I am recently moved to the head of our small companies technical development team. Which means I am responsible for pretty much all the hiring of new developers and other technical talent. And we are growing, and need to hire more people.
I look at our team, and we have a really, really strong team right now. However....it is ridiculously not diverse. Of those who report up to me, we have 1 female (had 2 but our best developer left, damnit. Shit, now that I think of it she was the only one who wasn't white as well).
Everyone else is a young, white, college graduate. They are all very bright, hard working, and well paid for what they do.
The solutions team, which I am a part time part of, but is run by my colleague, is actually mostly female at the moment. 60% female. But again, all white.
The office is located in Minneapolis, and we get most of our recruits from the UofM, and other universities.
And as I go through my applicants, there just isn't much there outside a pretty narrow demographic.
I think this is a problem, in that ideally I would much rather have a more diverse work team. But that ideal is aspirational, not really practical, in that when I go to hire the next person, I want (and need) to hire the best one I can find, and simply put, the applicant pool I have access to at this time is distressingly narrow demographically.
So, honest question - I would really like to hear some *practical* ideas. In a STEM world, how do I go about getting more diversity into my applicant pool, so that I can hopefully end up finding highly qualified talent that better reflects a company that actually values diversity - at least, that is what we tell ourselves?
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
For instance, they should know the difference between hire and higher. :P
As a member of my school's diversity committee, I faced the same problem. Minority candidates made it clear that the most attractive thing for them, diversity-wise, was to join an already-diverse faculty. No one wanted to be among the few minority members of any given faculty. It was the chicken-and-the-egg problem. In order to have diversity, you needed to have diversity. Retention of the few minority faculty members was hard, because they were the targets of other schools to hire away.
The problem was never completely solved, but a big step forward was when we decided that we were going to hire native speakers of Spanish and French for our languages department. That broke up the almost monolithicly WAPH-ish appearance of the faculty and helped land some other minorities as well.
Is there some arena in your work where having a non-native-English-speaking person would be an asset? That doesn't help expand your applicant pool, but may help you land some of the few minority types that are in it. You definitely don't want to go for token hires.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 04, 2020, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
For instance, they should know the difference between hire and higher. :P
The purpose of language is communication. :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2020, 07:11:32 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 04, 2020, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
For instance, they should know the difference between hire and higher. :P
The purpose of language is communication. :D
You jackasses know what I meant.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
Yeah, that is the thing though - "best qualified" is a rather nebulous term.
In general, I think that is what we try to do though. However, like I said, we get most of our junior level applicants from the local universities. And doing that, has resulted in a team that has, literally, zero diversity.
What I want is to maintain the level of quality, but actually get some different groups in - I think that has value itself, hence the "best qualified" candidate may in fact be one who is best able to take us where we want to go in regards to being able to hire the NEXT best candidate, and retain our best candidates, and create the dynamic, diverse culture that we think will lead us to the greatest success.
It is not as simple as just "be fair, hire the most qualified".
Quote from: Berkut on July 04, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
Yeah, that is the thing though - "best qualified" is a rather nebulous term.
In general, I think that is what we try to do though. However, like I said, we get most of our junior level applicants from the local universities. And doing that, has resulted in a team that has, literally, zero diversity.
What I want is to maintain the level of quality, but actually get some different groups in - I think that has value itself, hence the "best qualified" candidate may in fact be one who is best able to take us where we want to go in regards to being able to hire the NEXT best candidate, and retain our best candidates, and create the dynamic, diverse culture that we think will lead us to the greatest success.
It is not as simple as just "be fair, hire the most qualified".
No, your spot on there. It is not simple or easy.
Kudos to you and your team for trying to do the right thing.
Here are a few things that have been made, tried, and even, at times, succeeded, in academic and professional context:
1) Cluster hires. grumbler is spot on: hiring only one person of under-represented group runs a real risk of tokenism, and will usually not change enough of the local culture to make a place of employment welcoming. Hire many underrepresented minorities offers some reassurances to new hires.
2) Dedicated headhunting. If you wait for an existing pipeline to change, when it's clear that existing pipeline tends to replicate the same uniform outcome, you are condemning yourself to wait forever. A lot of hiring happens through word-of-mouth, and when social circles are not diverse, word-of-mouth hires will not be diverse either. To specifically hunt for under-represented minorities in professional events can help quite a bit.
3) Contact the diversity office of UM. https://diversity.umn.edu/ They may have resources geared towards underrepresented minorities, and to establish yourself as proactive may actually yield some results. Don't forget about the regional branches of UM (Duluth, Rochester...)
4) You may want to contact Black Founders, Black Female Founders, Blacks in Technology, Black Girls Coders -- all organizations which have made it their mandate to promote black people in STEM careers. Blacks in Technology have an office in the Twin Cities. https://www.blacksintechnology.net/
5) Procure for yourself "White Fragility", by Robin di Angelo. It is a good way to at least examine preemptively one's impulses about tackling the issue.
6) Pay attention to promotions within the organization, which is a frequent cause for concern, as often, people of under-represented minorities are being ignored for promotion.
7) Be especially mindful of empty middle manager jargon that stands, often unreflexively, for discriminatory practices in hiring. Things like so and so candidate would not be "a good fit", or doesn't have "the spark".
I'll ask one of my colleagues (a former video game critic, now an academic) if he has some specific techno-related advice.
Pretty sure that, all my life, 100% of my teams are Chinese and everybody I hire are Cantonese-speaking Chinese. I don't think I have ever seen a non-Chinese applicant.
To add to Oex's list: the professional organizations that I recall actively promoting diversity when I was in undergrad include ACM-W, Society of Women Engineers, and National Society of Black Engineers. They may have resources, especially the university chapters.
Beyond that, do you have the ability to hire interns? That may be a way to affect the pipeline at an early stage.
Contact HBCUs directly? I'm not sure how anything works in the States, sorry if that sounds stupid.
I think step one is too stop waiting for candidates to come to you. If you offer great pay and conditions, you are acostomed to having not to do much work to find employees.
My work offers bad pay & alright conditions.
We're very diversified because we have to go & find employees, they don't come to us.
Except for women, women in programming are usually very good & not attracted to work for us.
Quote from: Maximus on July 04, 2020, 09:51:48 PM
To add to Oex's list: the professional organizations that I recall actively promoting diversity when I was in undergrad include ACM-W, Society of Women Engineers, and National Society of Black Engineers. They may have resources, especially the university chapters.
