Microsoft CEO does about-face on women and raises
freep.com
freep.com
As someone who frequently thinks out loud as a way to work through ideas, I totally get how you could say things that you don't mean or come off entirely wrong given hindsight.
Tell me you've never started answering a question and halfway through you start realizing the path you've started going down is not what you want to be saying.
Just look at these comments on this article - he admitted his mistake and he still is being lambasted.
That he admits to having learned something from this experience, though, is surely a positive.
He should just avoid these types of conferences all together so that things like this don't get negatively construed by association.
Absolutely. And this shows how useless this type of conference really is. If there's only one right answer to the question, the only benefit to attending is to pose for holy pictures about how sensitive you are to the needs of $DISADVANTAGED_GROUP.
I wasn't there, but the article says that both the question and his response addressed women:
> Earlier at that conference, Nadella was asked to give his advice for women wanting to ask for a raise. He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along.
He was asked what he thought about women who are too afraid to ask for a raise. And he said he thought they were better off because people shouldn't ask for a raise anyway. The question did specify women, though really it's applicable to anyone who is too nervous to ask for a raise, and Nadella responded with a non-gender-specific response except an attempt to pander by saying being afraid to ask for a raise "might be an additional superpower" of female employees, in effect stating that women have superior political instincts.
But I just plain disagree with your characterization of what he said. He was clear and articulate in the video. His words were not misunderstood or misinterpreted or out of context. I don't think they "came off" wrong. I think they were wrong.
Sometimes that skill is a detriment, obviously. Usually it's a boon.
Maybe he answered too quickly. Though he didn't back down when challenged by the interviewer (who got a round of applause from the audience) and says he left the conference "energized." I'm not sure at what point realized he screwed up -- I'm guessing when Twitter exploded against him?
It's an early gaffe from an otherwise politically-savvy CEO. Next time he'll know not to bother with minor appearances such as these, because it's not worth the cost.
EDIT: So it's actually a very long-winded question and employees not asking for a raise is the explicit subject of the question. I'm transcribing it from the video that eli linked to below (thanks for the link) so that we can see the full context. I'll transcribe the answer too.
----
Q (interviewer): So one of the questions that somebody asked was how do you-- what do you advise to women who are interested in advancing their careers but they're not comfortable putting themselves up for promotions or advanced opportunities? And there was an interesting-- I just came from the Most Powerful Women's Summit in Laguna Niguel, and some of the other people here also made that trip to Phoenix, and there was someone who was talking about the fact-- it was Mary Barr, who is probably someone whom you're familiar with as well, and she was talking about the fact that she had never asked for a raise. And then her interviewer looked out at the audience, which was a lot fewer people than here, and asked "How many people had never asked for a raise in their life?" And I would say about a quarter to a third of the attendees raised their hands. And an interesting one was Warren Buffet-- and don't ask me why Warren Buffet is at the most powerful women's summit-- apparently he's been doing it for many years. So, you know, for women who aren't comfortable with asking for a raise or sort of saying-- who aren't the younger you, let's say-- what's your advice for them?
A (Nadella): You know, the-- the thing that-- umm, perhaps most influenced me in terms of how you look at the journey or the career. There was this guy, whose name was Mike Naples, he was the president of Microsoft when I joined, and he had this saying where he would say, "Look all sys-- all HR systems-- are long-term efficient, short-tem inefficient", and umm, I thought that that phrase just captured it, which is that it's not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along, and that I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don't ask for a raise have, because that's good karma! It'll come back! Because somebody's gonna know, "That's the kind of person that I wanna trust! That's the kind of person that I reeeally want to give more responsibility to." And in the long-term efficiency, things catch up. And I wonder, and I'm not saying that's the only approach, I wonder whether taking the long-term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of, "Hey, am I getting paid right? Am I getting rewarded right?", because the reality is that your best work is not followed by your best rewards. Your best work then has impact, people recognize it, and then you get the rewards, and you have to somehow think that through I think.
