
Microsoft CEO says women need not ask for raise, should trust system - adventured
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2014/10/09/at-women-tech-event-microsoft-ceo-says-women-need-not-ask-for-raise-should/
======
ChristopherM
This is horrible advice, men and women both must push for a raise, companies
will absolutely under no circumstances just give away raises because "it's the
right thing to do".

Case in point, I am a white male. When I started working at a company over a
decade ago I also started at the same time as another white male. I started at
$55k, he started at $52k I negotiated for an additional $3k from the start.
The first year I assumed they would give me a good raise since I was hired at
entry level wages, I got a $2k raise. I was livid. The next year I made a huge
deal about the tiny raise, I ended up getting $5k, now up to $62k. Year after
$3k, again not happy. During that year there was a "salary freeze", I told my
boss that was unacceptable, if I didn't get a promotion I would be leaving. So
I got another $5k during the salary freeze. The next year still not happy, I
made the same ultimatum, This time $10k. Up to $80k, I ended up leaving a
couple of months later for a management position.

In contrast that other software engineer? He got $2k per year, except for the
salary freeze year, they made it up the year after. He left after 5 years
making $62k

Me -> $55k, $57k, $62k, $65k, $70k, $80k

Him -> $52k, $54k, $56k, $58k, $58k, $62k

So, apparently by being the squeaky wheel I ended up making an additional $18k
a year by the time we both left. Plus all the additional money I made the
preceding years.

Lesson here? Make yourself very valuable to the company, and then make them
pay. They won't do it of their own free will. Look at it from their
perspective, if you don't say anything why would they do anything? Obviously
you are happy if you are not complaining.

The problem for women is that, in general, they don't speak up, they don't
negotiate for salary increases they just accept what is offered. What we
really need to do is to teach women how to understand what they are really
worth, and to negotiate from a position of strength.

~~~
waterhouse
I'm curious what you think of Ben Horowitz's "How to Minimize Politics in Your
Company"[1]. He gives the specific example of an employee asking for a raise;
he argues that responding by giving them a raise, even if it's reasonable,
rewards behavior that has little to do with their job performance, which has
undesirable secondary consequences. He says that the right way to deal with it
is to have a good, regular, and standard process for evaluating employees and
adjusting their compensation accordingly.

To a person who works at a company that doesn't have such a process, I'm sure
your lesson applies. But I wonder what you think about what the company should
do. Take the company you worked at as an example: should they have had some
process by which they would have measured your performance and come to you
(and perhaps your co-worker) with a raise? (More regular and performance-
dependant than "+$2k/yr each year if you haven't been fired".)

Regarding the main topic of this thread: Perhaps Satya Nadella believes that
Microsoft has such a process, and believes that _no one_ should ask for a
raise, and gave his advice as though all companies were like Microsoft. (Or
perhaps someone has information contradicting this hypothesis.) pacaro's
comment below suggests that, whatever else you might say about Microsoft's
process, it doesn't reward asking for raises.

[1]
[http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_co...](http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_company)

~~~
ChristopherM
The company I spoke of did have a yearly review process, I also waited for
that yearly review to come up before I objected to the pathetic raises which
barely tracked inflation. When one starts out at entry level, one should
quickly gain significant raises commensurate with ones skills and abilities.
This company clearly tried to get away with doing as little as possible, I
also happened to know that senior software engineers at that company in
Colorado were making $120k+. Had I kept my mouth shut, sure, in a decade or
two I also would have been making $120k+ but in 2020's dollars not 2000's
dollars. The actual salary doesn't matter as much as what those dollars can
buy.

As for Microsoft, I have no idea how their process works or if they even
reward ambition and results. I did work for a larger company later, 6 months
in they gave me a $13k raise and 6 months after that another $20k raise when
they made me a manager. I never once brought up my salary, what I did do was
point out what I thought was being done wrong and then proposed how to fix it.
In this case I went to the CTO as my manager really wasn't managing the
product at all, I thanked him for hiring me but told him I didn't think I was
going to stay. He asked why and I described what it was we were doing and all
the problems it was causing. I then followed it up with a solution of how to
manage the product. I did not expect, nor even go in there with thoughts of
taking over my manager's job. It was just an honest assessment of how to fix
and drastically improve the efficiency of the group. One week later the CTO
came to see me, privately. He told me they were very impressed with the work I
was doing and they wanted to give me the opportunity to manage the product and
the engineers working on that project. The first 6 months were probationary,
after that I would be made full manager and get a salary increase. At that
company, I never needed to negotiate my salary. They were always generous,
they listened and were very proactive in keeping their employees happy.

In general though, my experience has been more like the first job. The
companies, while having a yearly review process are very stingy. When it's
time to hire a manager they bring in someone from the outside as they don't
want to hire another engineer and retrain them.

