13 ms·

Microsoft CEO does about-face on women and raises

52 points by orin_hanner 12y ago

onewaystreet 12y ago
Employees shouldn't get raises because they ask for them, it should be part of a company's annual review process.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  I had a job for four years at a small company, didn't get a single raise. I told them I was quitting, and ON THE SPOT they offered to DOUBLE my salary. No thanks. I'll be moving on.
  - talmand 12y ago
    The proper thing to do is take the raise and start looking for another job. When asked what your current requirements are you can quote your now doubled salary.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Happened to my cousin many years ago, except they offered to triple his salary. People don't see how insulting this is. Internally, you've already decided you are underpaying me by half, and think I'm a sucker.
- numbsafari 12y ago
  Employees' lives don't revolve around the annual review process. There are plenty of valid reasons, including feeling underpaid, that can't and shouldn't wait for the annual review process. As a manager, if you have a valued employee that is approached by another company and offered a 10% bump in salary and your response to that employee is "We'll see what we can do during your annual review", you are guaranteed to lose that employee. Raises offered during the annual review process are typically merely cost-of-living adjustments. Unless a promotion is attached, it is hardly ever anything but.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  That sounds all well and give but it entirely ignores external factors. For example, what if a big competitor moves into town, and they're paying 20% more than you. Are you just going to ignore it for 11 months while they pinch tons of your employees? No of course you aren't. So that statement is untrue even from a company's perspective. That whole "annual review" thing is a manipulation by HR to take the discussion of pay and benefits off the table except for a predetermined period they themselves select (and can be ready with ammo against your requests or a list of increased responsibilities). Honestly it is just a very effective technique that reduces pay increases and delays pay increases as much as possible (e.g. new employees often not getting their first bump for 12 months, even after they lave their probation period (e.g. 6 months)).
  - RyJones 12y ago
    That's exactly what Google did to Microsoft when they opened the office in Kirkland. About six people in my group left right away, and I'm sure dozens more since then. And the reaction by Microsoft was exactly what you describe. Ignore it for a year or two.
- klagermkii 12y ago
  Issues faced by either the employee or by the company need to be communicated as soon as possible so that the results of the employee review do not come as a surprise and so that a plan/ideas can be thought of ahead of time. If the company has a problem with the work that you're doing or views your role within the company differently to you, they need to tell you as soon as possible so that corrective action can be implemented. Likewise if your salary is not sufficient, or there are other aspects that you feel are lacking such as training etc, communicate it early! Don't necessarily expect though that the company can implement a solution immediately, that may only happen as part of the employee review process itself, but at least now they're aware of the issue and can make any necessary adjustments to the budget before it's locked in for the year. If neither party communicates their expectations on remuneration or job function, resentment builds up and someone snaps. Either it comes from the company in the form of disciplinary action or firings, or the employee goes and looks for a new higher paying job and won't even accept more money from the existing employer to stay because they've already felt their trust has been betrayed. Expectation management is a continuous process for both parties, not something that should happen just once or twice a year.
zdw 12y ago
The guy misspoke. And he's being contrite and immediate about it. I'm inclined to give him a break. As someone who frequently thinks out loud as a way to work through ideas, I totally get how you could say things that you don't mean or come off entirely wrong given hindsight.
- alfajores 12y ago
  It's not so much specifically what he said. His entire attitude is evidence of the system in which women are not paid equally and they are not given the recognition they deserve. Where women are expected to shut up and stop bothering the men about these things.
- goodJobWalrus 12y ago
  I see what you are saying, but he wasn't 'thinking out loud', he was speaking at a conference, and I would find it hard to believe that he didn't have a prepared speech. I think this was exactly what he wanted to say, whether he realized how it sounded or not.
  - cheald 12y ago
    He was asked a panel question, he wasn't giving a speech.
    - goodJobWalrus 12y ago
      oh, ok, I apologize, I missed that.
  - andrewstuart2 12y ago
    I do agree that he probably said what he meant, but I don't know that he meant what people think he meant. I'm assuming here of course, but I think he may have simply neglected to mention that his advice would be the same regardless of sex or gender. And I think his later comments support that idea.
  - nmjohn 12y ago
    There is a large difference between answering a question incorrectly and having it planned as part of a speech. Tell me you've never started answering a question and halfway through you start realizing the path you've started going down is not what you want to be saying. Just look at these comments on this article - he admitted his mistake and he still is being lambasted.
