I see a similar effect that drives me nuts:

Corp: "We only hire the best, but we can't find any good people. There must be an industry shortage of good engineers!"

Me: "What about $candidate that we interviewed last week, I thought you liked him?"

Corp: "He was great! But he wanted too much money"

Me: "..."

And almost always these places pay their conference-calling-bullshitters top dollar. But it's like the apocalypse if you try to get more money for the people that actually do things.

The thing about salespeople is that you can objectively determine their value over any given time period. That's how they should be paid: a very small base salary that wouldn't cover their mortgage, coupled with a clear and unambiguous bonus structure that gives them a reasonable amount of money when they hit the targets that make the company profitable.

Salespeople "actually do things". The problems come when you make a stupid compensation plan or don't fire the ones who consistently underperform.

The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money.

They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product.

I would argue it's equally hard to objectively measure the value of a salesperson, but as there's already specific figures one can latch onto, it's easy to think it's easy.

> The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money.

> They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product.

It is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. Sales staff can't make money if they have nothing to sell, and engineers can't build product if they have no customers.

The sales staff is just as critical as the product development staff for the company making money. Rare is the product that can sell itself.

This $5 Billion Software Company Has No Sales Staff

Atlassian sold $320 million worth of business software last year without a single sales employee. Everyone else in the industry noticed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/this-5-bil...

They have sales people.

They just recycle this same story every year and get tons of press for it.

Depends how you define "sales staff". They need to sell their product in order to make money and they certainly have employees who provide a conduit for customers to buy JIRA.

Their sales costs are low, but maybe not having more sale people is negatively affecting revenue growth?

A single anecdote disproves "rare"?

Good for them. How many other companies have tried the same thing and failed?

In fact, a great way to increase your reputation as an engineer at your job is to talk to the top sales people at the company and help them improve the product in ways that will help them selling more. It will open up very interesting career options that are normally not available to most engineers.

Sales staff are out there, talking to customers. Since no product is truly complete, they are the best source of information about what customers actually want.

Too many programmers are smugly crossing their arms, saying they know what's best for customers without ever talking to them. Programmers are generally far more responsible than sales people for poor product quality.

True.

But there are also many cases when sales people force the product development team to implement the most idiotic "feature", because "we think the client is ready to sign the check and this is really important to them". The bad side of commission-based compensation is that they want to close the sale, no matter how harmful (in the long term) it can be.

The only thing "idiotic" about customer-requested features, especially on high-ticket items, is when they introduce excessive technical debt. This can come in the form of code instability, disrupting development schedules, etc. Features that do more harm than good to the product and the business.

Beyond that, it's not idiotic. It's just stuff the programmers don't care about. Price you pay for getting a paycheck.

Not every request from the customer makes sense.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -- Henry Ford.

That's where "excessive technical debt" comes into play.

My spouse actually deals with this more than I do. She's a product owner/analyst in international e-commerce, a very deep subject/domain expert in a narrow field. Customers, not really understanding the complexities of the domain, ask for things that are often technically impossible, illegal, or self-destructive. But she's serving as a first line of defense for engineers, educating sales reps and customers (and executives) about the nature of their business, and what can/should/shouldn't be done.

I agree, there's a balance. I don't personally think that sales people have no value.

I think my point is that with sales people, there's usually actual numbers involved (that the salesperson has visibility of), which can help anchor perceived value. But it's still potentially hard to actually determine value.

"The counter-point is that without something to sell"

Never met a salesperson who was deterred from selling something by the trivial detail that it doesn't actually exist. ;-)

"Sir, I promised the client that it would have Feature X, and the developers are refusing, saying it will take too long!"

This is consistent with my impression of how sales work. You sell a feature, product, capability, etc that won't be ready for at least 6 months (for example). Then you kindly encourage an engineer to build it.

Heh, "But it could, theoretically exist right?"

Supply and demand are two sides to the same coin.

Sales and marketing generate demand. Engineering and manufacturing generates supply. Both must exist for a product to be meaningful in the market.

The labor theory of value, you see, is bunk. The product is worth only what the buyer will pay for it. And much of the time, a salescritter can convince someone to pay so much more for a product above cost that the difference pays for the salesperson's work, and still leaves some left over for R&D, or other nice things.

