19 ms·

By The Time You Give Them a Raise, They’re Already Out The Door

• fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I've jumped to a greener pasture a couple times. I always gave plenty of signals but I never made threats about leaving. He's right, by the time I've made the decision to look elsewhere and found another job, there isn't much that can be done to reverse that course of action. Also, if you don't pay severance or have me on contract, you aren't likely to get much notice.
  • LanceH 13y ago
    When I first started working in the industry nearly 20 years ago, severance and notice were frequently outlined in the contract. Generally it was the 2 weeks that is "professional". When it is mentioned at all, the only thing I ever see mentioned now is notice. So much for professional.
  • blueskin_ 13y ago
    Agreed. When I left my old job, even a 20% raise would have been significantly smaller than I moved onto. In order to even match it, it would have to have been about double that. As it is, even just a raise won't change things much, as there are almost always other reasons someone wants to leave too - it could be that the work was unfulfilling, there was no room to grow, the company had no direction, management was clueless, the internal politics were toxic, insufficient recognition for work, etc. Those issues don't go away with a raise, that just convinces people to tolerate them for a while longer.
• mbesto 13y ago
  This is solid. I constantly remind my co-founder he can walk out and get a $100k+ salary somewhere else (I actually told him to go interview elsewhere - and I would provide a reference - just to prove it). By doing this it opens the discussion for why he wants to stick it out, and I'm quite confident by the aforementioned actions that I know I'm not wasting his time nor is he wasting mine.
• adamors 13y ago
  > Pay market, or above, as soon as you can. It’s a sign of respect. And just as importantly, the lack of a decent compensation/raise is a sign of disrespect. I also factor here places that expect their developers (especially young ones who advance exponentially at the beginning) to either stay at the same pay grade for years or suck it up with a 5% raise.
  • arg01 13y ago
    I agree, I'd also add that when you let the juniors sit at the same pay for longer than a year and a half they'll start to build a bit of resentment (even if they don't change jobs as they probably should). Even a pay rise at that point might not help because they can think the next one is going to be just as far off and if they feel they deserved it at an annual review a few months ago they might think of it as lost money. At least that was my experience. Of course being younger and less mercenary I hung around longer than I should and jumped, just after a pay-rise, to a similar position similar pay job. I couldn't hang around knowing my heart wouldn't be in working there.
  • blueskin_ 13y ago
    Those are the places who need to hire new ones every 9-12 months.
• yalogin 13y ago
  First off a link on Quora did not bug me about a login - weird. Second, all this talk about hiring "rock stars" and retaining them but I heard no one talking about bad hires. Does any one want to share stories about bad hires and why it was a wrong decision? I believe companies put too much emphasis on hiring the correct person. I understand if its the first few employees but after that does it really matter? Unless the person is a real asshole (and he did not care enough to hide it during the interview) does it really matter?
  • devrelm 13y ago
    The only advice I can give on bad hires is to recognize the mistake and let them go as early as possible.
  • eropple 13y ago
    > I believe companies put too much emphasis on hiring the correct person. You literally can't put too much emphasis on hiring the right person. Not because of you. Firing someone, at least in the U.S., is easy. But you hurt people when you hire the wrong people. You turn their lives upside-down because you made the wrong decision. If you have a shred of a conscience, you'll hire scrupulously because doing otherwise makes you shitty. "Hire fast, fire fast" is immoral. "Hire slow, fire fast" less so, if you compensate the worker because in almost every case (that is, this isn't true in cases of criminality, harrassment, etc.) it's your mistake, not theirs, and you owe them.
    • 6d0debc071 13y ago
      It depends what sort of life you're turning upside down. For low level jobs I can see hire fast fire fast being a fairly good thing, it lets people have a crack and maybe prove themselves, where they wouldn't be able to pass a more risk averse setup. Both sides gamble. What's kind's going to depend on what they're putting up.
    • derefr 13y ago
      This only applies if you actually allow people to assume that "hired" means "staying." If you "hire" people on a tentative basis, and tell them that you're doing so, then this can work. (And you don't tentatively hire people who would have to relocate, etc.)
• devrelm 13y ago
  > There are some very tell-tell signs of someone interviewing. Out of the office at weird hours. Talking on their mobile phone on the sidewalk I've been that employee. As my dad (a farmer) says, "the hired man wants a day off to go look for another job." There are many tell-tale signs that an employee is looking for another job, and the article is absolutely right that—until the they put in their notice—it is rarely too late to change their mind.
  • joezydeco 13y ago
    Been there too. Many times. The thing is that while I was interviewing, I certainly wasn't telling the boss I was doing that. That's suicide. I certainly have lots of tells (and had lots of "dental work" like the two guys that quit before me). The CEO just didn't have his ear to the ground or talk to the rest of the staff. Especially the office admin: she knows everything.
