
By The Time You Give Them a Raise, They’re Already Out The Door - ChrisBland
http://saastr.quora.com/By-The-Time-You-Give-Them-a-Raise-They%E2%80%99re-Already-Out-The-Door
======
kabdib
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
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
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.

~~~
jacalata
Were you there when Ballmer promised every employee would get a new windows 8
machine? I am still shocked at how they could mismanage that so badly - almost
everyone I know was angrier about their equipment _after_ that effort than
before.

------
tmoertel
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.

~~~
jader201
I generally disagree. I always feel that it sets a bad precedent by relieving
those in charge of having to take the initiative to recognize and reward the
efforts of their employees.

If they are too busy to make sure I'm not having to question my value, I would
rather find another employer that may not have this issue.

Having said that, money is one of the last things that cause me to leave a
job. If I enjoy what I'm doing and the people I work with, it usually doesn't
matter (as much) what raises I receive.

I also recognize everyone is different. This is just my preference and what
works for me.

~~~
chasing
Huh. It's easier to go find an entirely new job than to just knock on your
employer's office door and ask to have a quick chat about your compensation?

If that kind of interaction makes you uncomfortable, I guess you probably
should go find another job since you might not have a great relationship with
your company.

~~~
genki
I think this is somewhat related to the concept of 'managing upwards'. While
it might not be hard to tell people "I should be making more money", it should
also not be difficult for a good manager to recognize "hey, this guy should be
making more money". For me, there would not be a scenario where I'm asking my
manager for more money but I'm also satisfied with the relationship with my
company, because part of my job satisfaction in relation to my company is
recognition of my efforts in the form of salary compensation.

I (personally) feel that there's an implicit understanding with my employer,
wherein my above and beyond efforts will result in increased compensation. If
I feel like I've been clearly outperforming my compensation level and that's
not recognized, I'm more likely to search for a new job than to ask for a
raise, because my current employer has already failed to meet their end of the
bargain.

~~~
alexqgb
This exactly. It IS easier because when it comes to a new company, you've only
got one problem - the salary. When it comes to your existing company there are
two problems. The money, but also the fact that you're having to ask for it.
The more you deserve it the more awkward the conversation becomes since the
ask itself is evidence of a management failure. In extreme cases, making the
request can be as uncomfortable as having to reapply for a job you've already
got.

In a well-run shop, managers have a very good idea as to who is worth what,
and how much the company stands to lose if they lose good people. Staying one
step ahead of this curve is a fundamental part of their jobs as a managers.

Obviously, the rules are a bit different in an early-stage start-up where the
founders are doing everything at once and hoping something connects. But once
an operation has hit cruising altitude, you really shouldn't have to ask for a
raise if you're actually worth what your asking.

------
arecurrence
> 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
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
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
What do you say when they say, "Oh we've had a rough year last year, so we're
giving you 3%"?

~~~
jonathanwallace
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?

------
GavinB
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
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
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.

~~~
fecak
Over my 15+ years in recruiting developers I'd say a fairly high number of
people stayed much longer after accepting a counter than the most quoted
'stats' would have led me to believe. My only numbers are candidates I lost to
counter or admitted accepting a counter in the past, so this isn't a huge
sample.

The secrecy of counteroffer benefits the company, as if it becomes known that
a counter is your quickest means to a raise you can be sure others will follow
suit. But that secrecy also has some benefit to the person who accepted a
counter, as any potential questions about your loyalty or (in some situations)
your perceived willingness to abandon the team during a crunch time won't be
exposed and the accepter can continue business as usual to a degree.

~~~
chris_mahan
Secrecy is the enemy of trust.

------
krstck
Can we quit with the "rock stars", "ninjas" and all that? We're not teenage
boys, stop talking to us as though we are.

~~~
MBCook
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
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
Psst:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunoichi)

~~~
MartinCron
Sometimes I worry that I am too pedantic, thanks for reminding me that there
are others playing at a much higher level of pedantry :)

------
adamors
> 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
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.

------
sbt
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.

~~~
gresrun
If you are dissatisfied with your compensation, speak up before you go looking
elsewhere. If you say you're leaving, do it.

Accepting a counter-offer is almost always a bad idea; no matter how much
money is on the table. After accepting a counter-offer you are bought and
paid-for, you decided to stay for the cash and, unfortunately, your loyalty to
the company will be questioned forever after.

~~~
brownbat
> your loyalty to the company will be questioned

If loyalty means "you can fuck me over and I'll stick around," it's a vice,
not a virtue.

Loyalty keeps sweatshops fully staffed while keeping good businesses from
replacing anyone who is a bad fit.

In fact, why would any business want a "loyal" employee, someone incapable of
recognizing or acting in situations that have grown lopsided? If someone
struggles with strategic decisionmaking in their own life, why trust them to
aggressively act in the best interests of the business?

Feudalism is long dead. The occasional job change shouldn't merit a scarlet
letter.

~~~
wpietri
Your model is too simple.

In my mind, a loyal employee is one who will ride out the ups and downs in a
relationship, and put in the effort necessary to make things work. The same is
true for a loyal employer.

To that end, I think a loyal employee should speak up when they think they
deserve more money, because it is in everybody's best interests that they be
fairly paid. And I think a loyal boss should a) do their best to make sure
that employees are already fairly paid, and b) when they slip, to be grateful
that an employee has taken the risk of talking about something that can be
difficult.

