3 ms·

> "You seriously wonder what goes on in these people's brains." Perhaps it's something like: "I'll need to get approval/budget from higher up and they're going

by amirmc 13y ago

> "You seriously wonder what goes on in these people's brains." Perhaps it's something like: "I'll need to get approval/budget from higher up and they're going to ask me why. Maybe he can help me by telling why he thinks he should get one." I respect that your experience may not have been pleasant but it's unfair to paint everyone in that position with the same brush. It would seem odd to me if simply asking for a raise out of the blue results in one.

muglug 13y ago
OK - there's always a sort of equation related to compensation in developers' minds that should be at the forefront of managers' minds: happiness(job) = a * job.workEnvironment + b * job.compensation - c * (possibleJob.compensation - job.compensation) Some developers attach low values to b and c, but part of a manager's job is to maximise the work environment, and minimise the difference between compensation for jobs that the employee is qualified to do elsewhere and employee's current compensation (as long as management wants to retain the employee).
- amirmc 13y ago
  > ... but part of a manager's job is to ... minimise the difference between compensation…" In principle, I agree but in practice I don't see how this is workable (unless you're trying to retain a star -- as opposed to all employees). It means the direct managers need to know how much the comp is elsewhere at all times. Who has energy to figure that out and meet all the demands of the day-to-day? On top of which, the spread of salaries/benefits might cover a wide range so how do you figure out where you fit (who should you really compare yourself to)? The simplest way is when you hear internally that X has left for company Y and got a pay-bump of Z%. It's the kind of thing people would expect the folks at HR to be looking into, rather than the engineering managers. I'm not trying to justify the above but it does seem easy to understand why things are this way.
  - muglug 13y ago
    Compensation is not a manager's fulltime responsibility, obviously. But something they should check up on with a annual or bi-annual frequency. There are ample tools (e.g. Glassdoor) that give insight into how competitive a given worker's salary is.
  - ryguytilidie 13y ago
    You think its unreasonable for managers to understand the market rates for the employees they have? I can't imagine you're being serious here...
- analog31 13y ago
  In my view, a reasonable working hypothesis is that compensation and work environment are proportional to one another. My rationale is that they both stem from the same management attitudes and presence or absence of leadership skills required for managers to stick up for their employees.
DominikR 13y ago
Don't you think that a manager should be able to assess the value of his employees? I'd react the same way GP did.
blueskin_ 13y ago
If the company is in any way a decent place to work, they will have a clue and "So we don't have to spend 2x as much over the next year replacing them, with recruiters' fees, lost productivity, and the fact that someone to do all the work they were doing will demand more money" will work as a reason why. When someone leaves due to being underpaid, if they are at all good at their job (and especially if they were hired at a low rate and have grown in capability during their time there), their former employer will usually end up spending more than the old employee wanted in the first place with all the inherent costs of hiring a replacement.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
I don't think your point makes sense here at all. ""I'll need to get approval/budget from higher up and they're going to ask me why." My boss should be able to answer this, and he shouldn't need to hear it from me. We work together every day. If he needs me to give him a list of reasons why I deserve a raise and doesn't already understand those reasons, he's simply not a good boss. Also, fwiw, this person was the CEO, so they didn't need to get approval.

by amirmc 13y ago

muglug 13y ago

OK - there's always a sort of equation related to compensation in developers' minds that should be at the forefront of managers' minds: happiness(job) = a * job.workEnvironment + b * job.compensation - c * (possibleJob.compensation - job.compensation) Some developers attach low values to b and c, but part of a manager's job is to maximise the work environment, and minimise the difference between compensation for jobs that the employee is qualified to do elsewhere and employee's current compensation (as long as management wants to retain the employee).

amirmc 13y ago
> ... but part of a manager's job is to ... minimise the difference between compensation…" In principle, I agree but in practice I don't see how this is workable (unless you're trying to retain a star -- as opposed to all employees). It means the direct managers need to know how much the comp is elsewhere at all times. Who has energy to figure that out and meet all the demands of the day-to-day? On top of which, the spread of salaries/benefits might cover a wide range so how do you figure out where you fit (who should you really compare yourself to)? The simplest way is when you hear internally that X has left for company Y and got a pay-bump of Z%. It's the kind of thing people would expect the folks at HR to be looking into, rather than the engineering managers. I'm not trying to justify the above but it does seem easy to understand why things are this way.
- muglug 13y ago
  Compensation is not a manager's fulltime responsibility, obviously. But something they should check up on with a annual or bi-annual frequency. There are ample tools (e.g. Glassdoor) that give insight into how competitive a given worker's salary is.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  You think its unreasonable for managers to understand the market rates for the employees they have? I can't imagine you're being serious here...
analog31 13y ago
In my view, a reasonable working hypothesis is that compensation and work environment are proportional to one another. My rationale is that they both stem from the same management attitudes and presence or absence of leadership skills required for managers to stick up for their employees.

DominikR 13y ago

Don't you think that a manager should be able to assess the value of his employees? I'd react the same way GP did.

blueskin_ 13y ago

If the company is in any way a decent place to work, they will have a clue and "So we don't have to spend 2x as much over the next year replacing them, with recruiters' fees, lost productivity, and the fact that someone to do all the work they were doing will demand more money" will work as a reason why. When someone leaves due to being underpaid, if they are at all good at their job (and especially if they were hired at a low rate and have grown in capability during their time there), their former employer will usually end up spending more than the old employee wanted in the first place with all the inherent costs of hiring a replacement.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

I don't think your point makes sense here at all. ""I'll need to get approval/budget from higher up and they're going to ask me why." My boss should be able to answer this, and he shouldn't need to hear it from me. We work together every day. If he needs me to give him a list of reasons why I deserve a raise and doesn't already understand those reasons, he's simply not a good boss. Also, fwiw, this person was the CEO, so they didn't need to get approval.