    • jasonlknm 13y ago
      Exactly. I think the best founders/CEO should be always listening. Talking to office admin, whatever. Getting them before they walk out the door.
  • lostcolony 13y ago
    Very much depends on their reasons for leaving. If it's money, sure, though that ties in to why didn't you respect them enough to pay them market ASAP, if you're able to once you know they're trying to leave. If it's something other than money, chances are real good you won't be able to keep them.
    • fuzzywalrus 13y ago
      I'm all for what what the author is pitching but this article also ignores the fact often in smaller companies the only upward mobility to jump ship.
      • jasonlknm 13y ago
• nahname 13y ago
  >The thing is — you can’t counter. It’s too late by that point. Unless the employee is leaving for money. Junior employees HAVE to jump jobs 2-3 times to get to their market rate.
  • lukejduncan 13y ago
    At what size company? Start-ups or in general? That doesn't sound right to me, but I don't have anything to back that up by my anecdotal experience.
    • Periodic 13y ago
      I think if you come out of a good school with the right degree and jump right into a good company you can expect market-rate pay or better. If you get a CS degree from Stanford and join Google you'll be doing fine. But maybe you didn't have the money or quite the grades and extracurriculars so you get your degree from San Jose State or City College of San Francisco, you could still be a very good programmer, but you'll have to start by taking lower-paying jobs while you prove it and learn, and at most companies you won't get much of a raise unless you threaten to leave. A friend of mine ended up a technical lead of about a dozen people. He got there by leaving his company for another company, leaving them to go back to the first company, then leaving them again to go back to the second company as a lead. Each time he got a substantial pay raise. For the four years before he adopted this tactic he was getting the customary 5% or so as a mid-level programmer. In the four years he employed this tactic his salary almost doubled.
      • potatolicious 13y ago
        > "If you get a CS degree from Stanford and join Google you'll be doing fine." I disagree. The problem isn't that people are paying below market - Google pays just fine for new grads. You won't find many places paying more than Google does for fresh grads. The problem is that the pay scale for software developers increases rapidly with experience, at a rate no company (Google included) is willing to keep pace with. A new undergrad may be worth $100K starting. Assuming they're reasonably good performers, in two years he/she will be worth $130K+. I don't know of any company that gives 15% annual raises like clockwork, even to solid performers. Personally I've doubled my salary in about 5 years in the industry. That works out to 15%, yearly. Is there any company out there that's willing to keep pace? I've been at companies where the typical non-promotion raise is 1-2%, that's laughable in a market where salaries are skyrocketing.
• pcrh 13y ago
  I don't know if it is the writing style or something else, but this comes across to me as being written by someone who has difficulty empathizing with their employees. After all, the opposite of the advice presented would be to ignore the ambitions of your most important employees, underpay them, and never speak to them. The fact that not doing the foregoing is seen as a novel insight is not encouraging.
  • nikatwork 13y ago
    Sadly this kind of "don't be an asshole" common sense is insanely rare in management. I would love to work for the author. I've worked in so many places where the management vibe was "how can we squeeze more blood out of the talent" and not "how can we support the talent to make awesome things."
    • blueskin_ 13y ago
      Agreed. I read management-oriented things from time to time to get an idea of the mentality, and it's very, very split between the two kinds of 'advice': common sense, and exploitation.
  • andrewflnr 13y ago
    No one thinks that these are bad things to do, but it's easy to forget to do them in the midst of all the other responsibilities of running a company. I think the article's insight is that the things it talks about are really important and you need to find time for them.
    • pcrh 13y ago
      You may be right, after all, the author is describing some ways to avoid alienating one's employees. Nevertheless, I have always been somewhat confused by the distinction many people (and with no particular reference to the author of the article) make between the ethics that one expects between individuals in everyday life and in the workplace.
• skittles 13y ago
  Article says to talk to your talent at least once a quarter. You should do it once a week.
  • jasonlknm 13y ago
    Once a week for sure when you small, and with your direct reports. Once you are bigger (say 50-100+ employees) and have more indirect reports -- it's hard to meet with all of them every week in an unscripted fashion, especially when most don't report to you anymore. If you force yourself to do it once a quarter, especially in the functional areas you work less on ... it will make a huge difference.
• arecurrence 13y ago
  > Pay market, or above, as soon as you can. It’s a sign of respect. This is the best advice I can give any software engineering firm. I've left companies large and small chiefly because they waited until I gave notice to bring my salary in line with my performance. If you have a top engineer and haven't given them a raise in 9 months, they are seriously considering their options. A lot of people act like compensation shouldn't matter. All the senior people in your company care VERY MUCH about their compensation. If you become good friends with them you will see this very clearly. You deserve it just as much.
