are based on client retention and getting referrals. This way, client managers know they can earn good money too - they just need to do stuff that brings income to the company. > Doesn't this create an odd culture setup where you can't promote superstars without getting clearance from everyone else (or at least create drama), even those who are in no place to judge, or even understand what the superstar does for the company? Bearing in mind we're a relatively young company, this problem hasn't occurred and I don't see it occurring any time soon, for two simple reasons: 1) the "superstars" can see what the benefits of this open, transparent system are, and they want it to continue, so they don't want to break it for their own personal benefit, and 2) if they're superstars, then they're already earning a good bit of money in commissions. > Does this work as a sort of mob-justice system for keeping employees from asking for more money... because now they have to do it in public and get labelled / deal with the politics of it? I guess you can see it that way. The way I look at it is not that anyone is afraid to ask for more money - in fact, I would hope everyone wants more money. But they know what the answer will be. There's a known, proven way to increase their base salary quite substantially every 3 months if they put in the effort, and there are known, proven ways for them to earn commissions. So if someone wants more money, it's there for the taking. Why break the system by asking for an exception, when there's ways to achieve the same result relatively quickly within the system, that don't break the transparency culture?

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

I really love the concept. This is something I'd like to do myself. My biggest worry/concern is with people who would take that information and use it against you. In particular the whole "lies and statistics" thing. For example, what if someone ran the numbers and found that across your entire company women got paid on average 10% less than men. Then tried to start a class action suit or otherwise create a huge hassle about it. Even if your procedures are entirely fair and transparent, there are a great many people, I have found, who will intentionally ignore facts that go against their preconceived notions (like the media for one example). Does this kind of thing worry you? Would you change the policy if someone did make a huge stink about it?

noelwelsh 14y ago
That kind of bullshit doesn't happen in the UK. Not to say that bullshit doesn't happen in the UK, or there isn't bullshit that is unique to the UK, but bullshit lawsuits are very very rare.
swombat 14y ago
I'm not sure how that could happen, since the entire system is transparent and entirely objective. There is no management discretion in how the system works. If you achieve objective X, you get a bonus. If you complete your monthly tasks for the month for 3 months, you get a pay raise. Ok, perhaps there is some management discretion in setting the goals, but it'd be pretty obvious to the whole company if someone is being set harder/more goals than someone else, so I think this sort of stuff would be dealt with pretty quickly. There's always a chance that someone will try and sue you for random reasons, even in the UK. This is the kind of thing I'm not going to worry about until it actually becomes a problem, though. Hopefully I will not hire the kind of person who would pull that sort of shit... interesting point though.

francesca 14y ago

I really love this philosophy as well, but if this is in place, you need to be very clear as to why someone makes more money than another. There needs to be standards in place, time limitations etc. Transparency is great, but often times one person makes more money than another because of a combination of skill set, negotiating power, gender and relationship status, not to mention relationships with other people in the company and the word we hate (favoritism). So while I am 100% on board with transparency, I also believe it can have a backlash. There's no way to predict it, but creating path for someone to increase their salary and letting it be known before they sign the contract is a good idea.

swombat 14y ago
There needs to be standards in place, time limitations etc. Absolutely. You can't have transparency and no way for people to raise their salary. Transparency is great, but often times one person makes more money than another because of a combination of skill set, negotiating power, gender and relationship status, not to mention relationships with other people in the company and the word we hate (favoritism). There's a way to sidestep all those. First of all, negotiating power does not enter into the equation at all, since the pay is all public. It's (rightly) illegal to discriminate on gender (and I'll go headbutt a wall quite hard if the thought "we can pay her less because she's a woman" ever dares to enter my head). Skill set is measured by the results you bring to the company, not by some vague abstract measure. As for nepotism or favouritism, that just takes some minimal self-discipline, imho... So while I am 100% on board with transparency, I also believe it can have a backlash. There's no way to predict it, but creating path for someone to increase their salary and letting it be known before they sign the contract is a good idea. Too many people, entrepreneurs and others, seem to be afraid of paying more money to employees... I find this whole fear ridiculous. I want to have a good reason to pay someone more, because that means they're bringing a multiple of that extra value to the company. If I pay someone £16k a year, it means they're bringing relatively little value to the company. If I pay someone £50k a year, that means they're bringing several times that value to the company. In short, being afraid of offering ways for people to earn more seems silly to me.
- 14y ago

Bjoern 14y ago

Curious, what kind of software do you guys use internally to track financials which is also accessable to the rest of the employees ?