Beyond that, do you have the ability to hire interns? That may be a way to affect the pipeline at an early stage.
Very good suggestion, Berkut reach out the the universities/Tech institutes you want to recruit from. They will all have people who would be thrilled to assist you. Even if you do not want to hire directly out of school you will be able to tap into their network and word will spread about your efforts. Also, as Oex said, good on you!
Quote from: Zoupa on July 04, 2020, 09:56:49 PM
Contact HBCUs directly? I'm not sure how anything works in the States, sorry if that sounds stupid.
Unfortunately, unless they're willing to seek out of state (and they should be, ideally) people to move, there just aren't any in that area:
https://hbculifestyle.com/list-of-hbcu-schools/
Yeah for obvious reasons they tend to be in the South.
Quote from: Berkut on July 04, 2020, 06:42:35 PM
So, honest question - I would really like to hear some *practical* ideas. In a STEM world, how do I go about getting more diversity into my applicant pool, so that I can hopefully end up finding highly qualified talent that better reflects a company that actually values diversity - at least, that is what we tell ourselves?
there ain't many solutions, because you are at the end of the food chain. Who you will get to apply is determined at birth, by geography, and geography seems to be mostly determined by color in your country, from what I've read.
Blacks will often be segregated out of the best schools, will have an higher rate of school drop out and when they reach college it will often be public colleges and this don't seem to me like the best path to a promising carreer and since you want the best candidates, it will most likely require some practical experience in the same job you want them to accomplish.
The easiest part will be to attract women. For that, to put it simply, you need more women so the climate change. I've read real stories of the difficulties women face on construction (butt/breast grabbing, pointing at the breast saying "I want milk" and laughing :roll: ; discriminated on the jobs they are given, constantly sexually harrassed by a foreman, fired when they complain and have zero support from their union, etc).
The reality will obviously be different in a white collar company, but you still got to be careful about small gestures that could intimidate women when they work with men. Like that guy in the office who likes to brag about his sexual conquests, or those looking at scandily clad women's pictures on their computers, or simply having a macho attitude, dismissing an idea because it comes from the latest recruit and it happens to be a woman: she will perceive that as being discriminated for her sex. When you reject their ideas, you have to explain your reasoning for saying no. While with a man it's appreciated to be told tings like that, we won't perceive it as being rejected strictly for our sex.
I grew up on construction sites, surrounded my grown up men who liked to brag about lots of things. But whenever my mom was in the company's trailer during break time, they were much, much, much more reserved. Again, obvious difference here in time&space, but it gives you an idea of what happens when there is one woman in the room. Multiply that by 10 and you get a better work climate for everyone.
It might not be a problem in english, but the vocabulary chosen in your employment offer can have an influence. Men don't usually concern themselves with that, but if I am a woman who's been passed at promotions time&again for men not as competent as I was, any kind of perceived bias in the language might make me think this company is just like any other. Look at your past employment offers, look who applied, and ask yourself why a black person might not bother wasting its time with this offer. Job offers must be short, and to the point. Although we do often want to "over-ask" as to avoid spam resumes, we tend to eliminate shyer candidates this way. Half a page is enough.
Talk to your existing team members to precisely define the kind of candidate they want to work with, and try to redact the offer accordingly (easier said than done!), not specifically with what you have in mind. Talk to your former employee on why she left ("unemployment interview" I think... I read my HR stuff in French, contrary to economics and finance), was it only wage related? Did she perceive she was stalling where she was? Did she have a problem with someone?
Diversify your sources of recruitment. Talk to your other teams, ask for their input, ask if they know of any professionnal associations cathering to women/blacks/migrants/etc in their field, then contact them and ask for their help is distributing your job offers (they often have specific boards for that).
Interns. It's a pain in the ass to form someone and risk losing them when they finally developp. But it's a risk you'll have to take. You ideal candidate has 5 years of experience with software X, professional title Y, experience working in a group environment.... But, maybe you can find someone who does not have all that but who wil be better two years down the road. I don't have a CPA, so I'm not taken seriously by big corporations. But I know that for many companies, I'd be better than any given CPA for the job they are offering, because I know I already am by comparing myself with the clueless ones I meet.
So, invest in training. If you don't have the budget, try to get them. Company owners are often reluctant in doing that, because it is time consuming. And an employee on training is not 100% productive. And we tend to look at schools and consider (kinda rightly so) that it's their job to train the people we need. But various factors can enter into account, family situation might have prevented someone from completing school in the normal course and completing his/her degree in the usual number years, or attending an out of town college, or pursuing higher studies when you think the job requires them.
You can not substitute an entire degree by your on site training, but you can complement any lack of experience. See it that way: you get to train the person the way you want him/her to work, not the way someone else thought it should be done. this way, you might get a woman or a black person often rejected because they don't have the right contacts, because they didn't attend the right schools, because they never were offered and identical job, etc, etc. They are obviously paid less than a fully trained operative, and you will quickly see how good they are at learning, so you will still have the option of not offering them a "full" position at the end of their term.
You can talk to your local colleges&universities about setting up work term. My cousin began working for one of our client&supplier while he was still in technical college, for his mandatory work term, than got to work through summers and university though his other work terms there and after his graduation, until he decided to move out of town. Had his boss opted for a fully trained graduate like his superiors wanted at first, he would have missed an opportunity to work with an highly dedicated programmer. What he lacked in technical skills he made in his willingless to keep learning.
Flexibility is highly sought for many people and often quite lacking in bigger corporations, and especially in the US, I think? It is also often very difficult to implement when people need to work constantly in teams. But, if you can accomodate a worker who does not celebrate Christmas by letting her/him work during this time and instead taking a week off later, it can be appreciated. For women with young children, having the possibility to work from home when the kids are sick will be appreciated, as well as the possibility to start earlier and finish earlier, or even compress the work week if possible or in last resort work less hours during the week. Ofter the possibility to accumulate overtime and use the extra time as extra vacation days.
Freedom expression means freedom of expression. Your employees should always feel free to talk to you about something bothering them, a noisy coworker, a company policy, a specific demand (ex: taking part of a day off and finishing later), etc,etc. Sometimes employees are just being difficult, or simply have serious mental health issues, but other times, they have legitimate complaints/criticism. It's hard to convey this feeling without appearing to favour one group over another, so you have to take care of not alienating your non "diversity group".
