4 ms·

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 negotiat

by 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).
      - bearmf 14y ago
        If you would just think a little bit, you would realize that negotiation is not a technical skill.
        theorique 14y ago
        Sometimes I do think a little bit. :) I didn't say it's a technical skill - but it is a human skill, that can be learned.
        bearmf 14y ago
        Sorry for being rude, but I do not understand your reasoning. Yes, technical people often learn quickly - but only if they are interested in what they are learning and if it is reasonably "technical". A "technical" person might have hard time learning social skills that are easy for most people.
        theorique 14y ago
        That's fair.
    - bearmf 14y ago
      It is only good for people who are good at negotiating or want to get good at it. There exists another class of people who consider salary negotiations fundamentally unfair and have no desire to get better at them. Negotiation is stressful, a waste of time and not interesting at all for many software developers. It would just be better for the public good for no salary negotiations to take place, because people would worry less about being underpaid. Less stress is almost always good for work productivity. And there will be more justice. Just have clear salary guidelines for every engineer level. Levels would be public and so would be salaries, bonuse, stock grants and performance reviews.
- Udo 14y ago
  As I implied in the comment you're replying to, yours is a terrible idea ;) I advocate transparency and simplicity not because it's a perfect system for getting the exact amount of compensation appropriate (no such system exists) - I advocate its use over the alternative which is based on empowering the employer only and unfairly rewards people for being good at negotiation. I allege the whole thing is a philosophical artifact created by the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem: "just let the workers fight over it, the best will get the most!" Interestingly, a wide variation is skill is not something that is addressed at all by this don't-ask-don't-tell lottery scheme. If anything, it is based on the idea that two given people with the same skill set end up getting disparately compensated. In what world can that look right to anyone? People wonder why women and minorities get paid less than white males: that is the reason why right there. The truth is, I'd rather rest well knowing I get the same compensation as a coworker than spending energy wondering whether I'm getting ripped off or not. And here's the shocker: I don't want my coworker to get ripped off either! Now if a team member happens to be awful, and he keeps on failing upwards through the ranks of the company, I prefer to have some visible indicators for that as well. You say you prefer to make twice the salary as that guy, but under the system you're advocating you couldn't even know whether that is indeed the case. > I (and likely you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average" worker of my years experience and skillset is making. That really depends on the company and the kind of colleagues you are dealing with. I'd prefer to work in a team where I'm not above everyone else. I like being surrounded by people who inspire me and whom I can maybe inspire in turn. Being lumped together with comparatively untalented coworkers is not just a compensation issue, it also creates an environment where one part of the team has to constantly shoulder additional workload and carry the underperformers (who by the way are almost always better at politics). Getting back to my levels proposal: it already works elsewhere, it's just not used that much in our industry for cultural (and probably philosophical) reasons. Yes, skills vary, but the negotiation-based system addresses this in an even worse way than compensation levels do. My experience with running a level-based system has been overwhelmingly positive. It was pleasant from an administrative point of view, and it created zero contention among employees.
  - jasonkester 14y ago
    I like to think I'm full of terrible ideas :). Here's another one. I don't agree with your idea that negotiating is "amoral", nor that rewarding people for being good at negotiation is "unfair", nor that you can get "ripped off" by receiving a salary that you agreed to, nor that a "don't-ask-don't-tell" workplace need be a "lottery". I think it's fine that people can negotiate with one another, and that being good at negotiating has advantages. I think the most productive thing to do in a world where people negotiate is to learn some basic negotiation skills so as to live in that world. I think the least productive thing you can do in that world is to try to make everybody stop negotiating for things. Doing so can only make things worse for you, since everybody else will continue negotiating after you stop.
- polymatter 14y ago
  First, you have no idea of the earnings of the "clown" because that information is not disclosed or offered. Then you are assuming you make twice his salary. Then you are attacking suggestions that you could check if this were true as a "terrible idea". The whole issue is you have no way of knowing if the "clown" is making double your salary or not. This can breed resentment of individuals, just as knowing peoples salaries can. People are complex beasts. For my limited experience, in all likelihood banning talk of salary or not probably has very little effect.