  • dapz 13y ago
    How frequently can/should one ask for raises? I was under the vague impression that once a year is reasonable, but looks like I might be wrong.
    • r0s 13y ago
      You can ask literally any time, but unless you have a real reason it's a waste of time. A good reason would be an increase in responsibility. Otherwise wait for your performance review. If you don't get one, ask for it.
      • gknoy 13y ago
        What do you say when they say, "Oh we've had a rough year last year, so we're giving you 3%"?
        • jonathanwallace 13y ago
          Assuming you've done well for your company you might say "That's very disappointing to hear that we're struggling so much as a company. I was (hoping|expecting) for X. <pause> Is there any advice or direction you could provide to me where I might help ensure we do better as a company going forward? I'd like to set up a plan of what I can to help and revisit compensation in the next 1-3 months." And at the same time, start polishing your resume and interview skills. I would think of this approach as a probation period for any company that I work for. If an employee isn't doing well, they're put on probation. Why not do the same for any company that is vying for our technical abilities?
• memracom 13y ago
  Feedback, yeah! It's odd how so many software companies claim to be Agile and when it comes to employer/employee relations they toss the Agile Manifesto out the window. Agile is founded on communications and short feedback loops. Please apply this wisdom in all of your internal business affairs, not just in development activities.
• pjungwir 13y ago
  I was very happy to see this one: > Find a Growth Path for Everyone, Especially the Great Ones. I've done a few interviews in the last few years, and whenever I ask about career path, they always stumble, even companies with 50+ employees. "We have a flat org chart." I've pretty much decided that it's up to me to advance my career via freelancing, because as an employee you hit a ceiling very fast.
  • chrisabrams 13y ago
    Flat is a terrible organizational structure for employees who take their career seriously.
    • unethical_ban 13y ago
      As opposed to having 9 managers?
      • macspoofing 13y ago
        I'm thinking there's probably a happy medium in between yours and OP's extremes.
      • macspoofing 13y ago
        I'm thinking there's probably a happy medium in between yours and OP's extremes.
    • rhizome 13y ago
      "Flat" == non-management and hidden biases
    • Deepmist 13y ago
      The flattest organizations I can think of have the most talented and career-driven people in the industry.
  • dasil003 13y ago
    Are you interviewing at startups when what you're looking for is more of a big company job?
• krstck 13y ago
  Can we quit with the "rock stars", "ninjas" and all that? We're not teenage boys, stop talking to us as though we are.
  • awakeasleep 13y ago
    However, we are employees, and most employees have a child-like share of understanding and decision making in their jobs.
    • czbond 13y ago
      So true.
    • brownbat 13y ago
      > most employees have a child-like share of understanding Ok, I'll bite... what are some things employees never fathom about the job they're doing?
  • MBCook 13y ago
    A+ers? 1%-ers? MVPs? Cream of the crop? Apex-ers? Acmeees? People are going to end up using some term to denote their top performers. Verbal shorthand is very hard to get rid of.
    • MartinCron 13y ago
      I'm all for verbal shorthand. I also agree that we can do better than the "rockstar" and "ninja" as they immature, embarrassing, and male-centric.
      • jpatokal 13y ago
        Psst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi
        • MartinCron 13y ago
• Bahamut 13y ago
  As the type of employee described here, I think companies would do well paying their employees what they're worth. The only reason I've had to consider switching so far is due to significant pay differences.
  • myth_drannon 13y ago
    on glassdor you can sometimes filter salaries by different levels of engineer's experience, but it only works for large companies
• mindvirus 13y ago
  A good senior engineer these days costs somewhere around $200k/year (if not more) in a major US tech hub, factoring in overhead costs of salary and benefits. This is something that most seed or series A companies can't really afford. So my question is, as salaries rise, how will this affect the startup industry? Where $1 million could buy you 8 people for a year before, now it can only buy you 6. This seems to make bootstrapping much more difficult. It also seems like this may end up causing certain startups to be impossible, since they require much more money than they would have normally. Anyway, thoughts?
  • jasonlknm 13y ago
    In general, it's working out for now ... for now ... because the best start-ups are scaling faster than ever. As long as start-ups scale faster, they still get incredible leverage even as fully-burdened costs grow. In SaaS, the best start-ups are getting from $2m to $10m ARR in 1 year now. That was pretty close to impossible 5 years back. The markets are larger. With more customers, you get more revenue. And you can pay more. For now.
