4 ms·

The whole taboo about talking about salary isn't really about salary. It's about the end result of what happens several steps down the line from people talking

The whole taboo about talking about salary isn't really about salary. It's about the end result of what happens several steps down the line from people talking about salary. Say, for example, you and Steve have the same job description and Steve tells you that he makes $40k more than you. You naturally feel screwed, so you go talk to the boss about it. Now, one of two things might happen. It might turn out that you're actually as good as Steve, and just weren't as good at negotiating. That's the best case, and maybe you'll get yourself the raise that everybody always talks about when this topic comes up. But more likely, you're just not as good at your job as Steve. And now your boss has no choice but tell you so directly. So now you feel even worse, your boss is uncomfortable, and Steve is all self-conscious. Your boss has thought all this through, so he put that silly policy in place. (Notice how he loses in either case.) The fact that such a policy exists is probably an indicator that you're not actually as good as Steve (or possibly that Steve isn't as good as you), and that no real good will come from discussing salaries with each other. If you want to talk salaries, do it with people working at other companies. Figure out your real market rate and if your current employer won't match it, go find somebody who will. Incidentally, a corollary to the above is that you should avoid working at a place where all salaries are public and they pay all their developers the same, based on a few "tiers" or whatever. Unless you expect you're either bad enough at what you do or bad enough at negotiating that you'd normally end up with a salary below the "tier" level, you're guaranteed to leave money on the table in this situation. Probably about 50% of your actual value if you're genuinely good at what you do and can negotiate your way out of a paper bag.

Udo 14y ago
This system is broken. Just have discrete salary levels that are well understood and public. That way you know what levels everyone is on, there is no negotiation necessary (which is an amoral practice anyway) and everybody can focus on actual work instead of secretly wondering if they're getting screwed compared to some random no-talent clown on their team. You wouldn't need that many different levels either, maybe ten in total. In my country, government jobs already kind of work this way, and the military does, too. When we were doing our startup, we had three tiers for a company of about 15 people. Everybody in the same tier made the same.
- jasonkester 14y ago
  As I said in the comment you're replying to, that's a terrible idea. For, well, the reasons I gave in the comment you're replying to. It's the same reason that Unions are such a bad idea for professions with wide variation in individual skill (such as software developers). I (and likely you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average" worker of my years experience and skillset is making or able to negotiate. Unless you're in the bottom 50th percentile, you can do better on the open market. To use your example, the system you advocate would ensure that you were earning the same as that no-talent clown on the next team. Me, I'd prefer to make twice his salary.
  - rubinelli 14y ago
    But for software developers at least, I've seen no correlation (or perhaps even a slight negative correlation) between technical and negotiation ability. So that no-talent clown may actually earn more than you. In the end, many good, underpaid developers leave, because that's how they have a chance to get a fair valuation in the open market.
    - jasonkester 14y ago
      As developers, we tend to look for technical solutions to things, so when we see a situation like the one you describe, we come up with ideas to "fix" the situation and make everything fair. But a more productive approach when confronted with the fact that "negotiation skill seems to have more bearing on how much I can make than technical skill" might be to just take advantage of that fact. If tech folk are as generally bad at negotiating as everybody here seems to agree, the best course would seem to be to simply get better at negotiating. That's actually quite easy to do. And if you do so, you'll make a lot more money. That's a good thing.
      - theorique 14y ago
        If tech folk are as generally bad at negotiating as everybody here seems to agree, the best course would seem to be to simply get better at negotiating. Boom! Good idea. Tech people are generally super confident about their abilities to learn things fast. Negotiating is just another skill in your career tool-kit (and a very lucrative one, in my experience).
michaelochurch 14y ago
Say, for example, you and Steve have the same job description and Steve tells you that he makes $40k more than you. You naturally feel screwed, so you go talk to the boss about it. Now, one of two things might happen. It might turn out that you're actually as good as Steve, and just weren't as good at negotiating. That's the best case, and maybe you'll get yourself the raise that everybody always talks about when this topic comes up. But more likely, you're just not as good at your job as Steve. If Steve is a better engineer than I am, then I'll be more likely to know that than most managers. Now, software is structurally cooperative so I am just not going to raise a stink if a superior engineer makes $40k more, because he's worth it. If he's genuinely better than I am, then my attitude is, "damn right he deserves to be better paid; look at how much I learn from him every day!" I'm not one to make waves over differences in salary. I have too much other shit that I automatically raise hell over (unfairness in project allocation, unfair review policies). I tend to let salary flamewars go. Gotta pick your battles. And now your boss has no choice but tell you so directly. So now you feel even worse, your boss is uncomfortable, and Steve is all self-conscious. If he's a good boss, in that circumstance, he'd tell me what I need to do to be in Steve's position in 2 years. If he's going to pay Steve $40k more because he has more immediate-term value, then fine. If I want the boss to invest in my career so I can be a Steve in two years, and he's not willing to do that, then we have to break.
ProblemFactory 14y ago
While the differences skill levels are true, I don't think "you are just not as good as Steve" is the usual case for salary differences. Salaries tend to stay mostly fixed while in employment at a single company, raises over 10% are rare. As a result, salary is much more related to your negotiation and self-marketing skills at the time of the interview - when the new employer has very little hard evidence of your developer skills - than any objective measure. You might in fact be much better than Steve, but may have changed jobs less often, or have worked on less marketable past projects. For example, I've never heard of anyone negotiating upwards based on relative skills, as in "Bob is making X, I'm 3 times better, therefore my salary should be 3X".