To avoid the bias of only recruiting females (for the office work I had to do, 95% of candidates were women), and to avoid the criticism that I was selecting them on their looks (I didn't, but it was often perceived that way since I'm a guy recruiting women :roll: ), I often let the departing employees make a pre-selection of the resumes and had her explain to me why she wanted me to interview this candidate and not this candidate.
A variant would be to have your assistant give you "blind" resumes, with no names attached to make sure you are involuntarily selecting white males since its often easier to identify with your own group. Apparently, when we're reading resumes, we're all closet mysoginists and racists. :roll: I don't believe it has any use, but it's all the rage now.
You could make a first interview via e-mail, or via a specialized recruitment tool/site. You submit your question and the candidate answers sorta anonymously. This is beyond my level, but it's something I've been told by a former employee now working HR at the local hospital; apparently, it makes diversity candidates feel more confidant. Also, some specialized HR tools will let you filter resumes for specific keywords you want, this can help make sure you don't overlook one candidate or another when you have many job applicants.
Lastly: don't fucking bother with HR, hire someone else to do it :P
No, seriously, for some positions a headhunter could be worth it. Obviously not for a work intern, but if you need someone with a very specific skillset right now, it can be a valid, albeit costly option.
Quote from: Berkut on July 04, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
Yeah, that is the thing though - "best qualified" is a rather nebulous term.
In general, I think that is what we try to do though. However, like I said, we get most of our junior level applicants from the local universities. And doing that, has resulted in a team that has, literally, zero diversity.
What I want is to maintain the level of quality, but actually get some different groups in - I think that has value itself, hence the "best qualified" candidate may in fact be one who is best able to take us where we want to go in regards to being able to hire the NEXT best candidate, and retain our best candidates, and create the dynamic, diverse culture that we think will lead us to the greatest success.
It is not as simple as just "be fair, hire the most qualified".
Also, geographically speaking, if there aren't many women or non "whites" in your geographical area, in your field, you're going to have a problem recruiting them to work in your company, obviously, and you shouldn't but your head about it too much, if that is the case.
Construction companies are sorta pushed to hire women to increase diversity, but there ain't a ton of them to begin with, they tend to work in cities where they are most likely to work with other women and they tend to not do the most physical work, for obvious biological reasons, so not all companies can hire women even if they want to. Attaining parity as some have suggested is a fallacy. There are a lot more women working as nurses, doctors and teachers than men, and the general population is about 51% male -49% female.
But you could try to widen the net, so to speak. Try expanding your offers toward out of State universities&organizations and offer to pay the moving costs of the selected candidate, and/or help settle down.
PS: speaking of non native english speaker, you aren't searching for a controller, financial director, accountant, financial analyst, by any chance? Asking for a friend... :P
Don't do what a senior manager of mine once did and make a really awkward speech encouraging people to go and tick a box on the HR system declaring if they are gay, and if they don't feel comfortable doing that come and speak to him about it.
I'd say to not be afraid to look beyond university graduates. Especially in the US I would imagine the link between having a degree and being good at your job, especially in a field like coding where universities do nothing more than give out bits of paper, is low. I've ran into some great programmers who never went to university.
One last thing:
If your company offers perks like season tickets to minor league football, or baseball, maybe review the policy to include other sports (if there are any) that maybe more attractive to non white males.
Younger women here (20s-30s) tend to be more of football&hockey fans than women my age, but they are still a minority within their ranks. I do not know the demographics of the crowds for each US sports, so I can't judge, but you could maybe try to find some other perks, within your means, that appeal to a wider audience.
I've talked before of work-from-home, and now, suddenly, it's all the rage (as of 5 years ago, it was still regarded as failure in management and large companies were moving away from it), but this could be interesting if you recruit candidates that originally come from out of State. Maybe they want to spend an extra day or two with their relatives at Thanksgiving and they can do their work from there. My step-sis often does that and comes to work from my office when her nephews&nieces are at my dad's place, it let her extends her vacation, and avoid going to the office for a day or two and either spending the rest of the holydays alone home or missing paying work. And one of my cousin was just telling me today that is what she'll be doing next week, working from her father's house while her boyfriend and the kids enjoy some vacation time. She combines the best of both world this way.
Older workers who can afford a cottage out of town will appreciate having an appartment close to work and a place out of the city, away from the noise, from where they can work half the week. This could certainly help with general retention. Not everyone is a 20somethings who likes partying on the weekend (I've suddenly realized that...-sigh)
Quote from: Tyr on July 05, 2020, 03:12:45 AM
Don't do what a senior manager of mine once did and make a really awkward speech encouraging people to go and tick a box on the HR system declaring if they are gay, and if they don't feel comfortable doing that come and speak to him about it.
yeah, it's a sure way to make someone integrate in the group: "If you're a black tranny, please come forward".
Now, seriously, I forgot about sexual orientation and gender issues (thanks Tyr) diversity might also include transgenders, and that migt be the trickiest part. Lots of people will react adversely to such individuals, when it's obvious, and not just the ultra-religious conservatives, but quite often very liberal people who won't have any problems with gays&lesbians. You'll have to be prepared to deal with that if&when it happens.
Like Oex said, try to hire for more than one job at a time so you maximize your chances of hiring "diversity" candidates.
Like Viper said, interns could be a good option (if it fits your company), especially if you have more than one or two. Most of our interns are hired to be junior analysts and help shape the junior staff culture.
Do you sponsor work visas? We have quite a few employees straight out of undergrad who are citizens of non-US countries and need visas. That's been a good source of both diversity and talent.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 04, 2020, 10:01:49 PM
I think step one is too stop waiting for candidates to come to you. If you offer great pay and conditions, you are acostomed to having not to do much work to find employees.
My work offers bad pay & alright conditions.
We're very diversified because we have to go & find employees, they don't come to us.
Except for women, women in programming are usually very good & not attracted to work for us.
huh. That is a very interesting point, cannot say I've thought of that - I think we are pretty attractive, we pay well, its a kinda cool place to work, we have good bennies and such. So you are right, we *don't* have to really go out of our way to find candidates.
Lots of good ideas here....thanks everyone.
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2020, 02:59:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 04, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Be fair and higher the best qualified applicants.
Yeah, that is the thing though - "best qualified" is a rather nebulous term.
In general, I think that is what we try to do though. However, like I said, we get most of our junior level applicants from the local universities. And doing that, has resulted in a team that has, literally, zero diversity.