~~~
eropple
I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like calling his model "too simple"
is fair when yours is predicated on loyal employers. They exist, but I think
I'd be hard-pressed to rely on their beneficence.

~~~
wpietri
I don't think any healthy relationship involves relying on beneficence.
Loyalty for me at work is more about recognizing and acting for long-term
benefit, not short-term gain. I think loyalty, along with trust, gets built
over time, and it's something both parties have to work toward.

By "too simple", I meant that his model of the world was too black and white.
Trust isn't a binary condition. It's a continuum. A collaboration.

~~~
eropple
In your estimation, how often does loyalty come from the side of the table
with all the money? :p

~~~
wpietri
I can't really estimate that, but I've seen it happen a fair bit. And I've
benefited from it as well. But then, I'm choosy about where I spend my time.

------
pcrh
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
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_
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.

------
Jormundir
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
Does your company have a peer feedback system that's considered in addition to
the management's opinion?

~~~
Jormundir
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.

------
JunkDNA
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?

~~~
pekk
> 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."

~~~
JunkDNA
Your tone is incredibly rude and uncalled for. Where in my post did I ask
anyone to intervene? You are imputing motives that I did not state.
Furthermore you are interpreting my last comment in a way that I did not mean.
I meant that there are limits to people's altruism. At some point, no matter
how personally meaningful the job is, a sane rational person can't afford to
limit themselves when they can do better elsewhere. I don't get to set the
rates I pay software developers. I have no say in that at all beyond a very
narrow band dictated to me. Nowhere did I state that I expect people to work
for below market wages. I do not expect this and I do not begrudge anyone for
making such decisions. It sucks for me when recruiting, but that is my
problem.

My larger point is that there are finite numbers of employable people who
write software and that it appears to me that it is becoming more and more
professionally rewarding for those individuals to concentrate themselves in
dedicated software companies. As this happens, it becomes harder and harder
for non-software companies to employ such people.

------
pjungwir
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
Flat is a terrible organizational structure for employees who take their
career seriously.

~~~
unethical_ban
As opposed to having 9 managers?

~~~
macspoofing
I'm thinking there's probably a happy medium in between yours and OP's
extremes.

------
nahname
>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
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
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
> _" 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.

~~~
lukejduncan
I've seen companies who do keep that pay increase pace. Not that it's the
normal.

------
ryguytilidie
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.

~~~
amirmc
> _" 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
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
> _... 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
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.

------
scrabble
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
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
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.

------
programminggeek
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.

------
yalogin
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?

~~~
eropple
_> 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.

~~~
derefr
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.)

~~~
greenyoda
Why would an employee who is not desperate for a job give up their current job
in exchange for a position that's probationary? Setting up a situation where
the employer can bail out with no cost to themselves indicates that they have
zero commitment to making the relationship work.

~~~
derefr
How about an employee who is not desperate for a job, but who also currently
_does not_ have a job? This would be the situation created by a Basic Income
Guarantee.

~~~
PeterisP
As per TFA, we're talking abot 0%-unemployment industry here. Such situations
happen, but they're the exceptions, not something to base your policy on.

Seriously, even all the quality 2nd year undergrads I see are working already,
at least here if you want to hire people who don't have a job then most of
them are seriously incompetent people or extremely young.

~~~
derefr
I guess I'm thinking of a different definition of "unemployed" than you are.
Maybe replace your mental definition with "independently wealthy." E.g. "I'm
happy just spending all day coding my own projects, but if you give me the
right incentives, I'll join your company... _tentatively._ With the
tentativeness going both ways."

~~~
eropple
Which doesn't exist...so what's the point of this subthread you well-
actually'd me about?

------
noonespecial
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._

------
devrelm
> 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.

~~~
lostcolony
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
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.

~~~
PeterisP
Small, rapidly growing companies are actually the best places for meaningful
career growth, getting a 'organic' experience of growing together with the
changing roles.

If in your smaller organization _really_ the best mobility is to jump ship,
then you have to factor that already in hiring that you need someone who would
like an organization that _stays_ small, and beware of ambitious key people
who'll not be good for you. But for startups it shouldn't be so, unless you
fail.

------
mbesto
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.

------
mindvirus
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?

~~~
pekk
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
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.

~~~
dTal
>5 years ago, $500K maybe was enough to launch a serious version 1.0 of a
product. Now you might need $800k or $1MM.

I'm struggling to make sense of this. By "a product", do you mean a piece of
software sold for its own sake (as opposed to some other type of product that
merely requires that someone in the company write software)? Either way, has
the barrier to entry really increased so much in so little time? Why?

------
throwaway-to1
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.

~~~
pekk
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
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.

------
fnordfnordfnord
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
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.

------
alain94040
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
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
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
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.

------
memracom
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.

------
sjs382
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.

------
dangayle
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.

------
skittles
Article says to talk to your talent at least once a quarter. You should do it
once a week.

~~~
jasonlknm
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.

------
chavesn
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?

------
gangster_dave
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
It's hard to say because it depends on where you work. Are you talking the
valley or somewhere else?

------
tjmc
Just out of interest - where's the best place to find market rates?

~~~
spacehome
Glassdoor isn't bad, but the gold standard is to apply for ten jobs ;)

~~~
smm2000
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.

------
goofygrin
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.

------
zallarak
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.

------
31reasons
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
That would create an incentive to have people leave.

~~~
cdoxsey
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
Good improvement on the idea. People in the higher places (CEOs) do get
severance packages, why not developers!

------
rrggrr
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.

------
Bahamut
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
on glassdor you can sometimes filter salaries by different levels of
engineer's experience, but it only works for large companies

------
Fenicio
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"

------
balls187
Rather than say "givem a raise" have the constructive dialog: are you happy,
and what can I do to keep you happy.

------
Eleutheria
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.

