Inside a Completely Transparent Company

One of things at Google was that they told you a formula for compensation (base + (bonus target % * personal multiplier * company multiplier * median salary)) But then they chose to keep the "median salary" and "personal multiplier" secret. At which point you had no idea if your manager was being truthful at all with you about your compensation.

The weird thing was, the lack of transparency was a bigger issue than the money. Everyone I knew (anecdotal I know) didn't "care" what their bonus amount was but they cared a lot if they were being lied too. I tried and failed a couple of times to communicate that issue to the 'engineering council' (which decided such things).

So I think that this choice Buffer has made would certainly make people like me much more comfortable with the communications from our management.

It would seem to me to open a huge can of worms to have to manage through. And then it would almost be a race-to-the-bottom in some ways: I make the same as Jake, but he gets in later and leaves earlier.

Not to mention, especially with hiring, there's very little room for negotiation, whether as a hiring manager or a potential employee. If someone is high-value, you run the risk of bringing in a new employee where (s)he is making a good bit more than the rest of the engineers, which could lead to the situation I mentioned above.

It might sound crazy, but we see see customer support as the new marketing department. And so far it's working great for us.

We do this as well, for a product that has a low per-seat price, and it's a huge competitive advantage.

In terms of culture, I would say Google is still considered a role model but in terms of transparency, I have not heard of nor seen a company operate like Buffer so guys are definitely setting the bar high!

What about open constructive criticism, though? I guess it is a sensitive point, yet one that seems to be in Buffer's reach. For example, are you guys transparent (or close enough) such that employees can call each other out in front of everyone? I know many people may see this as inappropriate but hey, they also probably see sharing salaries as inappropriate.

It sounds like a stable system, and I'm sure many of us would find it really helpful.

A book that was written in 1936.

I feel like this is the equivalent of a 17 year old going nuts for Ayn Rand.

The reality is every _employee_ is different, and the culture should embrace that. Instead of trying to reshape how a person is wired, why not shape how your company's goals are defined and let people use whatever means necessary to get there?

Take a developer with an extremely low social drive who needs cold, hard facts to get on board with an initiative. Buffer's culture would completely conflict with how they're wired because it relies heavily on face-to-face interaction and all the "soft talk" would likely be perceived as manipulative by them. On the other hand, a highly socially-driven person like a sales rep would _need_ said encouragement to thrive.

That's my point; there's no one culture that fits everyone, so focus on the higher-level goals and missions of the company than the attitudes of the people.

Use your interviewing prowess to identify team fit instead of hiring based on skills and shoehorn them into the culture.

All this culture is doing is homogenizing a workforce. Debate isn't a bad thing.

anyone know?