What I want is to maintain the level of quality, but actually get some different groups in - I think that has value itself, hence the "best qualified" candidate may in fact be one who is best able to take us where we want to go in regards to being able to hire the NEXT best candidate, and retain our best candidates, and create the dynamic, diverse culture that we think will lead us to the greatest success.
It is not as simple as just "be fair, hire the most qualified".
Also, geographically speaking, if there aren't many women or non "whites" in your geographical area, in your field, you're going to have a problem recruiting them to work in your company, obviously, and you shouldn't but your head about it too much, if that is the case.
Construction companies are sorta pushed to hire women to increase diversity, but there ain't a ton of them to begin with, they tend to work in cities where they are most likely to work with other women and they tend to not do the most physical work, for obvious biological reasons, so not all companies can hire women even if they want to. Attaining parity as some have suggested is a fallacy. There are a lot more women working as nurses, doctors and teachers than men, and the general population is about 51% male -49% female.
But you could try to widen the net, so to speak. Try expanding your offers toward out of State universities&organizations and offer to pay the moving costs of the selected candidate, and/or help settle down.
PS: speaking of non native english speaker, you aren't searching for a controller, financial director, accountant, financial analyst, by any chance? Asking for a friend... :P
LOL. We actually are looking for more people in some of those areas.
The company is in a weird place. We aren't that big, but we are growing. Oddly, enough, we just got smaller, because we split off the part of the company I work from from the part of the company that does more legacy, old system support. So while our team is exactly the same the company is "new" in a sense.
So we have the operations side very strong - since all three of the "executive" types are all operatioanal with lots of experience there. We have one office manager person, but she is actually shared with the other company, and will only be with us through the end of the year.
The owner, who is a friend of mine, handles pretty much all the sales and account level management. I handle the development, and my peer is in charge of professional services.
We have no accounting. We have no financials officer or even admin. No HR. No IT.
We are trying to figure a lot of that out - the problem is that we don't need a full time person for any of those jobs, at least no yet. We need a combo office manager, bookkeeper/accountant/CFO.
Quote from: Tyr on July 05, 2020, 03:12:45 AM
Don't do what a senior manager of mine once did and make a really awkward speech encouraging people to go and tick a box on the HR system declaring if they are gay, and if they don't feel comfortable doing that come and speak to him about it.
I'd say to not be afraid to look beyond university graduates. Especially in the US I would imagine the link between having a degree and being good at your job, especially in a field like coding where universities do nothing more than give out bits of paper, is low. I've ran into some great programmers who never went to university.
No question. There are a lot of really great developers out there without degrees.
Our struggle is that we are consultants in a very niche market (small to medium sized equipment financing) where knowing the market is critical. But we have a very specific technology stack (mostly Salesforce/Apex). So finding people with industry experience is very, very hard. Finding GOOD people with Salesforce experience is not as hard, but the good people are generally established and very, very expensive. Finding good people with industry experience? Basically not possible, or so rare that we cannot scale that way.
So we are kind of figuring that if we cannot find them, we will build them ourselves. Take young, ambitious, bright tech people out of college, and get them the industry experience ourselves. That takes...a long time. And I am worried that we are going to find that the moment we take them, teach them, and get them understanding both the technology and this industry, we are going to lose plenty of them.
Anwyay, it is certainly interesting.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 05, 2020, 09:40:40 AM
Like Viper said, interns could be a good option (if it fits your company), especially if you have more than one or two. Most of our interns are hired to be junior analysts and help shape the junior staff culture.
Do you sponsor work visas? We have quite a few employees straight out of undergrad who are citizens of non-US countries and need visas. That's been a good source of both diversity and talent.
We generally do not, mostly because
A) We haven't had to, and
B) We don't have anything like the expertise to do so. It seems like there are always lawyers and such involved.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2020, 06:33:10 PM
We are trying to figure a lot of that out - the problem is that we don't need a full time person for any of those jobs, at least no yet. We need a combo office manager, bookkeeper/accountant/CFO.
finding this combo will be hard, you practically need to groom them from a young age. Most people who study for accounting or finance want to do accounting or finance and don't relish the idea of doing bookkeeping, or you find someone who's excellent at bookkeeping but isn't that good when it comes to preparing financial statements alone, or evaluating new investment projects or negotiating loans.
And CFOs tend to want to work in bigger companies where they'll get more specialized work to do.
My advice:
Find yourself an excellent bookkeeper first. Have your friend train her so the books are kept the way he wants them to be, so he has the info that is relevent to him and fiscal/regulating industries.
Outsource the "heavier" accounting stuff to an accounting firm. It will likely cost as much as hiring someone full time to do part-time work, but you don't risk seeing that person leaving the company after 2 years because he/she's bored with not having a full work week (or isn't paid for a full work week all year long).
Once the company has grown enough, or your boss has a diversified portfolio of business investments, you can think of hiring yourself a CFO.
As for office management, that will likely be the next job post your company will have to fill. Unless you think your current higher management colleagues can handle the work with you on top of their usual workload, for now.
The temptation to grow quickly and higher lots of staff to manage everything is, well tempting (duh). But it has to be done carefully, because it becomes fixed costs, not easily flexible. Right now you're growing, but the situation could change quickly in one year and be forced to stall your growth. Growing too fast often brings liquidity problems.
The company is profitable, but you have way too much expenses to incur before your clients pays the company.
When you outsource the accounting, it brings a certain flexibility and that is gold for smaller companies still growing up.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2020, 06:38:02 PM
And I am worried that we are going to find that the moment we take them, teach them, and get them understanding both the technology and this industry, we are going to lose plenty of them.
That's a given. You won't be able to compete with bigger, well established firms when it comes to wages and incentive packages.
Try to rely on what differentiates you from bigger corporations and try to emphazie it in your communications, verbal and non verbal.
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2020, 07:32:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2020, 06:38:02 PM
And I am worried that we are going to find that the moment we take them, teach them, and get them understanding both the technology and this industry, we are going to lose plenty of them.
That's a given. You won't be able to compete with bigger, well established firms when it comes to wages and incentive packages.
Try to rely on what differentiates you from bigger corporations and try to emphazie it in your communications, verbal and non verbal.
Oh, I get it.
When we lost one of our best devs, the afore mentioned young woman who was only with us about a year, but was amazing....my boss was all in crisis mode. "What could we have done different? What went wrong? Should we have paid her more?" She left about 6 weeks after I gave here a 35% raise.