  • pekk 13y ago
    If only there were people who had free access to the labor of a sufficiently capable engineer. Then these people could do things like starting companies or working at an early stage in exchange for major equity, until the business had enough to pay for more people like them. I know it's a radical idea, since these people wouldn't be "ideas guys". Oh well, no such people seem to exist, too bad for the clearly moribund startup industry.
    • mindvirus 13y ago
      That's not what I'm saying. If the cost of labor is increasing, the amount that funding gets you decreases, as I assume that most of what funding is used for is paying salaries. Equity is also a cost. If before you gave early hires 1% equity, now you have to give them 1.5% equity to make up the same dollar amount - so if you're using equity to offset lack of cash, you end up having to give up more equity. 5 years ago, $500K maybe was enough to launch a serious version 1.0 of a product. Now you might need $800k or $1MM. So what do you do? You either have to give away more equity in early rounds, or in lieu of salaries. If your company is worth $5MM, before where you were giving away 10%, now you're giving away 20%. Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm a programmer, I've more than reaped the benefit of this - just that it's worth thinking about.
• GavinB 13y ago
  I've seen this claim over and over, but never any sort of citation or numbers. Lots of people get competitive offers, get a counteroffer, and then stay for years. I know a number of them personally. The reason it seems like they never stay is that they don't talk about the offer they didn't accept. The negotiation happens over the course of a few days, and they don't mention it to the other employees. So there's a big bias in how frequently you hear about the negotiation. Whereas if they leave for another company, of course everyone knows about it.
  • fecak 13y ago
    There is a lack of reliable data on counteroffers and their effectiveness due to the secrecy - companies don't have to report to some agency when they counter an employee. Another part of the problem is that recruiters are trained to scare candidates away from accepting counteroffers (I'm a recruiter), and you'll see all kinds of articles from recruiters claiming statistics about what percentage of people who accept counteroffers are gone within a certain amount of time. I've heard 80% within a year, 90% within 6 months - depends on which recruiter you ask, but the numbers seem inflated and are just used as a tool to scare someone from accepting. I distinctly remember being trained on how to handle counteroffers when I was first getting into the business. I don't use any of those tactics these days, but I am certain lots of recruiters do. The amount of publicity that recruiters give to these numbers (which usually lack a source) adds to the misconceptions.
    • jcdavis 13y ago
      I suspect that those (% gone with a year) numbers vary drastically by industry, and may be 80-90% or whatever in some lines of work, but are likely much lower for developers.
      • shubb 13y ago
        Maybe a lot of people know that moving job comes with a 10-20% raise, so they take the counter offer while planning to move on in 6 months or so, meaning that they get a double raise... They might also feel they will be taken as a more skilled candidate if they can quote a high current salary, enabling them to score a better role at a better next employer. That might seem counter-intuitive, but if you know you are under market, people selecting employees for quality over price will wonder why.
• gangster_dave 13y ago
  Does anyone have good resources that describe what new engineers should expect in terms of salary during the first few years of their career?
  • iends 13y ago
    It's hard to say because it depends on where you work. Are you talking the valley or somewhere else?
• sbt 13y ago
  If this contains one great truth it's this > By The Time You Give Them a Raise, It’s Too Late. I have seen this happen often. If you get a higher offer from a second company, you will think that the first employer paid you below par, which leads to a feeling of being taken advantage of. At that point, it doesn't really help if the offer is countered, the feeling of being exploited has already taken root. Unfortunately, most managers just don't get this, or they somehow believe that they can counter offer. Maybe that works in sales/marketing, who knows, but I think it's different in dev.
  • balls187 13y ago
    You don't get what you're worth, you get what you negotiate. If an employee feels taken advantage of, then I'm afraid they're going to go through life with a victim mentality, and probably aren't a rockstar to begin with.
    • jodrellblank 13y ago
      Fine, but if I find somewhere willing to treat me like a respectable human involved in building their business and not just a cost centre to be minimised...
      • balls187 13y ago
        Take the following scenario (forgive me for using $--your word choice leads me to believe you may not be in the US) Say I have $10 to pay you. I ask you what you'd like. You say $7. I offer you $7. You agree. Where is the disrespect? If I wanted to buy some good will, I could offer you $8, and you'd be happy because I paid you more than you asked. In this scenario, I gave you the upper hand by allowing you to tell me what you'd like. I could have "anchored" the discussion by making an offer, or telling you the salary range for the position. Now you would feel disrespected if you found out that I actually could have paid you $10, but instead only offered $7 or $8. However you got what you wanted, so being upset is irrational. In all likelihood, you were upset because you would rather be given the $10, instead of having to negotiate. People get upset because they feel uncomfortable about negotiating, and mix emotions and feelings when doing so. It's not an emotional affair. Negotiation is about leverage, and with some practice, you can get good at it. For negotiating salary, you should do one of two things: 1. Figure out exactly what you want to be happy. Ignoring if you're asking for too little. Ask for that figure. It helps if you can justify the reasoning. or 2. Figure out what you are worth, and ask for that. Again, it helps if you can justify this with facts. If the company does not make you an offer that matches, and instead counter offers, then you should weigh their reasoning or just politely tell them no, and find someone else that will.