-----
In context, there is some specificity to this question. The interviewer asked him what he'd say to women who are too timid to ask for raises, and he said they're in a good position because you shouldn't be asking for raises anyway, and then went on to elucidate very general principles about how high-quality works percolates through the organization before it results in increased long-term rewards.
The interviewer continues to state how she'd been hired by other women at 50k under market because she said "just pay me whatever you want", and encourages the other attendees to learn to negotiate salary. Somehow I don't really see how this is a gender-specific issue at all. Lowballing an employee like that would've been seen as a win for the female hirer, and it happens just as much if not more to male employees who walk in and say "Please mistreat me" as this interviewer did. This also has nothing to do with the question of requesting a raise when you're already employed.
And I am sorry to say that women often make less then men even doing the same job with the same qualifications. That was the whole point of the question! One of the theories for part of this pay gap is that women are less willing to ask for raises. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
From the article, it sounds like what was asked to me. The article says he was asked "how women should ask for raises". We don't know if this is what was actually asked (it's not quoted in the article) or if the author assumed a general question about raise-asking referred specifically to women due to the venue. If someone has a video where we can get some additional context, that'd be great. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough data to really argue about it. You assume the implicit context and political baggage since this was posed at a woman's conference, and I don't, and I don't think Nadella did either.
>it's still a crummy answer
I think it's a fine answer. It's what he thinks about the topic. Maybe you disagree with him and think it's a poorly-reasoned opinion, but it's still a good answer, that is, it's still an actual response to the question that's reflective of his real opinion.
As to wage gap, agreed it's not something to get into here, but here's one link from a non-partisan source. [1] I was just talking to Democratic activists that freely admitted this and believe the problem is that women are kept out of career by subtle social forces, not that they get paid way less than men for the same title/position. The DNC site wants to leave this ambiguous because they know people will be much less incensed by these perceived subtle social forces than by an obvious inequity. I'll leave it at that.
[1] http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/dnc-muddles-wage-gap-issue/
Please stop trying to force partisan politics into this discussion. There is evidence that women get paid somewhat less for the same jobs, even when adjusting for age and title and skills and education and experience. Check the footnotes to original research on that wikipedia page.
Nadella's initial comment was inarticulate in the sense that it could easily be misunderstood, but I heard "trust that if you acquire rare and valuable skills, the system will work for you, no matter your sex".
FTA: "He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along. Not asking for a raise is "good karma," because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust"
I read: "Focus on developing your craft and the salary (or control, or flexibility, etc) you can gain through exchanging your growing value will naturally grow as well." Being better naturally provides you with more options.
Part of the issue is an unfortunate framing of racisim, misogyny, etc. as being illogical. This misrepresents a structural issue; racism and misogyny are entirely logical within their respective ideological underpinnings.
Hence a core issue: that there is a congruency between conditions and events and an underlying ideological system. To suggest that one can transplant conditions and events of another ideological system (EG Rationalist to Teleological) is a myopically laughable proposition.
On top of believing something as retrograde and absurd as that, he is tone deaf to the especially unfair treatment of women.
Whether he should resign or not really depends on whether these views reflect those of Microsoft's board of directors.
EDIT:
Apparently Microsoft has a sock puppet/shill brigade on HN now. That's unfortunate.
I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
Yes and do you think this benefits the workers or the companies?
You do know about the recent anti-trust lawsuit against several of the companies you named for their non-poaching agreements right?
These companies do all that they can to hold their workers' wages down.
> I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
Imagine how well you'd have done for yourself had you not been such a pushover.
EDIT:
I will also add that it has always been my philosophy that if you do not feel you deserve a raise, you're doing a shitty job.
After I made that edit the down votes were removed/counteracted.
How come he has managed to do a complete 180 turn and now strongly believes that women should ask for a raise? He didn't believe that at the talk. Why should we accept this 'belief' now?
This concern overrode his other concerns at the time he was speaking live in front of a crowd.
The revised answer is the politically correct one. It's what fits with the current pro-feminist narrative in media and pop culture.