Shrug. I liked her a lot, we got along great, and had a great exit interview. She left because she wanted to do different things, a broader exposure to a harder and more industry relevant technology stack than we provided. Whaddya gonna do?
So he pivots to "OK, well we have to hire better so we don't hire people and invest in them for 18 months just so they leave! How could we have better understood her goals when we interviewed her so we could have gotten someone almost as good who would be willing to stay longer????"
I was like. "Dude. We are hiring 20something kids fresh out of college. There is no way we can figure out what they are going to want in a year, because THEY don't know what they are going to want in a year!"
It's just part of doing business in this manner. If we want to hire people right out of college, we have to accept that a decent percentage are not going to stay long. They are going to realize they want something more hard core, or more interesting, or they are going to get married and move away, or just decide that it is too damn cold in Minneapolis or want to go backpack in Australia, or join a cult or god knows what. They are young, young adults! Stability is not their thing!
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2020, 07:43:45 PM
They are young, young adults! Stability is not their thing!
yeah, it's sad. For employers, at least.
On average, I had a new assistant every year. Sometimes, 1 for 3 years, sometimes, 3 in one year. You try to give them more responsibilities, they break under pressure. Don't give enough and they want a bigger challenge.
I suck at HR. And I generally distrust HR&management consultants that seem to come up with some new catchy song every decade.
Well, you already know you have to hire recent college graduate and those who have yet to complete their studies. Nearly no one stays put for 50 years now. Ain't much more to do in this regard, and I doubt shelling 20 000$ for an HR mandate to evaluate your recruiting practice would yeild anything different than what you already know :)
Good luck with the diversity recruitment :)
You've gotten some really good suggestions from folks, so I won't belabor those. As for how to keep employees longer than 18-24 months, that's hard. The younger generations are looking for alternative ways to grow their experience as that's what they've been told is what they should be doing. My current finance department is primarily younger folks. Our average turn-over is 24-36 months.
Our Sr. VP has started a program of rotating employees around to different projects within the company every 18-24 months. Each shuffle is voluntary, and it allows the employees to delve into a different aspect of the work we do. This way we don't lose their expertise, they get to build their knowledge, and the company isn't adversely impacted by having to hire new people so often.
It sounds like your company is smaller, so I'm not sure how much diversity you have in the work the teams do, but it's working well for us. Our turn-over rate has dropped dramatically since this went into place.
Meri's right. I've seen that shuffle work, though admittedly in huge companies.
OTOH, why restrict yourselves to candidates in their 20s? In my experience there tends to come a time when people become less prone to jump ship. In fact, "I want stability" was my answer when the interviewer asked me why I wanted to leave my old job. There's no way 25 year old me would have said that.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2020, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 05, 2020, 03:12:45 AM
Don't do what a senior manager of mine once did and make a really awkward speech encouraging people to go and tick a box on the HR system declaring if they are gay, and if they don't feel comfortable doing that come and speak to him about it.
I'd say to not be afraid to look beyond university graduates. Especially in the US I would imagine the link between having a degree and being good at your job, especially in a field like coding where universities do nothing more than give out bits of paper, is low. I've ran into some great programmers who never went to university.
No question. There are a lot of really great developers out there without degrees.
Our struggle is that we are consultants in a very niche market (small to medium sized equipment financing) where knowing the market is critical. But we have a very specific technology stack (mostly Salesforce/Apex). So finding people with industry experience is very, very hard. Finding GOOD people with Salesforce experience is not as hard, but the good people are generally established and very, very expensive. Finding good people with industry experience? Basically not possible, or so rare that we cannot scale that way.
So we are kind of figuring that if we cannot find them, we will build them ourselves. Take young, ambitious, bright tech people out of college, and get them the industry experience ourselves. That takes...a long time. And I am worried that we are going to find that the moment we take them, teach them, and get them understanding both the technology and this industry, we are going to lose plenty of them.
Anwyay, it is certainly interesting.
This is my main issue. It takes years to train an associate to the level we need them to be and more to take them to the level where they can attract their own work. I am not sure how transferable this experience is, but I have had very good retention and I think it is because I give over as much authority as possible and perhaps more than the person themselves thinks they are ready for with the understanding that they can always call for help and I will step back in if required without downside to them. That way they have a path forward while also having a safety net. The fact that they can see a future benefit down the line keeps them here. The grass is no longer greener on the other side of the fence - more like a jungle.
On law firms I saw an article today about City firms signing up for a pledge to work on this, but there was one interesting stat:
QuoteAccording to research by Rare, many BAME lawyer do not find their firms' cultures inclusive and, on average, BAME lawyers spend 20% less time at firms than their white colleagues before leaving.
So it isn't just about hiring but also retention.
I think the pledge includes commitments to analyse interview and offer rates, retention rates, pay and promotion rates - also to have racism covered as part of the induction and exit process, plus annual surveys as well as formal mentoring and reverse mentoring stuff. All of which seems fairly common sense and will hopefully identify issues.
Edit: Also I wonder if it'd be worth considering name blind CVs - especially if a recruitment team or recruiter does some weeding out. There's really strong evidence of the impact of names on a CV in a lot of countries.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 06, 2020, 01:20:25 PMI think the pledge includes commitments to analyse interview and offer rates, retention rates, pay and promotion rates - also to have racism covered as part of the induction and exit process, plus annual surveys as well as formal mentoring and reverse mentoring stuff. All of which seems fairly common sense and will hopefully identify issues.
Most of these exit processes result in a hefty amount of BS if the culture of the firm was not welcoming in the first place. Bringing up issues of racism brings out a lot of defensiveness from white colleagues / supervisors, and the last thing you usually want, is to confront that sort of conversation yet again while you are on your way out.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 06, 2020, 01:29:58 PM
Most of these exit processes result in a hefty amount of BS if the culture of the firm was not welcoming in the first place. Bringing up issues of racism brings out a lot of defensiveness from white colleagues / supervisors, and the last thing you usually want, is to confront that sort of conversation yet again while you are on your way out.
I don't know. I've never left anywhere with an exit process so have never experienced. It's a fair point but I think it's normally handled by another team/external consultants because they're more likely to be honest - and in Britain especially it's less likely to lead to an uncomfortable conversation. I mean even if it's not racism I imagine people get very defensive if they're being told why people are leaving, so they might take it more seriously if it comes from someone sort of outside their team?