• ryguytilidie 13y ago
  My last boss, when I asked for a raise, said "Explain to me why I should give you a raise". I said nevermind, started looking for a new job and left. Shockingly, when I informed them, there was a higher offer waiting. You seriously wonder what goes on in these people's brains.
  • pekk 13y ago
    I don't wonder at all. They're thinking "I can get someone else at this price, and what matters to me is the price" edit: Also, many bosses are offended that you would ask for a raise, or have the idea that you need to be dominated or you are no good any more. Also, it's cheaper to listen to people talk about how good they are, or just look at the number of hours they work, than to try to pay attention and assess for yourself how good they are. Also, when people promise you the moon they are under pressure to deliver it and can be cut down when they don't get it for you. And if they say they are good, they can be shamed. A scapegoat and yes-man often has more value than someone who is really producing, because of the beholder's value system
  • jeady 13y ago
    I don't get it. It seems reasonable to me that you should be able justify getting a raise, even if that justification is "I can get paid more elsewhere but I'd prefer to get paid more here." You make it sound like "explain to me why I should give you a raise" is the same thing is "no."
    • digz 13y ago
      Totally agree. All you need to say is I'm not being paid market.
      • drdeadringer 13y ago
        It wouldn't hurt to also bring some of those "metrics" bosses and others seem to love. For example: "Here's how I made//saved you planets of sweaty money."
      • click170 13y ago
• noonespecial 13y ago
  I'd go even further. If you're in the mentality where you're trying to jjjuuust time that minimal raise to prevent desertion, you've already lost in the way the author is pointing at. The best companies see high performing employees as systems(1) that receive relatively small amounts of money as input and produce great amounts of value in output. The more money in, the more value out. The question should be how much money they can shovel in the front end before the "unit(1)" burns out. (Active cooling via free food, daycare, and flexible schedules doesn't hurt either) (1) Yes they see you as a simple value proposition. As an employee, you are accounted for in exactly the same way as the contract for that big Xerox printer out front. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Any company that leans too heavily on that "part of the family" schtick is a place you want to be wary of.
• chavesn 13y ago
  This goes along with my One Universal Truth: "You get what you pay for." The only real way to win on price is to find employees who don't know any better, and then, well, you have employees who didn't know any better. Did you really win?
• kabdib 13y ago
  What drove me from Microsoft was: - A culture of burnout (really, really bad death marches, mostly because upper management had fucked up by dithering about what products to make) - A lack of respect for engineering quality (when the build for your project is broken for weeks at a time, you'd expect management to get a clue -- I mean, what are managers for? -- rather than ask about how things are going with the schedule) - A lack of respect for your time, realized as a reluctance to buy equipment (I got my build times down to two hours, from four hours, by buying my own computers. Yup, I probably spent $5K on computers while I was at MS because my managers didn't see the benefit in buying faster hardware), and by scheduling tons of nonsense meetings. - Politics (oh God, the politics). MS needs to fire about half of its "partner" rank people. There are good eggs there, really smart people, but then there are the ones who . . . aren't. (When they do get around to axing half of the partners, I'm betting it'll be the wrong half). A year and a bit later, I'm at a place where they realize that the most valuable thing is your time, and equipment is Not A Problem. It's a great thing when you're the bottleneck.
  • EdwardDiego 13y ago
    Those respect points are really crucial. I mean how much does a new computer cost vs. how much does a developer's time cost?
    • kabdib 13y ago
      It's been over a year, and I'm still angry. Let's say that a "good" desktop computer is $10,000. Just load the thing with enterprise scale SSDs, fast spinning disks, CPUs, RAM and so forth. I think you'll be hard pressed to spend that much on something that you'd want near a desk. (I'm assuming that you've already bought the developer the two or three large displays and a decent graphics card). Let's say this gets builds down from 4 hours to 1 hour, and a developer has to do a build like this on average once a day. At $80/hour, this takes 42 hours, or maybe two months (spread out) to breakeven. By NOT buying your developers great machines, you are costing your company money. "But that comes out of a different budget!" Who cares? The shareholders (who the management chain proxies) should be delighted that developers have faster machines. Of course, multi-hour builds are nonsense, too. MS has a whole cloud infrastructure that they should be leveraging the crap out of, to make sure that developers are the bottleneck again. I'll bet they could get Windows to build inside ten minutes, if they put the right people on it.