As for Ben Horowitz's article, I would have quickly left any company that
followed his advice. Telling me to wait, the company policies etc. I would see
them for what they are, a stalling tactic. I would recognize that I was being
"handled". With me I voice my opinion, I lay out the facts. If they are
ignored, I don't complain, I don't bring it up again. I just quietly look for
a new job, and any counter-offers after that point are immediately turned
down. As things have gone according to plan, I don't even have to deal with
this anymore, because now I have my own company, products and clients.

~~~
waterhouse
Thanks for sharing your experiences. It does sound like the first company's
"review" process was more like something they could point to and claim to be
fair to deflect complaints, and less like an appropriate reward-allocation
system. And given that, I would agree with your characterization of "telling
you to wait" and such as a stalling tactic.

If the system were better, though--say, reviews every six or three months, and
you saw people who did good work getting raises and bonuses, mediocre
performances leading to stagnant pay, new hires' pay quickly reaching what
might be called their "market rate"\--then I suspect you'd feel differently.
Though I suppose that if you thought the outcome was fair, you wouldn't make a
complaint in the first place.

I'm thinking one good way for a manager to respond to a request for a raise
would be to conduct a performance review of _all_ employees on his team, and
give raises to any who were found to deserve them. Unless that had already
been done within the last, say, three months.

(Here's a case I heard about from the U.S. International Math Olympiad team.
For background, with a series of contests they select the top 12 high school
students from the nation, which become the "black" group at an olympiad
training camp, and they give these students a test to determine 6 team members
and 2 alternates. They also take 24 students in grade 11 or below into a
"blue" group, and 24 more from 9th grade into a "red" group. Now, one
brilliant kid had made it into the "black" group and onto the IMO team as a
9th grader, winning a silver medal. The following year, he did relatively
badly on the contest and "only" made it into the blue group. The organizers
knew he was probably among the best there and should probably be on the team,
but they had to find a "fair" way to do it... so they administered the team
selection test to _all_ students in both the "black" and "blue" groups. The
kid made it onto the team and again won a silver medal for the U.S.)

------
rdl
Is he quoted out of context, or trolling? I'm confused, because most Microsoft
people I know speak really highly of him, but the system is shitty for
promoting even white guys in tech, let alone anyone else -- people get
promoted by moving jobs every 12-24 months, not through being recognized and
rewarded for contributions at companies.

"Karma" makes me think he's trolling, or was quoted out of context.

(The snarky response here is "he's clearly speaking from his extensive
experience as a woman in technology...", but I'd rather take the high road.)

~~~
istorical
I think the likeliest case is that he is a poor negotiator himself and has
left potential raises on the table without realizing it due to a lack of
initiative.

The personality types that are more common in the software field are often the
personality types that would avoid risk and conflict - two fears that prevent
labor from negotiating for better wages.

I really don't understand why this is being made into a gendered issue. My
first instinct is to just assume that if he'd instead been asked "How should
software developers ask their bosses for raises?" he would have had the same
answer, an answer that reflects his own insecurity and fear of negotiating -
not one that reveals some deep-seated prejudice.

~~~
jacalata
In the software field? Maybe. In the billion dollar software company CEO
field? No, really not the case.

------
yzzxy
His response to the response:

"Was inarticulate re how women should ask for raise. Our industry must close
gender pay gap so a raise is not needed because of a bias #GHC14"

[https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/520311425726566400](https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/520311425726566400)

~~~
higherpurpose
I don't get what that's trying to say. It seems to me he wants to retract the
answer because by now he realized how bad it sounds, but at the same time he's
also trying not to get all women in the company to ask for raises _tomorrow_.