We hire nearly all of our junior analysts straight out of undergrad and they typically leave after 2-4 years. A handful will stay on longer and get promoted into a senior analysts or even go on to management, but most leave for graduate school or other opportunities. We fully recognize that we're not going to keep them around for more than that, and we support them by providing workshops on applying for graduate school. We also train them with their short tenure in mind: in my practice, a typical new hire will spend two to four weeks exclusively on training and then a month on a mix of training and client work. After two months, we expect that they should be experienced enough in at least one project type to be able to take an active role, though a more experience senior analyst will do the second review. By six months, their work should be of sufficient quality that another junior analyst can do it (i.e., someone with over a year experience), and by a year, they should be able to do some training for the new hires. In the four years I've worked there, I've seen good and bad analysts, but the system overall seems to work well. The exact system isn't necessarily transferable, but I think the key idea, of developing your training and expectations around the idea that most young people will leave after a short period of time, is.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 06, 2020, 10:09:19 PM
We hire nearly all of our junior analysts straight out of undergrad and they typically leave after 2-4 years. A handful will stay on longer and get promoted into a senior analysts or even go on to management, but most leave for graduate school or other opportunities. We fully recognize that we're not going to keep them around for more than that, and we support them by providing workshops on applying for graduate school. We also train them with their short tenure in mind: in my practice, a typical new hire will spend two to four weeks exclusively on training and then a month on a mix of training and client work. After two months, we expect that they should be experienced enough in at least one project type to be able to take an active role, though a more experience senior analyst will do the second review. By six months, their work should be of sufficient quality that another junior analyst can do it (i.e., someone with over a year experience), and by a year, they should be able to do some training for the new hires. In the four years I've worked there, I've seen good and bad analysts, but the system overall seems to work well. The exact system isn't necessarily transferable, but I think the key idea, of developing your training and expectations around the idea that most young people will leave after a short period of time, is.
Yeah, that is exactly how I feel.
I think if a few stick around longer, that should be seen as a bonus for us, and we should value them greatly. Leaving after a year is probably not ideal, in that we don't get much useful out of them mostly, but after two years it should almost be considered the norm for hiring right out of college.
My employer simply pays more than the competition. To get a job that pays better I would have to move to Barcelona or Madrid, and I'd need a raise of at least 20-25% just to overcome the CoL differential. Our juniors make well over typical entry positions as well (and none has left in the past 5 years).
My brother's employer is one step beyond that. Their conclusion was that it was most efficient to only hire devs with 10+ years experience (and pay top-euro).
Maybe not directly applicable but somewhat related:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-finds-salary-history-bans-boost-pay-for-african-americans-women-11592472602?st=8qn3xc11iqii1vk&fbclid=Iw (https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-finds-salary-history-bans-boost-pay-for-african-americans-women-11592472602?st=8qn3xc11iqii1vk&fbclid=Iw)AR3qil1APo9UguBfUTcClremfV4WlZNGQYxpk5vEYl1DvLGUOtni_WaZ994
Quote from: Maximus on July 12, 2020, 10:21:09 AM
Maybe not directly applicable but somewhat related:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-finds-salary-history-bans-boost-pay-for-african-americans-women-11592472602?st=8qn3xc11iqii1vk&fbclid=Iw (https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-finds-salary-history-bans-boost-pay-for-african-americans-women-11592472602?st=8qn3xc11iqii1vk&fbclid=Iw)AR3qil1APo9UguBfUTcClremfV4WlZNGQYxpk5vEYl1DvLGUOtni_WaZ994
See, this is fucking awesome.
I mean that literally - what a great example of how institutional bias can be perpetuated without the person doing the perpetuating even knowing they are doing it, or even THINKING ABOUT it at all.
I do that all the time when I interview someone who already has a job. Once they have gotten beyond my initial investigation into whether I want to hire them based on their skills and fit, the question of salary expectation always comes up, of course. I want to know what it will take to get them to come to my team, and whether that makes sense. So I definitely ask, as nicely as I can, "What are you looking for" and "What are you making now?"
And I am not a fool, I am not going to pay someone more just because, so if they say they are making X now, I am going to offer them X+some percentage.
It would never even cross my mind to consider that if they were making less because of their gender or race, I just offered them less money on that exact same basis.
I don't know what the solution is though.
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
It's a very common question to be asked during the interview process. The best response is typically a vague range with maybe a little inflation rather than a direct amount.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
It's a very common question to be asked during the interview process. The best response is typically a vague range with maybe a little inflation rather than a direct amount.
Yeah, seems weird to give away that kind of information in a business negotiation. And you're not only giving away information about yourself, you're also giving away information about your current employer, which isn't really a classy thing to do.
I've been asked that question in pretty much every interview. I don't think I've ever answered truthfully. I know that they are going to use it against me, so I tailor my answer accordingly.
I've only been asked that by recruiters. Same with salary expectations.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
It's a very common question to be asked during the interview process. The best response is typically a vague range with maybe a little inflation rather than a direct amount.
Yeah, seems weird to give away that kind of information in a business negotiation. And you're not only giving away information about yourself, you're also giving away information about your current employer, which isn't really a classy thing to do.
Agreed on all fronts, though it should be noted that the more progressive employers are beginning to avoid that sort of question. One job I applied for recently made an explicit acknowledgement of their commitment to avoiding bias by expressly stating that they will not ask current/previous compensation. I thought that was pretty impressive.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 12, 2020, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
It's a very common question to be asked during the interview process. The best response is typically a vague range with maybe a little inflation rather than a direct amount.
You may be required to submit proof of the current salary before getting an offer. Yes, obviously that's an abuse of potential employer's negotiating power, but that's what the situation is sometimes.
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
In the UK you are expected to tell them that before you even talk to anyone, or at the latest when the recruiter calls you.
I always give a range of what I'll need with the least amount that I'll take at the 30% level of that range. When they ask what I make now, I defer to answer, for the reason that Berkut mentioned. I'm not giving anyone an opportunity to pay me at a lower range. All they need to know is what I'm willing to accept, not what my current salary is.
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
How did what she made at her present job come up?
Quote from: Tamas on July 13, 2020, 07:33:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
In the UK you are expected to tell them that before you even talk to anyone, or at the latest when the recruiter calls you.
What do they say when the answer is "because of an NDA I cannot tell you"?
And a more general point: how often do you interview for a job that is exactly like the one you already have? A current job may or may not have anything at all to do with the job the person is interviewing for.
