

I tried Joel's salary scale method, and the results were... mixed. - blasdel
http://alumnit.ca/~apenwarr/log/?m=200904#05

======
jballanc
Great essay that points out, I think, the strength of Joel's system. The
author cites the primary weakness of the system as being that it doesn't
translate to non-programmers. He also (correctly, as far as I know) points out
that Joel has the advantage of only really having to worry about programmers.

But then, I think that's the whole point of Joel's system. Sales people are
paid on commission _because it's a direct reflection on their skills_.
Likewise, I think that assistants and tech support staff probably should be
allowed to negotiate since _negotiation is a key skill to their position_.
Where Joel's system works is that a programmer's primary skill set does not
involve selling and does not require negotiation/interpersonal skills (at
least, not as a primary concern).

I think the only problem the author really had (aside from the apparent
disinterest in seeing the system through) was one of messaging.

------
mhp
I'd like to know a little more about the end... he says they switched back to
private salaries and then a bit later half of the team left and half got
merged into another company. Uh, that sounds like a bad result (but may have
been totally orthogonal to the salary change).

And he's right. This works really well for programmers who like things to be
algorithmic. It doesn't necessarily make much sense to the non programmers.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, just "different" for them.

We do audition style interviews... meaning when you come to interview for a
programmer position you write code all day. If you come to interview for a
sales position, you will be selling all day during your interviews. If you
come to interview as an office manager, you will be doing those tasks during
your interview. We don't sit and have long conversations about where you see
yourself in five years.

I can tell you that we've never had a single programmer that thought this
interview style was strange. We had two office manager interviewees walk out
during the middle of the interview. That style of interview was just strange
to them and freaked them out.

------
antipax
Another example of the dangers of following Joel's advice on software
managment. If you think your company is like his... it's probably not.

I'm sure it works amazingly at his company, but his is almost always the
exception to the rule.

~~~
df07
While this may be true, I didn't really get that from the article. It sounded
like the system was largely a success, except that they set the maximum level
at their highest-ranked people and stopped. Those people got frustrated
because they had no way to move upwards.

At Fog Creek, there are several levels that no developers have achieved yet.
I'm fairly certain that if someone did achieve those levels they'd rearrange
the system to create a few more levels, so that everyone has something to
reach for and some idea of how to continue to improve themselves.

~~~
JacobAldridge
I combine that with the quote _"I'm a company starter, not really an empire
builder"_. The author couldn't see the bigger opportunity for the business,
and the staff starting banging their heads on his limited vision.

If he'd had a much bigger vision, he probably could have (as you indicate Fog
Creek has done) included future levels for growth.

------
gambling8nt
The problem presented--how do the people at the top advance--has a simple
solution. Have them select people to specifically mentor (via a mutual
selection process) and pay them bonuses based on how much those people
improve.

You motivate the best and supply them with concrete goals by asking them to
try to teach--which ultimately sets them up to be better managers down the
road.

~~~
Oxryly
While its a good idea to incorporate mentoring, tying your salary to someone
else's performance does _not_ sound like a good idea.

I think the key is to leave several levels at the top empty, open to
advancement.

------
Tichy
Joel also writes about measuring distorting results in some of his articles.
Just thinking: if a scale is public, wouldn't people scramble to just match
the criteria of the scale? For example, supposed somebody is considered
"expert" if he has written a book about the subject. So wouldn't people try to
somehow write books about things, which would take away a lot of their time
and energy that they might otherwise have invested in their job directly?

~~~
shiro
It may be a double-edged sword. You can take advantage of that human nature.
Encouraging employees to write books on the relevant fields may benefit the
company---it can be a nice PR of the company's technology level, it can
attract good people to join the company, and if the company's competitive
field is a niche, more books may expand the customer base.

------
Ennis
I used to work at Avery's startup NITI! I've been wondering whatever happened
to the team since they sold to IBM. Thanks so much for this. What a delightful
coincidence!

------
herdrick
"Your problem is finding ways to help your best people stay happy and achieve
levels you haven't invented yet. That problem is the one that defeated me, but
I'd rather have that one than any other."

Wow - I couldn't disagree more. That's the absolute worst problem you can
have. Anything that encourages your best programmers to leave is poison.

~~~
gjm11
For sure, anything that encourages your best programmers to leave is Really
Bad. My interpretation of the quoted sentences isn't "Having my best people
leave is the best problem I could have" but "Having people good enough that I
can't make a meaningful performance scale that they aren't at the top of is
the best problem I could have". Which isn't obviously wrong, though presumably
it's not because of implementing Spolsky's scheme that he had such good
people.

------
barredo
So, instead of employees crying about their salaries they are crying about
their level.

Humans are this way. We are a jealous and want-it-all-even-if-we-dont-deserve.
It's not a problem of salaries or level, it's a human problem.

Said that, I say that Joel's method seems a better to me.

~~~
shiro
Did you read the entire article? The author says jealousy wasn't really a
problem after all. The bigger problem were to keep motivation of _the highest
ranked_ people, and the mismatch between this system and the rest of the
company. I found this very interesting case study.

~~~
barredo
I did read the article. Just because the author says 'jealousy' wasn't the
main problem I will not think otherwise. My opinion is that it was. Only
masked.

~~~
swombat
Umm... that doesn't even begin to make sense... Are you sure you read the same
article?