rayiner 12y ago
"I was inarticulate" is such bullshit. He was perfectly articulate in expressing the message he did. It's the content people are reacting to, not the presentation.
- guardian5x 12y ago
  In a statement to Microsoft employees Thursday night, Nadella went further, saying he was "completely wrong."
  - Methusalah 12y ago
    But others in this thread are acting as if he "misspoke" which clearly wasn't the case.
mhurron 12y ago
That was a stupid statement. Raises don't come to anyone who doesn't ask, men or women. In addition, raises don't seem to come at all in IT, except by changing jobs. Unfortunately, when you feel it's time for your compensation to be bumped, it's probably time to look for another job. And that's ignoring the situation where you have a bad manager/company where asking for a raise will instantly make the environment hostile.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Asking doesn't work in any corporation I've ever been at. There's an annual review cycle.
  - illumen 12y ago
    You weren't doing freelance?
  - hammock 12y ago
    They'd like you to think that. But I know companies where the raise cycle is separate from the review cycle (it actually happens right before reviews, oddly), and they don't announce the raises until after reviews are completed so that you THINK there's an association. I also know people who the only raises they've ever gotten were off-cycle, because they asked for them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    It does work like that in those corporations. They just prefer you to think it doesn't as it keeps wages down. If a top sales guy walks into his manager's office and says he wants a 20% hike, he'll be getting a 20% hike. It's just you didn't try/get yourself in a strong enough position.
    - hnal943 12y ago
      That seems like an incomplete statement. He might get a 20% hike once, because he's undervalued. That's an "equity adjustment." But obviously that wouldn't work every day.
jaynos 12y ago
"Not asking for a raise is 'good karma,' because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust, he said." It's not even about women. His statement shows that he's out of touch when it comes to women AND men.
- danielweber 12y ago
  It's standard manager-talk, worrying about how to keep a lid on the company's #1 expense: salary. Not that I agree with his viewpoint, but it's not hard, at all, to grok where he's coming from.
- eli 12y ago
  Agreed, but it's especially odious in the context of a reducing the gender pay gap at a conference for women.
shadowmint 12y ago
It's not 'I was wrong', but its pretty darn close. You have to give it to him, for better or worse on the original statement or his actual views on the topic, he's sucking it up and admitting he was wrong. That's more than I've been able to say for Microsoft in a long time.
- SammoJ 12y ago
  If you read his e-mail he admits he was "completely wrong" http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-employees-re-grace-hopper-conference/ http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-...
michaelochurch 12y ago
Software's pseudo-meritocracy is especially tricky to navigate. It's hard for everyone; it's even harder for women and minorities. First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf. You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that. The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option. The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk. The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.
- 12y ago
cookiecaper 12y ago
Nadella let his guard down and said something expressive of a true corporate reality instead of a mindless politically-sanitized soundbite. It really has nothing to do with women at all (except that he was asked the question at a conference marketed primarily to women). Nadella was, essentially, asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He expressed his real opinion that asking for a raise outside of formal review contexts is in bad taste. This shows the real thought process behind an executive that rises through the ranks; it doesn't matter if they're worth more money, what matters is that they're endearing themselves to their bosses, because long-term that just might end with you getting made CEO of Microsoft, whereas harming that trust or sense of professionalism to demand an extra $50 tacked on to your paycheck just might end up with your career at a dead end. Think what you want of it, but that's Nadella's real opinion, that he allowed to accidentally slip because, for a moment, he didn't see the potential political ramifications and just tried to provide some honest, substantive career advice. Employees may not like the intimation that they can't just make demands for things that they feel are deserved, but that's how successful political operatives play the game, and politics absolutely is a real element in any and every employment situation. I think it's awesome when this kind of stuff gets exposed.
- josephlord 12y ago
  I agree with your main point but while there is a pay gap between men and women in similar roles within a company it is particularly an issue for gender paid less (in practice women).
  - hnal943 12y ago
    Patio11 made a great point years ago which is still true. For that matter, if you think that there is a vast pool of untapped female talent working for 80% of the price of equivalent male talent… what are you doing hiring men, again? That would suggest that you could field whole teams of ladies and clean up. http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-things-done-wrong-by-silicon-valley/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-thin...