• tjmc 13y ago
  Just out of interest - where's the best place to find market rates?
  • spacehome 13y ago
    Glassdoor isn't bad, but the gold standard is to apply for ten jobs ;)
    • karmajunkie 13y ago
      this
    • smm2000 13y ago
      Actually I feel that salaries on glass door are lower than reality. At least that was my impression after getting 6 job offers - all materially higher than glass door median.
    • blueskin_ 13y ago
      Talking to people helps (as long as they aren't coworkers), especially if you know them at a level of if they're better/worse/comparable skill-wise.
• throwaway-to1 13y ago
  I'm presently confused about what to make of my renumeration where I am now... I was supposed to have my yearly review three months ago, and the owners are out of office or busy so much I can't get a moment of their time. Last year I got an 8% raise and 8% bonus. This year I got a 2.5% raise and a 10% bonus. I don't know why, and feel communication is unattainable to me now. I've been pondering looking for jobs... I know how hard it is to simply find a skilled and well rounded programmer in Ontario, much less one who can write clean complex systems. I just want to know why that was my deal this year. It doesn't help that I'm paranoid I'm grossly incompetent at what I do, and fearful others think that about me despite the fact I have stronger skills than most programmes I meet in this city. I look at careers sites more and more as my career-paranoia fluctuates. I'm posting this as a data point in the model of programmers looking to quit.
  • MartinCron 13y ago
    I was supposed to have my yearly review three months ago, and the owners are out of office or busy so much I can't get a moment of their time Intentional or no, delaying an employee's review is pretty disrespectful.
  • pekk 13y ago
    From outside the valley bubble, your raises sound fine to me. Tons of people would think it totally crazy to expect sustained 8% raises year after year during recessions. And you don't cite any other reason you want to quit. I wouldn't over-interpret the numbers. There are so many other reasons you might be paid a smaller raise on a given year, it's no good to overload your interpretation of this. You need, not a justification for giving you a lower raise, but just specific feedback on whether your performance is adequate and what you could improve. If the money seems fair to you and you are treated reasonably otherwise, it shouldn't matter that much about the number fluctuations, once you have clarified your anxiety about performance.
    • spacehome 13y ago
      I don't mean to take away from your main point, but Silicon Valley is not in a recession. The difference in energy between here and the rest of the country over the last 5 years is palpable.
• tmoertel 13y ago
  On the other hand, if you're an employee and not getting paid what you think you're worth, don't jump to the conclusion that you're being exploited or disrespected, and don't jump to the conclusion that you have to leave in order to get market rate. If you're happy with the team and with the work, consider just asking for what you want. Founders are crazy busy and, believe it or not, sometimes lose sight of "little" things like comp. Talking to them may be all it takes.
  • kadabra9 13y ago
    Agree that you should ASK...and many people overlook this simple step, but a founder that "loses sight" of something as critical as the comp of his so called critical employees is not someone I want to work for.
    • suyash 13y ago
      It's never as simple as just ASK. There are lot of concerns and things you need to think through you need to go over before you can just diplomatically raise the issue.
      • DominikR 13y ago
        While this is true you've got to ask yourself if you are not overly fearful considering the current market situation. At what demand/supply ratio for developers would you be willing to ask - 5:1? 10:1? never?
      • vinceguidry 13y ago
        Honestly, when you can pick the phone and have competing offers within days, it can be as simple as you want to make it.
  • fecak 13y ago
    Regarding founders being busy, I think this is exactly why counteroffers work in many cases. Founders and managers that use a mea culpa defense along with the presentation of a counter are probably going to do better than those that just offer more money without explanation.
• goofygrin 13y ago
  I think a harder thing is making the decision to cut someone if they aren't making the cut. A lot of times it's like a bad girlfriend. The thought of being alone is worse than the pain you're going through... Especially if it's early and everyone is drinking from the proverbial fire hose.
• balls187 13y ago
  Rather than say "givem a raise" have the constructive dialog: are you happy, and what can I do to keep you happy.
• 31reasons 13y ago
  How about this algorithm ? Whenever someone leaves, present two choices to the team: 1. Divide the salary of the person just left equally among the peers. For example, In the team of 5 developers, Joe was making 100k per year and he left the position. Give $25 raise to each developer in the team. OR 2. Hire new person. There should be a self-stabilizing compensation system where employee don't have to leave purely on the issue of low compensation.
  • balls187 13y ago
    That would create an incentive to have people leave.