Don't get me wrong. I still hate smarmy, schmoozing salesfolk with the passion of one ten-thousandth of a sun. But they aren't entirely useless. They do add value to a company in their own right. It is as a value multiplier, though. There still has to be some value added before you can multiply it.

it also helps attract the better salespeople if there are higher tiers of "somewhat unreasonable" payouts for spectacular results. but again, as you said, all targets must be clear & unambiguous. it should be extremely hard to hit top bonus tiers quarter over quarter. and if they do, your company should be on its way to an IPO. watch out for the ego on that account exec :)

Except those things they "actually do" tend to make my life miserable, as they overpromise to the client and then expect engineering to save their ass. It's never sales that has to sacrifice their time to meet deadlines.

If we had a just world, any salesperson who did that would be forced to forfeit their commission to the engineering staff who's saving their ass.

For the sake of lucidity, I wasn't thinking of excluding (most) sales roles from "people that do things" - but as an engineer, you should still be looking for "basic" parity in remuneration between the top sales and the top engineers (even if it's structured differently.). If the two figures are completely untethered from each other, then it's a good sign the place either doesn't value business acumen (if engineers are paid highly and there are not good incentives for sales) or technical systems (if salespeople are all driving a Lexus' and they are stiffing developers). Both are deadly. I was merely pointing out that the latter fallacy tends to be indicated in mock conversation described.

When you tie someone's compensation to performance, you don't always get the results you're looking for.

It seems to promote short-term gains over long term goals.

See IMSAI in the 1970s for a great example of needing to hit goals at all costs.

If you don't recognize the value that good sales people bring, then you don't understand enough about business to make any determination of how much anyone should be paid.

That's because from their frame of reference, conference-call BS is Real Work(TM).

I worked at a company who almost passed on a candidate because the company thought the offer was too low, and they were worried he'd get frustrated and move on.

I've had that happen to me, twice. "You're overqualified for this job, three months from now you'll find something better". I was making a lousy salary at the time so I was quite bummed by that...

That sounds exactly like a conversation I had with a taxi driver in London. His friend was struggling to find programmers with the right skills. Well they were there, but they wanted too much money!

If someone says to you:

"we're looking for people who aren't just motivated by money"

You should counter:

"there's no shortage of meaningful problems; I'd be irresponsible if I didn't work on the one that improves my family's standard of living the most"

"I'm sorry, I'm looking for employers who aren't just motivated by work."

actually they are motivated by money it's just a transfert.

"Money is the measure of how valuable my work is to you. Are you saying you don't value my work as much as your competitors do?"

No, it's a piece. Vacation days, for example.

Well, compensation in general.

I agree with your later point about not wanting to be surrounded by people who are _only_ in it for the money. In fact, I took a small pay cut when I left me last job because I was (and still am) very excited about my new company's projects and aspirations. In my experience, though, "we don't want people who are motivated by money" has always been code for "we pay like ass and we're going to Stockholm Syndrome you into feeling like the privilege of working 12 hours a day is worth our $30K below market salary".

If I didn't need money, I wouldn't be looking for employment. I'd be hiring other people to work on my dreams instead. All else being equal, yeah, I'm going to the place with a bigger check.

A place that says "We want people who are motivated by more than just money" isn't going to be the place that is going to take kindly to someone using up their (probably meager) amount of vacation each year.

You're probably right about "read between the lines", but still, even just as a worker I'd prefer to work with people who are here for more than just collecting a paycheck.

Most people would, but I'd also like to get paid very well while doing it. Most of the places that emphasize "we don't want people here just for a paycheck" end up being very shitty places to work, as they try to make your entire life be work.

Or more simplistic:

"Me also."

Yep.

I called BS on Chris Dixon on this on Twitter and he blocked me. It was when he and Paul Graham were arguing that "not enough (good)engineers exist for startups, so we need to import more". I was arguing that plenty of great engineers exist, you just have to pay for it.

You mean Google will pay me 3x in total comp and I (mostly) get my evenings and weekends off? I also get job security beyond the next funding round?

But.. But startups are special! They can't pay for stuff! We can't treat them like an actual business!

That's honestly something that has always confounded me as an outsider to the glitz and glam of coastal tech life. How are technology start-ups any different than say, a new butcher shop in the midwest in terms of obligations to their employees?

Part of the reason for going into a startup is that you're buying a lottery ticket. There's a very strong chance the company will evaporate and "all" you'll get out of it is an intensive year or two of building things up from nothing and putting them out in front of customers. However, there's also the nonzero chance that Facebook will buy your team for $9B.

I love startups because it's exciting and genuinely fun to be scrambling alongside a team who's as into their work as you are yours. In practice it's also very low risk, because I know that if my company laid me off tomorrow then I'd be unemployed for approximately a weekend before hopping onto another team.