    - 12y ago
Someone1234 12y ago
This is why I'd avoid doing "pro women" events in general. If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist. There's no win, no benfit. Just avoid that entire area, the entire topic. There's no rational discourse that can be had. I think we all learned that after the "protests" over that public safety briefing a few years ago where essentially a [male] police officer suggested women could avoid some harrasment by exposing less, and it caused a "national debate," and protests across the US. I'm all for more women in tech. I just don't like most of the other people who also feel that way, they're very sexist in their own right (but they consider their sexism rightous which makes it even worse). I seriously doubt if it was a women CEO we'd even be talking about identical comments.
- dneronique 12y ago
  > If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist. Most things in life are like this. Do what's expected and it's just another day. Fuck up and you'd better prepare for a shitstorm.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    I think you're correct, but at least most of the time people just think you incompetent. When you screw up in this context people think you a bigot and or think worse of your character. You can recover from people thinking you made a mistake or were incompetent. You sometimes cannot recover from character assassination.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    The point is it's a valid answer that wouldn't be considered a fuck up outside of the context of a women's conference. Having that context attached makes everything said much more dangerous.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      So its become poison to speak at women's conferences? You'll toe the PC line or be raked over the coals by the public.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Steuard 12y ago
Good for him for acknowledging his mistake. He seems to have moved fairly quickly from his original flawed advice to an unsatisfying "[I] was inarticulate" and on to a solid "I answered that question completely wrong". Getting all the way there by the end of the day is admirable, and the lesson of that goes a long way toward making up for the original mistake. And while I'm handing out praise, good for President Klawe for calling out Nadella on his answer and providing a better one. (She's been leading some great changes at my alma mater, and this sort of thing has a lot to do with why.)
jasallen 12y ago
He gave an off the cuff answer that was wrong. He didn't write an essay about it that was proofread and considered. I'm not surprised that people are assuming they 'know his heart' based on one quick answer, but I am disappointed. Something I've not seen pointed out elsewhere too, is that (unfortunately) this is an answer that every manager of every large company has ready at the tip of their tongue. It pops out from rote memorization. Not about women, but about all employees: "We only give raises as part of the normal annual review process. I understand you think your compensation needs to be reconsidered because ...... and I'll make sure to discuss that with the rest of the management team at review time." It's not good, but it's a well rehearsed blow off answer for which every manager is trained. I think he's a good guy who is handling the aftermath well. He gave a stupid answer and apologized. I honestly the bigger mistake is telling employees to trust the system, rather than a single off the cuff answer that didn't fit well.
forthefuture 12y ago
You will never be able to move forward if the only possible reaction is negativity. That's not a feeling people want to join in on.
serve_yay 12y ago
As usual I expect the original story to far outlast this. Outrage is the order of the day.
zarriak 12y ago
I don't understand the point of correcting him. If you see that the CEO of a major tech company thinks this way, you shouldn't jump to correct him, we should look at society as a whole and see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. Asking a question about what a woman should do when she wants to ask for a raise is a bad idea on a lot of levels. There are very significant problems with gender and race in society, but asking a person who neither has to ask for raises, nor is a woman is a bad idea. Creating questions based on a problem like this is shortsighted, because this problem isn't going to be solved on an individual basis.
rectang 12y ago
From a Gawker commenter (< http://valleywag.gawker.com/i-became-ceo-by-patiently-waiting-and-having-faith-in-1644493722 http://valleywag.gawker.com/i-became-ceo-by-patiently-waitin... >): "I became CEO by patiently waiting and having faith in the system." Said no CEO ever. I hope that Nadella and Microsoft will take this opportunity to institute vigorous change rather than "having faith that the system" will close the wage gap without intervention.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  I've met a lot of executives who've become executives with that type of attitude. Affability is one of the key properties of a successful politician. If you seem pessimistic, defeatist, etc., people are not going to want you to be in a leadership position. You have to act like everything is sunshine and flowers and project that image. Nadella did become CEO by patiently waiting and practicing good politics, which includes projecting a faith in the system and not ruffling feathers by asking your bosses to pay you more money.

