💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3888.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 18:57:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Why I Never Let Employees Negotiate a Raise

2012-03-14 18:06:05

At Fog Creek Software, every worker at the same level is paid the same salary.

And when one gets a raise, they all do

What would happen if you got to work one day, went into the kitchen, and saw a

list of your employees' salaries taped to the fridge? Would you freak out?

Would you expect to find half of your staff weeping and the other half waiting

with pitchforks outside your office door?

Because salary information is viewed as particularly sensitive, employers often

go to great lengths to keep it under wraps. Some companies even make it a

fireable offense for employees to compare salaries, or they write something

into the standard employment contract prohibiting workers from disclosing their

pay. (In the United States, this kind of rule is unenforceable, by the way, but

some bosses hope their workers won't know that.) The trouble with keeping

salaries a secret is that it's usually used as a way to avoid paying people

fairly. And that's not good for employees -- or the company.

When my partner and I started Fog Creek Software, we knew that we wanted to

create a pay scale that was objective and transparent. As I researched

different systems, I found that a lot of employers tried to strike a balance

between having a formulaic salary scale and one that was looser by setting a

series of salary "ranges" for employees at every level of the organization. But

this felt unfair to me. I wanted Fog Creek to have a salary scale that was as

objective as possible. A manager would have absolutely no leeway when it came

to setting a salary. And there would be only one salary per level.

After some digging, I found a Seattle-area software-consulting firm called

Construx that had published on its website the outline of a decent professional

ladder system (read about it at construx.com/?nid=244). It reminded me of the

old pay system at Microsoft, which had worked pretty well when I was there. We

used this model as a rough basis for our system, although we added some

flourishes. I posted the first draft on my blog and got tons of great feedback,

which I used to write up the second draft. The basic system has remained in

place ever since.

In Fog Creek's system, every employee is assigned a level. Currently, these

levels range from 8 (for a summer intern) to 16 (for me). Your level is

calculated formulaically based on three factors: experience, scope of

responsibility, and skill set. Once we determine your number, you make the same

as every other employee at that level.

The experience part is pretty easy: It's based on the number of years of

full-time experience you have in the field you're working in. No work done

while you were still in school counts, and certain types of rote, menial work

can never add up to more than a year of experience. If you worked as a

receptionist for six years, for example, you aren't credited with six years of

experience; I give you credit for one year.

Scope is pretty easy, too. Are you primarily helping someone else do his or her

job? Do you have your own area of responsibility? Or are you running a whole

product? We are able to define the scope of most jobs pretty objectively.

Quantifying skill is a little bit harder, but we still find it possible to

define a fairly objective continuum from a newbie programmer ("Is learning the

basic principles of software engineering; works under close supervision; not

expected to write production code") to an expert programmer ("Has consistently

had major success during participation in all aspects of small and large

projects and has been essential to those projects' successes").

Once we defined our terms, we created a little chart that assigns a level based

on an employee's experience, skill, and scope (a section of it appears on the

previous page, and the whole thing is posted at joelonsoftware.com/articles/

ladder.html). Then, we created another chart that lists the base salaries for

each level, and that's how we figure out how much an employee makes.

Once a year, my management team sits down, reviews every employee's work, and

recalculates every employee's level. Then we look at competitive market

salaries using online tools such as Salary.com and Glassdoor.com, and we

consider our own knowledge of the job market from the past year of recruiting

and make sure that the salaries we have at each level are exactly where we want

them to be.

Because everyone at the same level gets the same salary -- no fudging -- we

sometimes run into difficulty. One problem with our system reveals itself when

we're pursuing an employee who wants to negotiate for a higher salary.

Sometimes this occurs when we find a great person who is currently being paid a

salary that, in our view, is way above market. And sometimes this occurs when a

potential hire just expects a reasonable amount of back-and-forth over salary

because almost every other employer he has ever worked for maintains ambiguous

salary ranges and there is always room to get paid better if you negotiate

well. We usually address these situations by guaranteeing the recruit a larger

first-year bonus than he would normally get. Here's the thing: Fog Creek is

extremely profitable, and we have a generous profit-sharing plan, so the

"guaranteed first-year bonus" is almost always less than the employee's

profit-sharing bonus would have been anyway.

Our system was put to the test over the past eight years when the labor market

was tight. It's easy to see why: Suppose you hire 100 yak drivers at $10 an

hour, but then the Tibetan economy heats up, and you have trouble finding more

yak drivers. The market rate might rise to $15 an hour. The weak-kneed thing to

do is to hire new employees at $15 and hope that the senior people don't

discover that the rookies are making more money than they are.

This is technically called salary inversion -- if you're the kind of person who

likes to use self-important HR jargon. Salary inversion can lead to strife

within an organization. It can also completely warp the relationships among

managers, HR, and employees. This may seem ridiculous and sound apocryphal, but

I actually once heard that managers at a major corporation told their key

employees to quit and reapply for their old jobs, because the bureaucracy had

made it nearly impossible to give them raises that reflected the competitive

job market. At Fog Creek, we decided that the right thing to do when the labor

market tightens is to give raises to everybody at the same level. This move can

be painful and expensive, but the alternative is worse. I don't know about you,

but I'm scared of pitchforks.

I can't guarantee that our system would hold up if margins were to erode, but

I'm pretty sure that employees would be willing to accept slightly lower

salaries as long as the system were transparent and fair, and it were clear

what you needed to do to move up the ladder.

At the same time, if you hear a lot of griping about salaries, you shouldn't

look just at your system for paying people. One thing I've learned from

experience is that happy, motivated employees who are doing work they love and

feel they are being treated as adults don't gripe about money unless their pay

is egregiously unfair. If you hear a lot of complaints about salaries, I

suspect that's probably a manifestation of a much bigger disease: Your

employees aren't deriving enough personal satisfaction from their work, or they

are miserable for other reasons.

It takes a lot of salary to make up for a cruel boss or a prisonlike workplace.

And rather than adjusting pay, you might choose to focus on some nonmonetary

ways to make employees happy. Happy employees make better products and provide

better customer service and will make your company successful and profitable.

And success allows you to pay workers better. It's a virtuous circle, and it

has worked for Fog Creek. Let me know if it works for you.

Joel Spolsky is the co-founder and CEO of Fog Creek Software and the host of

the popular blog Joel on Software. For an archive of his columns, go to

www.inc.com/keyword/spolsky.

"How Hard Could It Be?" columnist Joel Spolsky is the co-founder and CEO of Fog

Creek Software in New York City, and the host of the popular and influential

blog Joel on Software. Most recently, he co-founded Stack Overflow, a

question-and-answer site for software developers. @spolsky