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2020, 10:59:30 AM
Do people in the US say what they make now before they've heard an offer?
This is starting to become illegal in the United States, actually. It is now illegal in Illinois, for example (a law banning the practice went into effect last year). I think it might be illegal in California now too?
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Got me, but that is very, very rarely done.
In this case, she was referred to us by someone else anyway, not in response to a specific job posting.
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Because they are the ones with less leverage and in a weaker position. So this is exploited by being vague with the salary they can expect and wanting to learn what they earn. I guess from a business point of view this is solid practice in squeezing every penny out of your new hires. Morally is questionable of course.
I addition making the salary public might cause problems with current employees who make less doing the same thing.
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Got me, but that is very, very rarely done.
In this case, she was referred to us by someone else anyway, not in response to a specific job posting.
Ok, if it was not a job posting and a referal instead then I can see it how it proceeded that way, but maybe the subject should have been touched upon earlier in the process then.
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
That's almost never done, even though it would obviously be helpful in avoiding the waste of everyone's time. I guess the companies perceive it to give up too much negotiating advantage.
I think there is a lot to be said about outlawing salary negotiation itself. Just have a formula for job grade and maybe some minor objective modifiers, and have this formula be public. If someone is exceptional, they deserve an exceptional job grade, and don't tie the job grade to management responsibilities so tightly as most companies do. An individual who's not a professional negotiator will rarely come off well when up against a company that does this for a living, and there is evidence that some groups of people do worse than others at this game. Anything that contributes to salaries being a negotiation, or to lack of transparency about compensation, serves to benefit the company over the individual.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 09:53:09 AM
I think there is a lot to be said about outlawing salary negotiation itself. Just have a formula for job grade and maybe some minor objective modifiers, and have this formula be public. If someone is exceptional, they deserve an exceptional job grade, and don't tie the job grade to management responsibilities so tightly as most companies do. An individual who's not a professional negotiator will rarely come off well when up against a company that does this for a living, and there is evidence that some groups of people do worse than others at this game. Anything that contributes to salaries being a negotiation, or to lack of transparency about compensation, serves to benefit the company over the individual.
FWIW I think it would be a horrible idea, for many reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 09:53:09 AM
That's almost never done, even though it would obviously be helpful in avoiding the waste of everyone's time. I guess the companies perceive it to give up too much negotiating advantage.
I think there is a lot to be said about outlawing salary negotiation itself. Just have a formula for job grade and maybe some minor objective modifiers, and have this formula be public. If someone is exceptional, they deserve an exceptional job grade, and don't tie the job grade to management responsibilities so tightly as most companies do. An individual who's not a professional negotiator will rarely come off well when up against a company that does this for a living, and there is evidence that some groups of people do worse than others at this game. Anything that contributes to salaries being a negotiation, or to lack of transparency about compensation, serves to benefit the company over the individual.
That's the way a lot of public sector jobs work. Those are the ones where you're most likely to see salary figures in the job advert too. It's very rare in the private sector here but it does happen.
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 09:53:09 AM
I think there is a lot to be said about outlawing salary negotiation itself. Just have a formula for job grade and maybe some minor objective modifiers, and have this formula be public. If someone is exceptional, they deserve an exceptional job grade, and don't tie the job grade to management responsibilities so tightly as most companies do. An individual who's not a professional negotiator will rarely come off well when up against a company that does this for a living, and there is evidence that some groups of people do worse than others at this game. Anything that contributes to salaries being a negotiation, or to lack of transparency about compensation, serves to benefit the company over the individual.
FWIW I think it would be a horrible idea, for many reasons.
Such as?
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:44:26 AM
Ok, if it was not a job posting and a referal instead then I can see it how it proceeded that way, but maybe the subject should have been touched upon earlier in the process then.
When I interviewed for my current role, salary was the first topic of the first interview.
It's the only time that has happened and I'm guessing it was because I was then working in Germany, and they suspected I'd ask for too much. In the end I already knew how much they were allowed to pay, and that there were almost no qualified candidates, so going first worked well for me. Despite no actual experience I got higher salary than most of my peers.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 09:53:09 AM
I think there is a lot to be said about outlawing salary negotiation itself. Just have a formula for job grade and maybe some minor objective modifiers, and have this formula be public. If someone is exceptional, they deserve an exceptional job grade, and don't tie the job grade to management responsibilities so tightly as most companies do. An individual who's not a professional negotiator will rarely come off well when up against a company that does this for a living, and there is evidence that some groups of people do worse than others at this game. Anything that contributes to salaries being a negotiation, or to lack of transparency about compensation, serves to benefit the company over the individual.
FWIW I think it would be a horrible idea, for many reasons.
Such as?
Taking away people's right to negotiate what is often their biggest business deal strikes me as fundamentally very unsound, and a huge invasion of the private sphere. It also seems horribly ill-suited to the reality that small and medium organizations operate in. And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations I don't see a problem that needs solving, and least of all solving by extremely heavy-handed measures.
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations
There's a lot of injustice and effective societies reward skills in addition to negotiating.
Quote from: chipwich on July 13, 2020, 11:46:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations
There's a lot of injustice and effective societies reward skills in addition to negotiating.
I don't follow. What are you talking about?
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Taking away people's right to negotiate what is often their biggest business deal strikes me as fundamentally very unsound, and a huge invasion of the private sphere.
Sometimes you're better off not having a right. When you have a right to do something, you can also be coerced to do it. If you don't have a right to accept a salary much below what your position warrants, you won't be coerced to do it. The areas where negotiating power is very unequal are classical prisoner dilemma cases where less rights can amount to more freedom.
QuoteIt also seems horribly ill-suited to the reality that small and medium organizations operate in. And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations I don't see a problem that needs solving, and least of all solving by extremely heavy-handed measures.
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Taking away people's right to negotiate what is often their biggest business deal strikes me as fundamentally very unsound, and a huge invasion of the private sphere.
Sometimes you're better off not having a right. When you have a right to do something, you can also be coerced to do it. If you don't have a right to accept a salary much below what your position warrants, you won't be coerced to do it. The areas where negotiating power is very unequal are classical prisoner dilemma cases where less rights can amount to more freedom.
QuoteIt also seems horribly ill-suited to the reality that small and medium organizations operate in. And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations I don't see a problem that needs solving, and least of all solving by extremely heavy-handed measures.