52 points by orin_hanner 12y ago

onewaystreet 12y ago

Employees shouldn't get raises because they ask for them, it should be part of a company's annual review process.

VikingCoder 12y ago
I had a job for four years at a small company, didn't get a single raise. I told them I was quitting, and ON THE SPOT they offered to DOUBLE my salary. No thanks. I'll be moving on.
- talmand 12y ago
  The proper thing to do is take the raise and start looking for another job. When asked what your current requirements are you can quote your now doubled salary.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Happened to my cousin many years ago, except they offered to triple his salary. People don't see how insulting this is. Internally, you've already decided you are underpaying me by half, and think I'm a sucker.
numbsafari 12y ago
Employees' lives don't revolve around the annual review process. There are plenty of valid reasons, including feeling underpaid, that can't and shouldn't wait for the annual review process. As a manager, if you have a valued employee that is approached by another company and offered a 10% bump in salary and your response to that employee is "We'll see what we can do during your annual review", you are guaranteed to lose that employee. Raises offered during the annual review process are typically merely cost-of-living adjustments. Unless a promotion is attached, it is hardly ever anything but.
Someone1234 12y ago
That sounds all well and give but it entirely ignores external factors. For example, what if a big competitor moves into town, and they're paying 20% more than you. Are you just going to ignore it for 11 months while they pinch tons of your employees? No of course you aren't. So that statement is untrue even from a company's perspective. That whole "annual review" thing is a manipulation by HR to take the discussion of pay and benefits off the table except for a predetermined period they themselves select (and can be ready with ammo against your requests or a list of increased responsibilities). Honestly it is just a very effective technique that reduces pay increases and delays pay increases as much as possible (e.g. new employees often not getting their first bump for 12 months, even after they lave their probation period (e.g. 6 months)).
- RyJones 12y ago
  That's exactly what Google did to Microsoft when they opened the office in Kirkland. About six people in my group left right away, and I'm sure dozens more since then. And the reaction by Microsoft was exactly what you describe. Ignore it for a year or two.
klagermkii 12y ago
Issues faced by either the employee or by the company need to be communicated as soon as possible so that the results of the employee review do not come as a surprise and so that a plan/ideas can be thought of ahead of time. If the company has a problem with the work that you're doing or views your role within the company differently to you, they need to tell you as soon as possible so that corrective action can be implemented. Likewise if your salary is not sufficient, or there are other aspects that you feel are lacking such as training etc, communicate it early! Don't necessarily expect though that the company can implement a solution immediately, that may only happen as part of the employee review process itself, but at least now they're aware of the issue and can make any necessary adjustments to the budget before it's locked in for the year. If neither party communicates their expectations on remuneration or job function, resentment builds up and someone snaps. Either it comes from the company in the form of disciplinary action or firings, or the employee goes and looks for a new higher paying job and won't even accept more money from the existing employer to stay because they've already felt their trust has been betrayed. Expectation management is a continuous process for both parties, not something that should happen just once or twice a year.

zdw 12y ago

The guy misspoke. And he's being contrite and immediate about it. I'm inclined to give him a break. As someone who frequently thinks out loud as a way to work through ideas, I totally get how you could say things that you don't mean or come off entirely wrong given hindsight.

alfajores 12y ago
It's not so much specifically what he said. His entire attitude is evidence of the system in which women are not paid equally and they are not given the recognition they deserve. Where women are expected to shut up and stop bothering the men about these things.
goodJobWalrus 12y ago
I see what you are saying, but he wasn't 'thinking out loud', he was speaking at a conference, and I would find it hard to believe that he didn't have a prepared speech. I think this was exactly what he wanted to say, whether he realized how it sounded or not.
- cheald 12y ago
  He was asked a panel question, he wasn't giving a speech.
  - goodJobWalrus 12y ago
    oh, ok, I apologize, I missed that.
- andrewstuart2 12y ago
  I do agree that he probably said what he meant, but I don't know that he meant what people think he meant. I'm assuming here of course, but I think he may have simply neglected to mention that his advice would be the same regardless of sex or gender. And I think his later comments support that idea.
- nmjohn 12y ago
  There is a large difference between answering a question incorrectly and having it planned as part of a speech. Tell me you've never started answering a question and halfway through you start realizing the path you've started going down is not what you want to be saying. Just look at these comments on this article - he admitted his mistake and he still is being lambasted.