So the statement is like "Yeah, yeah we need equal pay for men and women and
all that...but don't ask us for raises to _actually make that happen_ ".

~~~
zorpner
The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that he went to a panel
at a conference to give career advice to women (which has its own problems)
and gave them advice for an ideal world instead of for the real world, which
also happened to be anti-labor.

------
smokinjoe
Personally speaking, I worked 2+ years at a company where I slowly realized
that I was worth more than what I was being paid. I didn't push for a raise
very hard, but the more responsibilities I acquired, the more products I
built, the more customers I interacted with, I thought it would be more than
fair to increase my compensation.

Every single request was met with a "we'll speak about this at a better time."
I would just smile, nod and go back to work. It made me feel bad about myself
from the standpoint that maybe I _wasn 't_ worth that. Then of course come the
friends and family that ask whether I've gotten that raise yet (always a fun
conversation..).

I learned that if you want something, you need to go out and get it. If you
sit there waiting for a raise, you will never receive one.

So I left the company and found a new job with better pay.

It sucks because not everyone has that option (I'm a stupid, young, single
person) and it shouldn't come down to that - but it is a reality of the
business world. The fact that the CEO of Microsoft so naively believes that
this is how things work is somewhat unsettling.

------
diogenescynic
This thread, in about half a second, dropped from the 2nd post from the top to
the 28th post. C'mon mods, quit suppressing discussion.

------
gajeam
Two things:

First of all, ironically this was at the Grace Hopper Celebration, named for
one of the foremost pioneers of women in technology.

Second of all, he's already essentially retracted the statement on Twitter.

[https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/520311425726566400](https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/520311425726566400)

------
Mikeb85
Dear god, everyone should ask for a raise. You can't trust that your employer
will give you one out of kindness or something...

------
gojomo
I haven't seen the full context, but I believe the statements may have been
offered with an implicit, "in an ideal, properly functioning system".

That is, less "don't ask for a raise", more "you shouldn't have to ask, pick a
place that does it automatically [my goal for Microsoft]".

Of course, there are still problems with that approach: the salary incentives
are never fully aligned, and even if you achieved that harmony of salaries-
and-value for a short while, it would drift out of alignment. Workers
demanding raises or managers cutting the overpaid would then both be required.

But I can see why a large-company CEO like Nadella would hold out the ideal of
smooth, regular, equitable, no-exceptional-requests salary adjustments. That's
something big companies can systematize much more easily than little ones.

------
kmonsen
Not asking for raise is "good karma".

Why would anyone want to work for Microsoft at this point if they have
options?

~~~
adamio
Apparently he also said "That's good karma. It will come back," Nadella said.
"That's the kind of person that I want to trust, that I want to give more
responsibility to."

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/9/6953697/microsoft-ceo-
saty...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/9/6953697/microsoft-ceo-satya-
nadella-women-raises)

~~~
rjknight
This reminds me of David Graeber's bullshit jobs[1] thesis, that those doing
more "real work" tend to get paid less because real work is enjoyable. It
sounds awfully like Nadella is saying that "more responsibility" might be a
substitute for better pay, and that people should be happy with that.

[1] [http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/](http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)

------
nickbauman
Answer the following question for yourself: Why do managers not want you
sharing your compensation information with your co workers? The answer is the
reason why CEO answered the way he did, especially the "good karma" comment.

------
amaks
Quartz: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, here’s the real definition of karma.
[http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwh9iU1ho](http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwh9iU1ho)

~~~
neilellis
Fantastic, indeed Karma (or Kamma in the Pali) just means action.

The fruit of any action is of the same quality as the action itself. So indeed
this infers that asking to have the same pay as a male colleague, or _any_
colleague is in itself greed and that the fruit born from it would be of a
similar type.

The Buddha I believe recommended that you never talk about the Kamma of
another as it is usually just a way to hide a value judgement of someone else.
Instead we should focus on what Kamma we take and therefore the type of fruits
we'll experience in the future.

If this interests anybody - this is an excellent book on the subject:
[https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web...](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saraniya.com%2Fbooks%2Fmeditation%2FPaul_R_Fleischman-
Karma_and_Chaos.pdf&ei=KTM3VNOJO9PXaqGkgZgO&usg=AFQjCNFVDCReY64GRXGS-n0FVEKB6ZxZ2A)

------
zxcvvcxz
Isn't the problem that they don't ask for raises and negotiate as much or as
hard as men do? I wonder what would help women with this. Everyone needs to
look out for their own best interests in "the real world", no magic fairy is
going to wave a wand and give people doing the same job the same money.
There's no economic incentive to do so without pressure. And that pressure
must come from the employees.

~~~
jacalata
Partly. The other problem is that when they do negotiate the way men do, they
tend to get far more negative reactions (like having the job offer withdrawn).
[http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf](http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf)

~~~
zxcvvcxz
Well there's a market solution for that too - keep looking for better work if
you believe you're worth more. Eventually smart employers will see the
ridiculousness of what's happening, and hire all the otherwise competent
workers who are being discriminated against for no good reason.

~~~
jasonisalive
This is the right answer, unfortunately most people are unfamiliar with or
unwilling to trust this sort of logic, and so we end up with efforts to
actively fight the problem with prescriptive regulation, which just make
things worse. Society would be a lot better if more people could reason like
you!

------
kirinan
I think it is out of context and isn't what he means. I think he means to say
that women should be able to trust the system to give them a raise if they
have earned it, not that they can trust the current system or should trust the
current system. I think he is talking about an ideal system and not the one we
are currently in. I'm going to assume best intentions here.

------
rjknight
Is this surprising? CEOs of 120,000-employee corporations are not exactly
well-known for their belief that those employees all deserve a raise.

It might be stupid for Nadella to want to nickel-and-dime MS employees,
especially female ones, but as someone who is judged by the short-term
profitability of the company, he has some pretty strong incentives to do so.

------
clubhi
I don't think roles deserve certain salaries. Different people are worth
different amounts for the same role. As a corollary, I don't think women
should have salary expectations because of a role.