It really has nothing to do with women at all (except that he was asked the question at a conference marketed primarily to women). Nadella was, essentially, asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He expressed his real opinion that asking for a raise outside of formal review contexts is in bad taste. This shows the real thought process behind an executive that rises through the ranks; it doesn't matter if they're worth more money, what matters is that they're endearing themselves to their bosses, because long-term that just might end with you getting made CEO of Microsoft, whereas harming that trust or sense of professionalism to demand an extra $50 tacked on to your paycheck just might end up with your career at a dead end.
Think what you want of it, but that's Nadella's real opinion, that he allowed to accidentally slip because, for a moment, he didn't see the potential political ramifications and just tried to provide some honest, substantive career advice. Employees may not like the intimation that they can't just make demands for things that they feel are deserved, but that's how successful political operatives play the game, and politics absolutely is a real element in any and every employment situation.
I think it's awesome when this kind of stuff gets exposed.
For that matter, if you think that there is a vast pool of untapped female talent working for 80% of the price of equivalent male talent… what are you doing hiring men, again? That would suggest that you could field whole teams of ladies and clean up.
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-thin...
Unfortunately, when you feel it's time for your compensation to be bumped, it's probably time to look for another job. And that's ignoring the situation where you have a bad manager/company where asking for a raise will instantly make the environment hostile.
I also know people who the only raises they've ever gotten were off-cycle, because they asked for them.
If a top sales guy walks into his manager's office and says he wants a 20% hike, he'll be getting a 20% hike.
It's just you didn't try/get yourself in a strong enough position.
If you ask for a raise and they give you an excuse like that (or pretty much any other), start preparing to leave. It usually helps that you ask from a position of strength, so you can actually leave immediately.
Even if you don't change jobs very often, this position and attitude give you clarity.
Note: this is not at odds with the 'asking for a raise doesn't work' position. Its just that, employment means getting pay for work. If you can do better somewhere else, and you have no other personal reasons for staying, then go!
I'm currently working as a software engineer at my first post collegiate (post college? Collegiate sounds cooler.) position. I started a bit under market and after about eight months I scheduled a meeting with my CTO to review my compensation. Stressed that I enjoyed working at the company but I had come to understand that in similar roles at other companies I would receive a significant boost in compensation. I provided examples of value that I bought to the team (which was simple because I was one of the first programmers hired in the states by the company and had proved myself many times and received many exemplary quarter reviews from my CTO and super) and was asked for an indication of the salary I would like.
I provided a range, and my next paycheck was at the top of that range.
I got very lucky in that the day I asked, my CTO sent along a request, which happened to be on the day that all salary reconsiderations were happening and so within a few hours it was approved. That was merely chance. I had no internal understanding of the system prior.
However, prior to asking, I did my research and concluded the best way to receive a raise was to 1) ask. 2) stress that I would like to stay in the company and enjoyed my work there. 3) show the value I bought to the team. and 4) to do so a little before my one year review.
I'm now a vested employee :-).
Just avoid that entire area, the entire topic. There's no rational discourse that can be had.
I think we all learned that after the "protests" over that public safety briefing a few years ago where essentially a [male] police officer suggested women could avoid some harrasment by exposing less, and it caused a "national debate," and protests across the US.
I'm all for more women in tech. I just don't like most of the other people who also feel that way, they're very sexist in their own right (but they consider their sexism rightous which makes it even worse).
I seriously doubt if it was a women CEO we'd even be talking about identical comments.
Most things in life are like this. Do what's expected and it's just another day. Fuck up and you'd better prepare for a shitstorm.
You can recover from people thinking you made a mistake or were incompetent. You sometimes cannot recover from character assassination.
It's not even about women. His statement shows that he's out of touch when it comes to women AND men.
Not that I agree with his viewpoint, but it's not hard, at all, to grok where he's coming from.
No thanks. I'll be moving on.
People don't see how insulting this is. Internally, you've already decided you are underpaying me by half, and think I'm a sucker.
There are plenty of valid reasons, including feeling underpaid, that can't and shouldn't wait for the annual review process.