rayiner 12y ago

"I was inarticulate" is such bullshit. He was perfectly articulate in expressing the message he did. It's the content people are reacting to, not the presentation.

guardian5x 12y ago
In a statement to Microsoft employees Thursday night, Nadella went further, saying he was "completely wrong."
- Methusalah 12y ago
  But others in this thread are acting as if he "misspoke" which clearly wasn't the case.

mhurron 12y ago

That was a stupid statement. Raises don't come to anyone who doesn't ask, men or women. In addition, raises don't seem to come at all in IT, except by changing jobs. Unfortunately, when you feel it's time for your compensation to be bumped, it's probably time to look for another job. And that's ignoring the situation where you have a bad manager/company where asking for a raise will instantly make the environment hostile.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Asking doesn't work in any corporation I've ever been at. There's an annual review cycle.
- illumen 12y ago
  You weren't doing freelance?
- hammock 12y ago
  They'd like you to think that. But I know companies where the raise cycle is separate from the review cycle (it actually happens right before reviews, oddly), and they don't announce the raises until after reviews are completed so that you THINK there's an association. I also know people who the only raises they've ever gotten were off-cycle, because they asked for them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmanser 12y ago
  It does work like that in those corporations. They just prefer you to think it doesn't as it keeps wages down. If a top sales guy walks into his manager's office and says he wants a 20% hike, he'll be getting a 20% hike. It's just you didn't try/get yourself in a strong enough position.
  - hnal943 12y ago
    That seems like an incomplete statement. He might get a 20% hike once, because he's undervalued. That's an "equity adjustment." But obviously that wouldn't work every day.

jaynos 12y ago

"Not asking for a raise is 'good karma,' because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust, he said." It's not even about women. His statement shows that he's out of touch when it comes to women AND men.

danielweber 12y ago
It's standard manager-talk, worrying about how to keep a lid on the company's #1 expense: salary. Not that I agree with his viewpoint, but it's not hard, at all, to grok where he's coming from.
eli 12y ago
Agreed, but it's especially odious in the context of a reducing the gender pay gap at a conference for women.

shadowmint 12y ago

It's not 'I was wrong', but its pretty darn close. You have to give it to him, for better or worse on the original statement or his actual views on the topic, he's sucking it up and admitting he was wrong. That's more than I've been able to say for Microsoft in a long time.

SammoJ 12y ago
If you read his e-mail he admits he was "completely wrong" http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-employees-re-grace-hopper-conference/ http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-...

michaelochurch 12y ago

Software's pseudo-meritocracy is especially tricky to navigate. It's hard for everyone; it's even harder for women and minorities. First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf. You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that. The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option. The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk. The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.

12y ago

cookiecaper 12y ago

Nadella let his guard down and said something expressive of a true corporate reality instead of a mindless politically-sanitized soundbite. It really has nothing to do with women at all (except that he was asked the question at a conference marketed primarily to women). Nadella was, essentially, asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He expressed his real opinion that asking for a raise outside of formal review contexts is in bad taste. This shows the real thought process behind an executive that rises through the ranks; it doesn't matter if they're worth more money, what matters is that they're endearing themselves to their bosses, because long-term that just might end with you getting made CEO of Microsoft, whereas harming that trust or sense of professionalism to demand an extra $50 tacked on to your paycheck just might end up with your career at a dead end. Think what you want of it, but that's Nadella's real opinion, that he allowed to accidentally slip because, for a moment, he didn't see the potential political ramifications and just tried to provide some honest, substantive career advice. Employees may not like the intimation that they can't just make demands for things that they feel are deserved, but that's how successful political operatives play the game, and politics absolutely is a real element in any and every employment situation. I think it's awesome when this kind of stuff gets exposed.

josephlord 12y ago
I agree with your main point but while there is a pay gap between men and women in similar roles within a company it is particularly an issue for gender paid less (in practice women).
- hnal943 12y ago
  Patio11 made a great point years ago which is still true. For that matter, if you think that there is a vast pool of untapped female talent working for 80% of the price of equivalent male talent… what are you doing hiring men, again? That would suggest that you could field whole teams of ladies and clean up. http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-things-done-wrong-by-silicon-valley/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-thin...
  - 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