FWIW, sane startups also take really good care of their employees. Mine has good pay and great benefits, and that's pretty common. You don't hear about those places on the front page of Hacker News, though.

Equity lottery ticket.

With a typical side dish of substandard working conditions (open office, cheap chairs, no parking or no transit or even "better" none of both), substandard tools, substandard personnel policies (vacation, insurance, 401K, etc) and last but not least a very low "Joel Test" score preferably zero.

I'm sure the best will be naturally attracted to that. Sorta an "opposites attract" strategy.

There are historical analogies to the dating world where if you're trying to find a complete dumpster fire of a person for whatever crazy reason, just look for the loudest proclamation that they only date 10/10s. Actually dating 10/10s is a different issue, I specifically mean loudest proclamation. Generally this works pretty well. Both for finding dumpster fire people and companies.

We want people who are motivated by the mission.

If the mission is feeding starving children, or curing cancer, or public service, then yes, I want people who are motivated by the mission. But usually the mission, the real mission, is to make the founders exceptionally wealthy, and forgive me if that doesn't get me out of bed in the morning.

Even if the mission is to cure cancer, thats the worst reason to not pay people well. Those are the most difficult problems, and you definitely need the best people to solve the hardest problems. If the idea is to pay people really poor because that problem is so difficult, I think its a bad idea and simply taking advantage of people, not to mention the best people will go solve other problems that pay them well.

This is the problem with education (and all non-profits for that matter).

1. People work in education because they love the work, not the money.

2. We don't need to pay educators well because they're not the tops in their fields.

3. We can't recruit top candidates because the pay is shit.

4. Rinse, repeat.

This man speaks the truth. :-)

I think it's a lost battle but I used to rage whenever I saw a company talk about their 'Vision'. Unless you're a poet, religious mystic or philosopher king - then you're being pretentious and grandiose.

Assuming that I am a cash-strapped philosopher king with a grand vision for my business, how might I sway people to take the vision seriously and work towards the fulfillment of the vision?

I'm assuming the vision you're trying to sell is to make the philosopher king wealthy. (Your stated vision is probably irrelevant.) You need to make your employees' incentives align with that proposition.

Oh OK. What if we assumed that the vision is not concerned with making me, the philosopher king, wealthy?

"We want to change the world, by finding a more efficient way to bike courier organic Nicaraguan coffee beans to your doorstep in the Mission or SoMa."

My god, this is genius. Let me throw investment money at you. Just be sure not to pay the programmers more than $11/hour.

>If the mission is feeding starving children, or curing cancer, or public service

You're typically expected to take a pay cut if you're doing any of these.

Public service pay cuts? Not really. This is for CA, but other states are not too far off.

http://publicpay.ca.gov/

And don't forget life-long pensions at 80% salary.

How many distinguished engineers make anywhere close to these amounts (whether public or private)? Close to zero.

80k was the top bracket? I am pretty sure most developers in California make a lot more than that, especially top ones.

Select "100 top salaries"

But those seem mostly like chief investment officers, CEOs, doctors, dentists and surgeons...

I mean, public service can pay well if you are a commissioner or head of a for-profit part of public service. I'm not sure there is much of a comparison to be made for software developers, though.

I was just pointing out that public service can pay as well as private sector - if not better (pensions at 80% pay!).

Except for police and the already retired I don't think you see a lot of pensions at 80% pay anymore.

FERS gives you 1.1%years of servicehigh 3 average salary, which is about 40% salary for a lifetime of service.

The NYPD give 2.1%years of serviceaverage salary and early retirement at 20 years of service (less 50% social security upon that kicking in) which is a hell of a good deal, but hardly representative of what most government workers get. I think they are probably among the only 80% pay.

You also end up with the (generally state) government worker problem of the government just deciding that paying your pension is expensive, and then having it reduced or removed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you asserting that doctors and nurses in american prisons routinely perform dangerous medical experiments on inmates without their consent?

If yes, can you cite a reference (I'd like to know about it)?

If no, then what precisely do you mean?

I meant in the sense of the doctors in the concentration camps, providing some relief, but arguably sustaining an intrinsically immoral system. (Indeed, there were far worse kinda of Nazi doctors...)

I am almost falling out of my chair reading that comment. The only way a US prison doctor enters nazi territory is if they are doing a live donor liver transplant between twins.

Human service workers, biomedical researchers, and etc. still need to make a living too. The problem is that a small sector of the people in the world are being ridiculously greedy.

This drives me nuts! I don't know why I should be motivated by YOUR mission! Especially when your mission is to make as much money as possible in an easily exploited niche you found!

