4 ms·

>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

>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.
    - charlieflowers 14y ago
      The crux of it is that you have designed a system which you feel can objectively quantify each individual's level of contribution, and then you are willing to directly reward people based on that contribution. And I agree -- if you pull that off, and if you follow through with the reward, then it allows someone to take a lower starting salary, knowing that it is just a matter of time until things get back on the right track. But for many kinds of work, including software development, I've never seen anyone figure out how to quantify individual contributions directly (as Paul Graham talks about [1]). Maybe your company has fewer of those kinds of jobs. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
      - swombat 14y ago
        > But for many kinds of work, including software development, I've never seen anyone figure out how to quantify individual contributions directly (as Paul Graham talks about [1]). Maybe your company has fewer of those kinds of jobs. That is true and a fair criticism. I'm only talking about the example of my company, not declaring universal rules. :-)
- nwbrown 14y ago
  Legitimately good employees are in demand, therefore there are potential employers willing to pay top dollar for them that you have to compete with. You may think there are aspects of your company worth more than salary, but so do most employers. You want your employees to think of themselves as equals and all worth the same amount, but you refuse to apply the same logic to your competitors? I have nothing against having transparent salaries (in fact I think, implemented correctly, it is a grand idea). But if it makes you unable to hire top talent because you are unwilling to justify a discrepancy of pay to those less skilled, it's going to be more trouble than it is worth.
MetaCosm 14y ago
That old saying "A's hire A's and B's hire C's..."
- swombat 14y ago
  It's a hard lesson to learn (everyone believes they know this, until they find themselves under pressure to hire and they hire a B, and end up regretting it), but I believe we've learned it.
vellum 14y ago
It depends on what the base salary is. If it's at the 95th percentile mark, I think a lot of devs would be ok with that, especially if all the other working conditions are good.

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.
  - charlieflowers 14y ago
    The crux of it is that you have designed a system which you feel can objectively quantify each individual's level of contribution, and then you are willing to directly reward people based on that contribution. And I agree -- if you pull that off, and if you follow through with the reward, then it allows someone to take a lower starting salary, knowing that it is just a matter of time until things get back on the right track. But for many kinds of work, including software development, I've never seen anyone figure out how to quantify individual contributions directly (as Paul Graham talks about [1]). Maybe your company has fewer of those kinds of jobs. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
    - swombat 14y ago
      > But for many kinds of work, including software development, I've never seen anyone figure out how to quantify individual contributions directly (as Paul Graham talks about [1]). Maybe your company has fewer of those kinds of jobs. That is true and a fair criticism. I'm only talking about the example of my company, not declaring universal rules. :-)
nwbrown 14y ago
Legitimately good employees are in demand, therefore there are potential employers willing to pay top dollar for them that you have to compete with. You may think there are aspects of your company worth more than salary, but so do most employers. You want your employees to think of themselves as equals and all worth the same amount, but you refuse to apply the same logic to your competitors? I have nothing against having transparent salaries (in fact I think, implemented correctly, it is a grand idea). But if it makes you unable to hire top talent because you are unwilling to justify a discrepancy of pay to those less skilled, it's going to be more trouble than it is worth.

MetaCosm 14y ago

That old saying "A's hire A's and B's hire C's..."

swombat 14y ago
It's a hard lesson to learn (everyone believes they know this, until they find themselves under pressure to hire and they hire a B, and end up regretting it), but I believe we've learned it.

vellum 14y ago

It depends on what the base salary is. If it's at the 95th percentile mark, I think a lot of devs would be ok with that, especially if all the other working conditions are good.