~~~
comrh
"Different people are worth different amounts for the same role."

But are not worth different amounts because of their sex.

~~~
clubhi
It's impossible to infer what a female is worth because you can't even infer
what a male is worth.

------
comrh
This entire panel seemed out of touch. What were they trying to offer?

------
general_failure
Is there a complete transcript somewhere? Why are we all jumping to
conclusions with no data? All this discussion seems pointless without enough
information.

~~~
jacalata
Because some of us watched it? There is a full video here [0] and a transcript
of the specific question and answer here [1]

[0] [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/microsofts-
nadella-...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/microsofts-nadella-
backtracks-from-comment-about-women/?module=BlogPost-
Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Policy&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body)
and

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/09/microsoft-ceo-opens-
mouth-i...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/09/microsoft-ceo-opens-mouth-
inserts-foot-on-gender-pay-gap/)

------
matthewcford
what a load of bullshit, if the women in MS found out that they are being
underpaid and asked for a raise, then their wage bill would raise. Very self
serving.

------
blergh123
I'm actually surprised at how many people in the comments want to immediately
defend or explain away his comments. It's pretty clear he meant what he said,
and is now on the back foot attempting to undo the damage he did.

Why does this kind of behavior need to be excused as 'out of context' or
'trolling'?

~~~
adventured
Best guess here, is that it's because a lot of people like Satya and have been
optimistic about what he might do at Microsoft.

If a bigger jerk said the same thing, you wouldn't see as many people seeking
to explain it away. I think people naturally prefer to give a much greater
benefit of the doubt to someone they think is nice.

Also, as a new CEO in a very difficult job with high levels of 24/7 scrutiny,
there's likely to be an inclination to not light the guy on fire over his
first misstep or three (even if it's offensive).

~~~
neilellis
That sounds reasonable, the problem is as ever that we human's have a problem
separating the comment/action/thought from the person.

It's why we can't understand that Hitler was a vegetarian or Thomas Jefferson
had slaves.

In reality we're a massively complex mismash of conflicting thoughts and
emotions. Just like any country.

Yet we expect a consistency from the aggregate!

Personally speaking I can believe that he's a pretty decent person (probably
more than I) and that he may well for all I know be trying to do his level
best for gender equality. I only disagree with the statement, not the person.
But the statement is very important when it comes from the head of one of the
world's largest companies.

------
neilellis
The essential problem here is that we're still talking about men telling women
what _they_ need to do. Because, hey it's _their_ problem.

Let's just get it clear, it is all about what we (men) need to do. Slavery
wasn't an African person's fault. Xenophobia isn't a problem for foreigners to
sort out.

There is nothing wrong with realising that we have a privilege over another
group in society and making efforts to become aware of that and to work
against it as best we can. What is wrong is assuming it's something that the
people we have privilege over need to combat themselves.

One last analogy:

Hey poor person, work harder and then you can inherit money like I did.

PS: Can someone explain the downvote? (PPS: it would be nice for reasons to be
given for downvotes, because as a frequent user, commenter and submitter it
feels pretty rubbish being down-voted without knowing why)

~~~
neilellis
PPPS: Thanks for those who voted back up. Would be nice to know the reasons
for down votes still. Wouldn't it be quite easy to prompt a down voter for a
reason and display that reason. Thus encouraging responsible downvoting?

~~~
Dylan16807
Okay, fine. I downvoted you because you seem to be blaming him for answering a
direct question and also for saying it's women's problem when he said it was
management's responsibility.

I can't tell for sure if you're actually blaming him or explaining yourself in
a confusing way, but both of those are bad.

You make valid _points_ , but the way you tied them into the conversation
makes your point confusing and/or non-sequitur-insulting, so I think it's a
bad _comment_.

~~~
neilellis
Can you see from my point of view though. That while making a valid comment
which didn't include flamebait or hate etc. I see my comment goes to zero and
is greyed out. It's pretty disheartening and unwelcoming to have that done to
you. I apologise to others about this 'meta'-conversation but I do think it
matters - as it genuinely discourages me from sharing my thoughts and may do
the same to otehrs.

~~~
Dylan16807
I get somewhat annoyed when a comment of mine is downvoted but I think you're
taking it too strongly. Sometimes people don't like valid comments. And
especially since votes fluctuate, don't worry about an initial downvote.

And I don't really agree with "down-voting someone is like flagging them". I
only flag the rare completely indefensible troll/spambot comments.

------
ttronicm
What a terrible human being! That's probably being too kind.

~~~
jnem
That's a very reactionary statement based on precious little information.