This is why I'd avoid doing "pro women" events in general. If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist. There's no win, no benfit. Just avoid that entire area, the entire topic. There's no rational discourse that can be had. I think we all learned that after the "protests" over that public safety briefing a few years ago where essentially a [male] police officer suggested women could avoid some harrasment by exposing less, and it caused a "national debate," and protests across the US. I'm all for more women in tech. I just don't like most of the other people who also feel that way, they're very sexist in their own right (but they consider their sexism rightous which makes it even worse). I seriously doubt if it was a women CEO we'd even be talking about identical comments.

dneronique 12y ago
> If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist. Most things in life are like this. Do what's expected and it's just another day. Fuck up and you'd better prepare for a shitstorm.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  I think you're correct, but at least most of the time people just think you incompetent. When you screw up in this context people think you a bigot and or think worse of your character. You can recover from people thinking you made a mistake or were incompetent. You sometimes cannot recover from character assassination.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  The point is it's a valid answer that wouldn't be considered a fuck up outside of the context of a women's conference. Having that context attached makes everything said much more dangerous.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    So its become poison to speak at women's conferences? You'll toe the PC line or be raked over the coals by the public.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Steuard 12y ago

Good for him for acknowledging his mistake. He seems to have moved fairly quickly from his original flawed advice to an unsatisfying "[I] was inarticulate" and on to a solid "I answered that question completely wrong". Getting all the way there by the end of the day is admirable, and the lesson of that goes a long way toward making up for the original mistake. And while I'm handing out praise, good for President Klawe for calling out Nadella on his answer and providing a better one. (She's been leading some great changes at my alma mater, and this sort of thing has a lot to do with why.)

jasallen 12y ago

He gave an off the cuff answer that was wrong. He didn't write an essay about it that was proofread and considered. I'm not surprised that people are assuming they 'know his heart' based on one quick answer, but I am disappointed. Something I've not seen pointed out elsewhere too, is that (unfortunately) this is an answer that every manager of every large company has ready at the tip of their tongue. It pops out from rote memorization. Not about women, but about all employees: "We only give raises as part of the normal annual review process. I understand you think your compensation needs to be reconsidered because ...... and I'll make sure to discuss that with the rest of the management team at review time." It's not good, but it's a well rehearsed blow off answer for which every manager is trained. I think he's a good guy who is handling the aftermath well. He gave a stupid answer and apologized. I honestly the bigger mistake is telling employees to trust the system, rather than a single off the cuff answer that didn't fit well.

forthefuture 12y ago

You will never be able to move forward if the only possible reaction is negativity. That's not a feeling people want to join in on.

serve_yay 12y ago

As usual I expect the original story to far outlast this. Outrage is the order of the day.

zarriak 12y ago

I don't understand the point of correcting him. If you see that the CEO of a major tech company thinks this way, you shouldn't jump to correct him, we should look at society as a whole and see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. Asking a question about what a woman should do when she wants to ask for a raise is a bad idea on a lot of levels. There are very significant problems with gender and race in society, but asking a person who neither has to ask for raises, nor is a woman is a bad idea. Creating questions based on a problem like this is shortsighted, because this problem isn't going to be solved on an individual basis.

rectang 12y ago

From a Gawker commenter (< http://valleywag.gawker.com/i-became-ceo-by-patiently-waiting-and-having-faith-in-1644493722 http://valleywag.gawker.com/i-became-ceo-by-patiently-waitin... >): "I became CEO by patiently waiting and having faith in the system." Said no CEO ever. I hope that Nadella and Microsoft will take this opportunity to institute vigorous change rather than "having faith that the system" will close the wage gap without intervention.

cookiecaper 12y ago
I've met a lot of executives who've become executives with that type of attitude. Affability is one of the key properties of a successful politician. If you seem pessimistic, defeatist, etc., people are not going to want you to be in a leadership position. You have to act like everything is sunshine and flowers and project that image. Nadella did become CEO by patiently waiting and practicing good politics, which includes projecting a faith in the system and not ruffling feathers by asking your bosses to pay you more money.