    • cdoxsey 13y ago
      Take the 25k bonus, give 10k to the original guy for leaving, and 15k for yourself. The original guy makes 40k for doing nothing and everyone else gets a raise.
      • 31reasons 13y ago
        Good improvement on the idea. People in the higher places (CEOs) do get severance packages, why not developers!
    • 31reasons 13y ago
      The point is to keep the internal and external incentives in balance as far as compensation/benefits is concerned.
• JunkDNA 13y ago
  This thread is both illuminating and depressing for me. I hire engineers at an academic medical center who work on really tough biomedical problems. Let's just say that I would have to move heaven and earth to get annual percentage raise amounts that are being thrown around here. I wonder how industries like healthcare can hope to have the best people with this job market. At some point, even if you are doing work that really matters in a big way, you can't be stupid about your career and leave money on the table. I wonder if this further drives non-IT focused organizations to SaaS offerings since they can't get talent to do things in house?
  • jseliger 13y ago
    I wonder how industries like healthcare can hope to have the best people with this job market I hear the same discussions about teaching high school all the time (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6969363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6969363), and the answer is... they can't, for the most part. Occasionally you'll get heroes who'll do it for less, but mostly things just don't function very well.
    • blueskin_ 13y ago
      They have to take chances on people with less of a long work history. Sometimes they're mediocre or bad, sometimes they're excellent, but the great people in that situation don't stay long as they need to use jobs as stepping stones to work up towards a decent pay level.
  • pekk 13y ago
    > I wonder how industries like healthcare can hope to have the best people with this job market. It's like saying "I wonder how I can hope to have steak dinners with Safeway charging such high prices for steaks." That's what they cost. If you can afford it, pay it. If you can't, don't have steak dinners. This is the market. It's not a special problem for you that requires an intervention. You aren't entitled to anyone's labor at any specific price. If your business cannot be sustained unless certain people are coerced into working a lower price, your business is not sustainable! Anyway, in reality, the US healthcare industry has a massive and powerful lobby, so it can exert a lot of control over markets through its purchased representatives. For example, everyone in the country has to throw business their way (for good or ill). The healthcare industry isn't about to go belly up because engineers aren't cheap enough. Maybe your job is hard because you have a small budget. So sorry, but don't blame the candidates. > At some point, even if you are doing work that really matters in a big way, you can't be stupid about your career and leave money on the table You make an offer and because it's dodgy or not good enough, you have to belittle people and call them stupid in the hopes that they will be insecure and weak-willed enough to believe you and back down. I guess this is one solution to the exorbitant expense of keeping people happy: "Don't be stupid, baby. You can't live without me. You're nothing without me."
• rrggrr 13y ago
  Fit. Fit isn't about any one thing: money, manager, work or culture, but any one thing badly out of alignment can destroy fit. Retention means having lines of communication open with important roles and important people (not always the same) and judging the health of the fit.
• scrabble 13y ago
  I'm not getting paid as much as I would like. I've brought it up with my manager on multiple occasions. I'm now about 18 months with no raise, and I've been told that this round of performance reviews does not come with a raise either. But I'm constantly reminded of just how valuable I am to the company. So, I've done what I think anyone else would do and have talked to someone at another company about another position. If I get an offer, I'm likely to take it. I'm highly unlikely at that point to accept a counteroffer. It feels like I'd maintain a better relationship with my current employer by quitting for a better offer than by seeking and accepting a counteroffer and then leaving later. Accepting a counteroffer would feel like the company would expect me to "owe" them, and I don't owe anything to any employer.
  • karmajunkie 13y ago
    just out of curiosity, are you shopping around? Don't stop with just one offer—if you're going on the market, really go on the market. You might be surprised how effective that can be in getting what you're worth.
    • scrabble 13y ago
      I have not been shopping around. I contacted one person out of curiosity, because I told myself I wasn't really looking. That's a fair point though.
• alain94040 13y ago
  Fine, I'll share my true story of how to negotiate a raise when you are an introvert and without being seen as a job-hopper. Tell your boss: I'm getting unsollicited offers for 20-30% more than I'm currently making here. Can you fix that? This has worked successfully to go from low $100K to >$130K. It works for two reasons 1. It shows you know your market value - this is not a number you are making up 2. You are not being unfaithful to your boss, you didn't go out and sollicit those offers, they just happened
  • djb_hackernews 13y ago
    However you have to actually get unsolicited offers for 20-30% more, which is pretty difficult I would imagine. Sure, I get cold called, and emailed frequently, but never an offer. I think the interesting follow up to your post would be what you've done specifically during your career which you think resulted in unsolicited offers.
    • mattmanser 13y ago
      He meant enquiries rather than hard offers. I'm a bit baffled how you misinterpreted that, people quite obviously don't offer jobs blind.