by Udo 14y ago

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).
    - bearmf 14y ago
      If you would just think a little bit, you would realize that negotiation is not a technical skill.
      - theorique 14y ago
        Sometimes I do think a little bit. :) I didn't say it's a technical skill - but it is a human skill, that can be learned.
        bearmf 14y ago
        Sorry for being rude, but I do not understand your reasoning. Yes, technical people often learn quickly - but only if they are interested in what they are learning and if it is reasonably "technical". A "technical" person might have hard time learning social skills that are easy for most people.
        theorique 14y ago
        That's fair.
  - bearmf 14y ago
    It is only good for people who are good at negotiating or want to get good at it. There exists another class of people who consider salary negotiations fundamentally unfair and have no desire to get better at them. Negotiation is stressful, a waste of time and not interesting at all for many software developers. It would just be better for the public good for no salary negotiations to take place, because people would worry less about being underpaid. Less stress is almost always good for work productivity. And there will be more justice. Just have clear salary guidelines for every engineer level. Levels would be public and so would be salaries, bonuse, stock grants and performance reviews.
Udo 14y ago
As I implied in the comment you're replying to, yours is a terrible idea ;) I advocate transparency and simplicity not because it's a perfect system for getting the exact amount of compensation appropriate (no such system exists) - I advocate its use over the alternative which is based on empowering the employer only and unfairly rewards people for being good at negotiation. I allege the whole thing is a philosophical artifact created by the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem: "just let the workers fight over it, the best will get the most!" Interestingly, a wide variation is skill is not something that is addressed at all by this don't-ask-don't-tell lottery scheme. If anything, it is based on the idea that two given people with the same skill set end up getting disparately compensated. In what world can that look right to anyone? People wonder why women and minorities get paid less than white males: that is the reason why right there. The truth is, I'd rather rest well knowing I get the same compensation as a coworker than spending energy wondering whether I'm getting ripped off or not. And here's the shocker: I don't want my coworker to get ripped off either! Now if a team member happens to be awful, and he keeps on failing upwards through the ranks of the company, I prefer to have some visible indicators for that as well. You say you prefer to make twice the salary as that guy, but under the system you're advocating you couldn't even know whether that is indeed the case. > I (and likely you) don't want to be lumped in with whatever the "average" worker of my years experience and skillset is making. That really depends on the company and the kind of colleagues you are dealing with. I'd prefer to work in a team where I'm not above everyone else. I like being surrounded by people who inspire me and whom I can maybe inspire in turn. Being lumped together with comparatively untalented coworkers is not just a compensation issue, it also creates an environment where one part of the team has to constantly shoulder additional workload and carry the underperformers (who by the way are almost always better at politics). Getting back to my levels proposal: it already works elsewhere, it's just not used that much in our industry for cultural (and probably philosophical) reasons. Yes, skills vary, but the negotiation-based system addresses this in an even worse way than compensation levels do. My experience with running a level-based system has been overwhelmingly positive. It was pleasant from an administrative point of view, and it created zero contention among employees.
- jasonkester 14y ago
  I like to think I'm full of terrible ideas :). Here's another one. I don't agree with your idea that negotiating is "amoral", nor that rewarding people for being good at negotiation is "unfair", nor that you can get "ripped off" by receiving a salary that you agreed to, nor that a "don't-ask-don't-tell" workplace need be a "lottery". I think it's fine that people can negotiate with one another, and that being good at negotiating has advantages. I think the most productive thing to do in a world where people negotiate is to learn some basic negotiation skills so as to live in that world. I think the least productive thing you can do in that world is to try to make everybody stop negotiating for things. Doing so can only make things worse for you, since everybody else will continue negotiating after you stop.
polymatter 14y ago
First, you have no idea of the earnings of the "clown" because that information is not disclosed or offered. Then you are assuming you make twice his salary. Then you are attacking suggestions that you could check if this were true as a "terrible idea". The whole issue is you have no way of knowing if the "clown" is making double your salary or not. This can breed resentment of individuals, just as knowing peoples salaries can. People are complex beasts. For my limited experience, in all likelihood banning talk of salary or not probably has very little effect.