3 ms·

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 * jo

by 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.

by muglug 13y ago

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.