      • djb_hackernews 13y ago
        Perhaps I am being too literal but to me "unsolicited offers" is quite clear in that it was an offer of employment. I wouldn't be as shocked if the OP is a high functioning software professional with an extensive network of peers familiar with her work that do indeed make unsolicited offers. That is the information I am interested in so I can position myself similarly. If that is not the case I'm surprised anyone is walking into their bosses office asking for a raise because they got an email or cold call from a recruiter.
• Jormundir 13y ago
  Though not the focus of the article, I have a huge problem with the idea that leaders should pick out their best employees and reward them, while leaving the others treading water on their own. I am in the middle of watching a team constantly churn, unable to retain many talented developers, specifically because the managers are only rewarding those they think are the best engineers, but are actually rewarding very mediocre employees they trust. My advice to everyone, especially managers, is do not try to pick out your "best" employees and reward them exclusively! My team has hired 6 engineers over the last 2 years; the distribution has been pretty even: 2 really great engineers, 2 decent ones, and 2 sub-par ones. Going in to the 2 years, the team had 5 engineers 1 really great, and the rest swimming between mediocre and great. The two managers try to follow the advice in the article, and it has been disastrous. Of those 6 engineers they hired, the two really great ones were out the door in 8 months and 1 year respectively, and just last week the 1 great engineer already on the team announced he was leaving. The problem feels like failure to launch. These talented people come in, are doing good work, and then feel there's no room to grow. The source is obvious, the managers have picked out 2 of the mediocre engineers who they feel are their "best", the "talent" doing the most work and attracting other great "talent". The "talent" is rewarded with the big projects, which in turn makes management think they're working harder, while the other engineers are left with the scraps. The result is simple -- genuinely great engineers take a few steps in the door, quickly realize the problem, and turn around to get out the door as fast as they can. It's really sad. The advice of the article is good for the most part, just really be incredibly careful about choosing your "best" as a manager. It's far better to make sure you're fostering your whole team.
  • zenonu 13y ago
    Does your company have a peer feedback system that's considered in addition to the management's opinion?
    • Jormundir 13y ago
      They do, I'm not sure how effective it is. They've been tweaking it a lot, which is a good thing. Ultimately though, management is the biggest influence by far on retention and team development.
• zallarak 13y ago
  I believe a handful of motivated, and skilled engineers is more valuable than a large team. I think it is very wise for employers to spend lots of time finding a few great engineers and motivating/retaining them with high salaries and equity exposure. The advantage of having a smaller yet more talented team also has a wide variety of business-level benefits including better cultural direction, less management overhead, more accountability, etc.
• dangayle 13y ago
  Great read. Seems to me that the trend of signing people to a specific contract term limit (2 or 3 years @ $X + benes) would solve some of this. When the contract is due for re-negotiating, there's none of this uncertainty over compensation.
• programminggeek 13y ago
  To be blunt, when you are earning less than $100k, when someone else is offering 10-20k more than you are currently making, you are (and probably should) going to take that deal. I've worked at companies with great culture and companies with crappy culture, and the reality for both was the same. When someone else values you higher, you start to feel like you're getting a bad deal and the things that you normally sweep under the rug start to grate on you. Having a cool culture seems like the hot thing lately, and it can be a great thing, but if you use cool company culture to be cheap on salaries, you are putting money in the wrong place. I think most people at some point would rather work in shabbier offices and get paid more than have some fancy building that only serves to impress outsiders. When you get over 6 figures, I'm sure it's the same deal, just takes larger numbers to move the needle. In either case, lack of above market compensation is going to cause talent to move if for no other reason than because they are in demand.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• jla32 13y ago
  I would usually disagree, but this is a fair point.
• Eleutheria 13y ago
  If I don't get at least a 10% raise to match inflation without even asking for it, I start looking for greener pastures. If I deliver, you should reward accordingly without bargaining or brownnosing. If I don't deliver, just fire me, no questions asked.
• Fenicio 13y ago
  You know, sometimes I look at these figures and i have to laugh, in Spain I make about 25k$ yearly pre-taxes and I'm considered "lucky"
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• sjs382 13y ago
  This is so true. At my previous job, my boss continually told me that I was the most profitable employee and I was obviously one of the most valuable. One year in, I requested a performance review and it kept being delayed. 18 months in, still no formal performance review or raise. So, I started looking for another position and was offered a position with a great team. I was set to put in my 2-weeks notice, the day after accepting the new position. Already "out the door", just prior to putting in my 2 weeks, I was asked if I was available for a review later that day. Had my review come anytime between that 12 and 18 month mark, I likely would not have even looked for another position. I'm glad I did though, all things considered.