I’d rather lower compensation but actually being heard out by business.
It also of course usually works that having higher compensation goes in hand with business listening to people with higher comp.
It's less of a trade-off than it's often portrayed as.
In practice, these are not the same people. The people who have a direct impact on empowering and respecting you are your manager and their manager.
These people also have (having been one) surprisingly little say in how much you get paid. HR rules that land. We can present arguments and beg and plead, but ultimately don't really have any decision making power on the paycheck side.
Yes, there can be pockets of good management in otherwise bad companies, and vice versa, but generally the two are largely aligned.
i.e. when I've been in roles where both pay and respect are good, the latter is always because my direct management chain supported it. The same company has always had unlucky teams where respect was missing even though payscales were the same (since the latter is company-wide).
That where the saying comes from: "People leave managers not companies".
Pushing teams and product managers to take a bit of time up-front to consider architectural decisions, ideal vs minimal feature sets, security concerns, etc. got me promoted into a manager of managers role.
What I didn't realise was that it wouldn't actually mean having more weight to throw around. Instead those sideline efforts became my entire job and that job was exhausting.
I still believe it's possible for startup product teams to move fast without sacrificing quality and sustainability, but I'm increasingly convinced that the only way to achieve that balance is to build it in from the start.
Only one went back to coding. Most of us are quite happy with our work (not sure how we look).
Because no one has means to validate what actually they did.
I have seen loads of ppl who cannot make heads or tails in code but went management route.
<< You’ve got to make their lives decent
And this is where we agree. If you can make the performer life better ( not automatically with money ), you got their attention.
I totally agree with your sentiment but I think “more free time” is a difficult award in general. Most managers would probably look at most high performers and say “you want more time? Then work less! You are already over performing” it’s somewhat out of their hands how much someone chooses to work, but they can more directly control how much they pay and award via bonuses.
Note that I am not denying pathalogical burn out is a thing.
Like, I'm currently willing to take a pay cut to get more autonomy and a better (for me) workplace environment.
a good team and good project is worth a lot
The key is to recognize the Maslow's hierarchy here as well (hierarchy of benefits, instead of hierarchy of needs). Once you offer someone top comp and top health benefits, you have crossed the hygiene layer. Then you go to the social layer (recognition, awards, non-toxic env) and finally the self-actualization layer (autonomy, pushing them harder, long-term aspirations).
Dont cheap out on the hygiene factors!!
A non-toxic work environment isn’t a “benefit”, it’s a basic requirement. Same for autonomy. Healthcare is just compensation.
In the end, compensation is what matters.
I could say we can safely ignore everything you wrote. Not everyone is driven solely (or even primarily) by money alone. Some/many people are, so your take is one of many valid ones but not the only one. So managers, you actually need to understand what drives your high performers.
I have never quit a job due to pay, it has always been due to other factors.