As a manager, if you have a valued employee that is approached by another company and offered a 10% bump in salary and your response to that employee is "We'll see what we can do during your annual review", you are guaranteed to lose that employee.
Raises offered during the annual review process are typically merely cost-of-living adjustments. Unless a promotion is attached, it is hardly ever anything but.
For example, what if a big competitor moves into town, and they're paying 20% more than you. Are you just going to ignore it for 11 months while they pinch tons of your employees? No of course you aren't. So that statement is untrue even from a company's perspective.
That whole "annual review" thing is a manipulation by HR to take the discussion of pay and benefits off the table except for a predetermined period they themselves select (and can be ready with ammo against your requests or a list of increased responsibilities).
Honestly it is just a very effective technique that reduces pay increases and delays pay increases as much as possible (e.g. new employees often not getting their first bump for 12 months, even after they lave their probation period (e.g. 6 months)).
And the reaction by Microsoft was exactly what you describe. Ignore it for a year or two.
If neither party communicates their expectations on remuneration or job function, resentment builds up and someone snaps. Either it comes from the company in the form of disciplinary action or firings, or the employee goes and looks for a new higher paying job and won't even accept more money from the existing employer to stay because they've already felt their trust has been betrayed.
Expectation management is a continuous process for both parties, not something that should happen just once or twice a year.
You have to give it to him, for better or worse on the original statement or his actual views on the topic, he's sucking it up and admitting he was wrong.
That's more than I've been able to say for Microsoft in a long time.
http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-...
"I became CEO by patiently waiting and having faith in the system."
Said no CEO ever.
Nadella did become CEO by patiently waiting and practicing good politics, which includes projecting a faith in the system and not ruffling feathers by asking your bosses to pay you more money.
Something I've not seen pointed out elsewhere too, is that (unfortunately) this is an answer that every manager of every large company has ready at the tip of their tongue. It pops out from rote memorization. Not about women, but about all employees: "We only give raises as part of the normal annual review process. I understand you think your compensation needs to be reconsidered because ...... and I'll make sure to discuss that with the rest of the management team at review time." It's not good, but it's a well rehearsed blow off answer for which every manager is trained.
I think he's a good guy who is handling the aftermath well. He gave a stupid answer and apologized. I honestly the bigger mistake is telling employees to trust the system, rather than a single off the cuff answer that didn't fit well.
And while I'm handing out praise, good for President Klawe for calling out Nadella on his answer and providing a better one. (She's been leading some great changes at my alma mater, and this sort of thing has a lot to do with why.)
First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf.
You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that.
The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option.
The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk.
The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.
Most people who are privileged are white. There's definitely a disproportionate representation. Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged. People who talk about "white privilege" as something extended to all whites haven't been in Appalachia recently.
Gender is much more complicated. There are overprivileged men and women, but gender norms are the strongest at the bottom and top of society, while the middle is most gender-egalitarian. That's why I have no problem making jokes about "rich Daddies" and "trophy wives" when I lampoon the upper class (which is not the same set of people as "the rich"). They actually are deeply sexist, so those depictions are pretty accurate. The result of this is that the upper class directs overprivileged women to the fatuous (sitting on boards of art galleries without understanding art, fashion, etc.) and overprivileged men to positions of power.
This is a misrepresentation of what white privilege means. It means that all things equal being white gives you an unearned advantage in (western) society. The same applies to gender-privilege, cis-privilege, wealth-privilege, and so on. Our society would be better if we wouldn't give or deny people opportunities based on those attributes.
All white people have white privilege, but a white person can obviously still be less privileged than a person of color. You can argue that "most white people are not privileged" because on an absolute privilege scale most white people aren't all doing so great, but that still semantic nonsense for the reason I give above. Nobody makes the ridiculous assertion that being white automatically makes your life awesome, so to use white privilege like that is a straw man. To put it simply: being white and poor in Appalachia sucks, but being a poor minority in Appalachia sucks worse. Therefore white privilege.