Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

daily.co

31–40 of 206 posts

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#32
post #5

Living in the Midwest and currently working remotely for a NY based company. Remote / coastal salaries are so much higher than typical Midwest engineering salaries that I'll never be able to return to the office again. This feels like a problem worth examining, but what can be done?

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#33
Salary based on your "experience" as measured by the number of years you survived sitting by the computer.

This is absolutely, fucking dumbest idea I ever heard.

Say you have two engineers that both have 10 years of experience, one is barely scraping by and one is working his ass off and significant contributor to the team.

They earn the same money and, more importantly, they both know it. And the team knows it. And the manager knows it.

Can you guess which one will feel treated unfairly and will start looking for a new job?

Imagine a good employee comes to you and says she is going to leave because she has been offered better salary somewhere else.

You have now only two choices:

1) break the commitment you made to entire company,

2) let her go.

You can also decide to promote her, but management is really a different job and you lost your team member anyway.

Over time your business will accumulate people who just barely passed your recruitment process and are just barely competent to avoid being let go.

If you think you will keep the better one just because you say some nice words and give them recognition token, guess again.

Let me explain what this means: it promotes people who sit idly by the computer (because they gain regardless of their involvement) and punishes people who actually give a shit and who try hard being better every day.

It punishes your business HARD. In most businesses, most progress is being done by small minority of employees. And now you are leaving gates open and saying you are not going to even try to keep them doing good job.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#34

Strong disagree with basing salary on years of experience. I see almost no correlation between output, skill, and years of experience. I actually consider this an anti-pattern that actively encourages coasting.

Coasting can be compensated for by a "we're expecting you to be productive or we'll help you move on with our thanks & good will" policy. Make it easy for managers to fire and replace at market levels.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#35
My career path was 10 years in journalism, during which I was also programming as part of my responsibilities, and now 11 years in full-time software development.

Under Daily's levels system, I'd have 11 years of "direct" experience and 5 years of "indirect" experience, for a total of 16 years of experience, putting me in their highest band (Level 7) with a salary of $270K.

But as I've told every employer who's hired me since leaving journalism, and particularly as I've transitioned from an IC to a manager, those years of experience in journalism were invaluable. I learned how to ask the right questions; how to handle the stress of always being on deadline; how to be a generalist, quickly learning enough about a subject that you can clearly explain it to others; how to communicate effectively in general; and many other skills that are absolutely relevant today.

Obviously, it wouldn't matter for this banding whether those years are treated as "indirect" or "direct" experience -- I'd be in Level 7 either way -- but I could see it matter for others.

Full disclosure: I applied to Daily last year but they ended up filling the position with an internal candidate.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#36
post #21
post #5

Living in the Midwest and currently working remotely for a NY based company. Remote / coastal salaries are so much higher than typical Midwest engineering salaries that I'll never be able to return to the office again. This feels like a problem worth examining, but what can be done?

I live in the Detroit area, and also noticed a huge salary discrepancy between local salaries and those for remote positions. The positive is there are many great opportunities for us to increase our income while living in a lower-cost area than Seattle, NYC, SanFran, etc. Midwest based firms need to reconsider their pay bands, or they’re going to have problems competing for talent.

Midwest salaries have been low for a long time, and it has had an effect on the ability to attract and retain top talent. The difference now is that the market for employment for engineers unwilling to relocate to those coastal cities has expanded dramatically. The new entrants are coming in with market-clearing salary offers. I predict we'll see salary expectations in the Midwest increase dramatically. Some Midwest employers will have to adjust their business plans accordingly. For instance, consulting shops may have to increase pricing quite a bit.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#38
There’s a huge loyalty tax being paid here. Although the transparency is nice to have, it’s simply not a sustainable model.

People grow at all sorts of rates professionally. Some people can grow from a formal level to another in a year as they get a hang for their responsibilities/job. Some people have extremely hard years due to external factors too. This type of system incentivizes nobody. Why work hard? Why do challenging stuff? Why take on the jobs with most responsibilities? Etc

> In the coming months, we aim to develop written guidance on what career growth looks like for different roles, and we'll start experimenting with rewards and recognition other than salary for particularly noteworthy achievements.

How do you reward or give recognition if your system isn’t fully thought through or based on the traditional methods of perceived impact and notable accomplishment? Isn’t that exactly what this would be anyway?

Honestly this sounds like a startup who just landed recent funding thinks they are “disrupting” the market with new unconventional TC methods. Not everyone is the same. One person with ten years of experience is another persons four years.

What fairness is to me is understanding where you sit relative to your peers and market. It is checks and balances of your worth and not political players reaping the rewards constantly. It’s the whole idea that there’s three types of workers: experts, operators, and politicians. The former two actually do the work, the latter just takes the credit more visibly.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#39

> We start counting years after formal schooling (high school or college). Grad school often counts as indirect experience. As someone who worked in software development during High School, and took time off before University to work in software, this somewhat frustrates me. Alyssa Rosenzweig has 0 years of experience under this model.

Yeah, I was a bit frustrated with this as well. I was somewhat down-leveled right after finishing my PhD because a lot of employers didn't consider it experience, even though I did high performance computing work with projects that had multiple stakeholders. Honestly, I was more technically savvy then than I am now 4 years into working at a large tech company.

Re: Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries

#40

There’s a huge loyalty tax being paid here. Although the transparency is nice to have, it’s simply not a sustainable model. People grow at all sorts of rates professionally. Some people can grow from a formal level to another in a year as they get a hang for their responsibilities/job. Some people have extremely hard years due to external factors too. This type of system incentivizes nobody. Why work hard? Why do cha…

This is topical but your comment reminded me of Deming’s New Economics.

Rewards in a system with intrinsic variance are harmful and unjust.

Post reply on HN