Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yhippa | Hacker News Reader

I feel like in many companies that I've worked for that I'm sure these are the cases but the sentiments never trickle down to me and therefore I take them as myths. I know it would be awesome to receive market pay, a great work environment, and be respected but I understand that there's a business to be run and that it's difficult to juggle all of those balls at the same time.

This leads me to another question regarding market pay: if an employer wants to pay you market pay and it's currently lagging is it bad practice to be proactive about compensation increases? Or is it a smarter business decision to milk the arbitrage for all it's worth? I understand that this is potentially a bad idea--once the increase is in effect then it's generally permanent. Pay rarely is elastic in the opposite direction.

View on HN

The important thing to keep in mind is that you're not there to do you boss a favour and he's not giving you a job to do you a favour (that doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, be nice to each other, and do each other favours - but it's more of a long-term view of the situation).

Market pay is whatever you can make someone pay you. If your current employer can't pay you more, either you're not producing enough value, or the value you're producing is being inequitably shared with others in the organisation. Very often in engineer-driven, but non-engineer-led business, this could mean a too big or over-paid sales force. Both is a sign of inefficiency.

Chances are if you are on good terms with your boss, you can explain this to them. If they still can't give you a raise, explain that the situation compels you to dip your feet in the water (ideally, you've already done this as the conversation has the potential to sour the relationship with your boss).

As always, pull a patio11 and make sure you can articulate the value you're adding in terms of the money you bring in - this always comes easy to sales people (because, well, it is easy - they physically bring the cheques into the building). You've never just refactored component X. You've refactored component X which allowed your team to deliver high-value feature Y to the client, which you believe was brought up as a deciding factor in the contract renegotiations.

DON'T EVER tell your boss you're compelled to dip your feet in the water.

1. If you ask us for a payrise, we have to weigh the cost of the payrise vs the risk you WILL leave to get one somewhere else. We KNOW that if we turn you down, there's a chance you're going to be looking elsewhere.

2. By telling us you're dipping your foot, you've essentially given your notice. You just haven't told us when you're leaving. As of right now, you're not going to get the same level of attention and I'm looking for your replacement.

2b. If you don't tell us you're dipping your foot in the water, but we can't give you a pay rise, you'll get more attention and you'll get anything else we can possibly give you. We might give you a nicer desk, or replace your PC before anyone else's, or take you out for coffee more often.

Buying a new desk/computer or increasing amenities is a short-term solution. He will still be looking for the better salary.

Depending on the situation that is probably ok with some people. I think a lot of it would come down to quite a few variables.

I can't think of any clear examples but I'm sure there are cases to be made.

> 2. By telling us you're dipping your foot, you've essentially given your notice. You just haven't told us when you're leaving. As of right now, you're not going to get the same level of attention and I'm looking for your replacement.

I must say that I don't really understand this one. Anyone could get fed up and leave. Is the person who is up-front and honest with you, and indicates a desire to stay really more likely to subsequently leave than the rest of them?

DON'T EVER tell your boss you're compelled to dip your feet in the water.

Yes. This is probably the #1 case of high-performer termination: suspected flight risk. Nothing gets you fired faster than indicating that you might be interviewing elsewhere.

I'm firing you now because you might leave later is a fantastic indication of shitty management. It's a last ditch attempt at lording power over you.

Everybody moves on at some time. Management doesn't have to act like children about it.

I think what was being described might be more akin to management seeking to hire a replacement before you leave and they are caught with their pants down.

If they're at least somewhat clueful, they know that a high performer's position (by virtue of the high performance, if nothing else) is critical. They may not be happy, but they may do their best to cover the anticipated gap. And some people argue that some management sees interviewing or "looking around" as an incontrovertible sign that, sooner or later, that employee is leaving. Or could leave. And they don't want that risk.

P.S. OT, but I'm really tired of LinkedIn and others' heavy-handed Javascript dependencies for blog entries and articles (whichever this one is; I didn't enable scripting) -- essentially for static text.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com