Udo 14y ago

This system is broken. Just have discrete salary levels that are well understood and public. That way you know what levels everyone is on, there is no negotiation necessary (which is an amoral practice anyway) and everybody can focus on actual work instead of secretly wondering if they're getting screwed compared to some random no-talent clown on their team. You wouldn't need that many different levels either, maybe ten in total. In my country, government jobs already kind of work this way, and the military does, too. When we were doing our startup, we had three tiers for a company of about 15 people. Everybody in the same tier made the same.

jasonkester 14y ago
As I said in the comment you're replying to, that's a terrible idea. For, well, the reasons I gave in the comment you're replying to. It's the same reason that Unions are such a bad idea for professions with wide variation in individual skill (such as software developers). I (and likely you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average" worker of my years experience and skillset is making or able to negotiate. Unless you're in the bottom 50th percentile, you can do better on the open market. To use your example, the system you advocate would ensure that you were earning the same as that no-talent clown on the next team. Me, I'd prefer to make twice his salary.
- rubinelli 14y ago
  But for software developers at least, I've seen no correlation (or perhaps even a slight negative correlation) between technical and negotiation ability. So that no-talent clown may actually earn more than you. In the end, many good, underpaid developers leave, because that's how they have a chance to get a fair valuation in the open market.
  - jasonkester 14y ago
    As developers, we tend to look for technical solutions to things, so when we see a situation like the one you describe, we come up with ideas to "fix" the situation and make everything fair. But a more productive approach when confronted with the fact that "negotiation skill seems to have more bearing on how much I can make than technical skill" might be to just take advantage of that fact. If tech folk are as generally bad at negotiating as everybody here seems to agree, the best course would seem to be to simply get better at negotiating. That's actually quite easy to do. And if you do so, you'll make a lot more money. That's a good thing.
    - theorique 14y ago
      If tech folk are as generally bad at negotiating as everybody here seems to agree, the best course would seem to be to simply get better at negotiating. Boom! Good idea. Tech people are generally super confident about their abilities to learn things fast. Negotiating is just another skill in your career tool-kit (and a very lucrative one, in my experience).

michaelochurch 14y ago

Say, for example, you and Steve have the same job description and Steve tells you that he makes $40k more than you. You naturally feel screwed, so you go talk to the boss about it. Now, one of two things might happen. It might turn out that you're actually as good as Steve, and just weren't as good at negotiating. That's the best case, and maybe you'll get yourself the raise that everybody always talks about when this topic comes up. But more likely, you're just not as good at your job as Steve. If Steve is a better engineer than I am, then I'll be more likely to know that than most managers. Now, software is structurally cooperative so I am just not going to raise a stink if a superior engineer makes $40k more, because he's worth it. If he's genuinely better than I am, then my attitude is, "damn right he deserves to be better paid; look at how much I learn from him every day!" I'm not one to make waves over differences in salary. I have too much other shit that I automatically raise hell over (unfairness in project allocation, unfair review policies). I tend to let salary flamewars go. Gotta pick your battles. And now your boss has no choice but tell you so directly. So now you feel even worse, your boss is uncomfortable, and Steve is all self-conscious. If he's a good boss, in that circumstance, he'd tell me what I need to do to be in Steve's position in 2 years. If he's going to pay Steve $40k more because he has more immediate-term value, then fine. If I want the boss to invest in my career so I can be a Steve in two years, and he's not willing to do that, then we have to break.

ProblemFactory 14y ago

While the differences skill levels are true, I don't think "you are just not as good as Steve" is the usual case for salary differences. Salaries tend to stay mostly fixed while in employment at a single company, raises over 10% are rare. As a result, salary is much more related to your negotiation and self-marketing skills at the time of the interview - when the new employer has very little hard evidence of your developer skills - than any objective measure. You might in fact be much better than Steve, but may have changed jobs less often, or have worked on less marketable past projects. For example, I've never heard of anyone negotiating upwards based on relative skills, as in "Bob is making X, I'm 3 times better, therefore my salary should be 3X".