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
Our views on these matters are very different and we will never agree.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Taking away people's right to negotiate what is often their biggest business deal strikes me as fundamentally very unsound, and a huge invasion of the private sphere.
Sometimes you're better off not having a right. When you have a right to do something, you can also be coerced to do it. If you don't have a right to accept a salary much below what your position warrants, you won't be coerced to do it. The areas where negotiating power is very unequal are classical prisoner dilemma cases where less rights can amount to more freedom.
QuoteIt also seems horribly ill-suited to the reality that small and medium organizations operate in. And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations I don't see a problem that needs solving, and least of all solving by extremely heavy-handed measures.
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
I'm with you. Brain's idea would break down very quickly, as existing employees learn that they are going to be much better compensated if they are as difficult in performance reviews as they can be. While keeping the salary system opaque may look to be to the company's benefit, it isn't, if it drives away people who feel that their are being treated unfairly because other employees who contribute less get paid more, just for being willing to be assholes.
Transparency works best except when it would result in the managers having to explain stupid compensation decisions.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2020, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 13, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Taking away people's right to negotiate what is often their biggest business deal strikes me as fundamentally very unsound, and a huge invasion of the private sphere.
Sometimes you're better off not having a right. When you have a right to do something, you can also be coerced to do it. If you don't have a right to accept a salary much below what your position warrants, you won't be coerced to do it. The areas where negotiating power is very unequal are classical prisoner dilemma cases where less rights can amount to more freedom.
QuoteIt also seems horribly ill-suited to the reality that small and medium organizations operate in. And since there is no injustice in people who are better at negotiating getting better results in negotiations I don't see a problem that needs solving, and least of all solving by extremely heavy-handed measures.
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
I'm with you. Brain's idea would break down very quickly, as existing employees learn that they are going to be much better compensated if they are as difficult in performance reviews as they can be. While keeping the salary system opaque may look to be to the company's benefit, it isn't, if it drives away people who feel that their are being treated unfairly because other employees who contribute less get paid more, just for being willing to be assholes.
Transparency works best except when it would result in the managers having to explain stupid compensation decisions.
I don't follow. My idea (having salaray negotiations legal), which is in effect in many countries, has broken down very quickly?
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
I don't understand how you can be against negotiation in practical terms.
You are the best cook in town. The restaurant you work for is paying you $35k. The other restaurant in town realizes how awesome you are, and offers $45k. So you decide to take that job and you give your employer notice and tell him why. However, the restaurant you are at is willing to offer you $50k to stay. Are they allowed to give you that raise? If so, isn't that negotiation (I'm walking if you don't pay me more)?
If not, are they allowed to make you an offer of $50k after you quit? What sense does that make?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2020, 12:38:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
I don't understand how you can be against negotiation in practical terms.
You are the best cook in town. The restaurant you work for is paying you $35k. The other restaurant in town realizes how awesome you are, and offers $45k. So you decide to take that job and you give your employer notice and tell him why. However, the restaurant you are at is willing to offer you $50k to stay. Are they allowed to give you that raise? If so, isn't that negotiation (I'm walking if you don't pay me more)?
If not, are they allowed to make you an offer of $50k after you quit? What sense does that make?
The awesome cook should be in a different job grade. Maybe he should be Senior Cook or Principal Cook, and be compensated according to that job grade. Yes, I realize that there is still some room for negotiation over what your job grade is, but that's far less opaque than private salary negotiations.
Seems to me that spending time and energy on trying to artificially approximate something that you arrive at naturally and quickly with negotiations would be incredibly wasteful, especially for small and medium organizations.
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Got me, but that is very, very rarely done.
In this case, she was referred to us by someone else anyway, not in response to a specific job posting.
Ok, if it was not a job posting and a referal instead then I can see it how it proceeded that way, but maybe the subject should have been touched upon earlier in the process then.
That is what I said!
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 13, 2020, 09:20:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 13, 2020, 07:31:46 AM
WEll, to be fair, a lot of times it is just a short cut to avoid wasting everyones time.
I was interviewing someone last month, and she was freaking awesome. Great experience, lots of skills we desperately needed. My peer interviewed her, my boss interviewed her, then I interviewed her. At the end of my interview, the salary issue came up, and she said what she would like, and what she would need to consider the position.
That number was nearly double my own salary.
Kind of wish we had gotten that deal breaker out of the way a lot earlier.
Why didn't your company publish as part of the job description the salary that the position would offer? If she had known from the beginning she wouldn't have even applied, saving everyone plenty of time. I never knew why the onus is always put on the potential employee to offer the initial number and then barter from that starting point.
Got me, but that is very, very rarely done.
In this case, she was referred to us by someone else anyway, not in response to a specific job posting.
Ok, if it was not a job posting and a referal instead then I can see it how it proceeded that way, but maybe the subject should have been touched upon earlier in the process then.
That is what I said!
And I agreed with you on that. :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 01:02:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 13, 2020, 12:38:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
I don't think it's right for a programmer who's a better negotiator to be paid more. Their job is programming, not negotiating. Negotiation is often a wasteful zero-sum activity that takes up time and goodwill, at the end one person's win is another person's loss.
I don't understand how you can be against negotiation in practical terms.
You are the best cook in town. The restaurant you work for is paying you $35k. The other restaurant in town realizes how awesome you are, and offers $45k. So you decide to take that job and you give your employer notice and tell him why. However, the restaurant you are at is willing to offer you $50k to stay. Are they allowed to give you that raise? If so, isn't that negotiation (I'm walking if you don't pay me more)?
If not, are they allowed to make you an offer of $50k after you quit? What sense does that make?
The awesome cook should be in a different job grade. Maybe he should be Senior Cook or Principal Cook, and be compensated according to that job grade. Yes, I realize that there is still some room for negotiation over what your job grade is, but that's far less opaque than private salary negotiations.
Sounds like a huge administrative burden try to put all possible tasks and skill sets into a grid and then try to plug someone into that grid. It can work for a rigid organization like the public sector but not so well in the private sector where flexibility is key.
For example you are hiring for position x but someone comes along with that skill set and more. A lot of organizations will take that person in and expand the things she can do for them. In those circumstances salary negotiation is unavoidable. The reverse also happens, you can't find the skills for the position you had in mind but a it is possible to get by with a candidate with lesser skills in another lesser role.
Your scenario only works in a Brazil (the movie) like environment of excessive red tape.