Not all companies are the same. Sure, all companies exist to make money for shareholders, but some companies make cigarettes while other companies make life saving drugs. So, yes, it does make sense to take the company's mission into account when deciding whether to work there or not

Companies that make life saving drugs aren't usually short on money.

If a company made a life saving drug and then released the patent say after 5 years of exploitation, I'd agree with the argument as well.

>We want people who are motivated by the mission

Startup hiring process in a nutshell.

Yup, and if I get a nice block of stock options, then I'll be just as motivated as the founders! Been there.

Ah yes, "The Mission"

Sure, some of them have a social aspect, something interesting, etc

But for others I can't see how they manage to say it with a straight face

So does ISIS.

And you see what results they get in the U.S. markets. Maybe more rational management and pay of experienced professionals would've helped them. They said they weren't mission-oriented and lacked "culture fit," though. So, their numbers are all over the place, goals aren't being met, and competition is all over their territory.

Now ISIS and other startups in that sector can feel free to continue being idiots. The locals need to avoid making the same mistakes, though. ;)

I can't up-vote this article or comment enough! If you want to hire a top 1% employee, you need to offer a top 1% salary. Not a top 50% salary.

Also that "market average" is usually below market average.

"Market average" is generally based on salary surveys, which kind of have to trim the extremes. So it's the median (ish), which is often lower than the mean.

I'm specifically talking about the companies that have told me they pay "market average" in New York City and are offering $45-55k and want a mid-level developer. Then act like their tenth of a point of worthless options are a winning lottery ticket.

I've found that there are other ways to scam those surveys. My employer uses an unreasonably low threshold of years of experience for a so-called senior level.

We hire a lot of H1B candidates, so I'm convinced that the point of the scam is to depress wage scales for the LCA.

Did we mention the perks like our "unlimited vacation policy"?

Heh. Man I'm glad I talked my VP down from the cliff. He honestly thought it was a Good Thing.

I currently have 7 weeks off/year plus 10 holiday days. No way I'd take all of that with the unlimited plan.

Wow. Are you in the US?

I'm in the US, at a law firm, and after the first year, every year is 7 weeks vacation + 10 holidays just like this. I'm glad, because they told us we had an unlimited vacation policy that I do not use and on the books in the first year we're only supposed to get 7 days.

Ha! Hubspot got thrown under the bus because of their "unlimited vacation policy" - http://nypost.com/2016/04/03/millennials-are-being-dot-conne...

I gotta say, after watching his chat at Google IO, I want to read that book now.

I worked at a company with "unlimited vacation" and I took on average 5 weeks of vacation per year - so it does sometimes actually work.

Likewise - I'm floating around 4 weeks taken in the past 365 most of the time (which is more than any previous employer would give) and I never have any complaints or issues. My boss doesn't say anything and just approves each one.

You mean undefined vacation policy

The worst are the new "tech companies with internal recruiters, tech tests prior to interview, twenty stages to offer, who moan they can't attract the best. Of course not! The minute you said tech test, I said goodbye, the minute you said internal recruiters, I laughed as I slammed down the phone.

The best companies that can and do attract the best, still keep it simple - direct face to face interviews, max two stages to offer, no fucking around with shitty tech tests, and making the time and effort for the interview.

I send out a test in between phone interview and face to face but it's very subjective, not really meant to weed out people who fail. The purpose of it is to create some technical talking points for the face to face interview in lieu of putting someone on the spot on the whiteboard. "I see you refactored this, but not this. Can you explain your thinking? Why did you decide this pattern fit the solution?" There can be many right answers, and especially many right reactions to wrong answers, and I like that conversation more than putting people through a whiteboard.

Also, agree on the 2 interview max. Technically we do 3, but the first is a 3 minute basic screen by the recruiter, not really an interview.

> ...3 minute basic screen by the recruiter....

Exactly. The recruiter call should be primarily to gauge interest and to get some idea if the candidate has any skills and experience whatsoever. I've gotten calls from recruiters who were clearly not technical people asking fairly deep technical questions. That's an instant turn off to me.

I'm pretty sure we've all experienced this classic:

"Tech" Recruiter: "I saw that you have 7+ years of Java experience! That's great, we're looking for a senior Java dev!"

Me: "I have 7+ years of JavaScript."

"Tech" Recruiter: "Same thing, right?"

Me: ...

What's the big deal with internal recruiters? Most companies, unless they're very small, are going to have them.

I actually prefer internal recruiters. At least they typically have some motivation against throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Yeah, I agree. Better than outside recruiters who usually have a fuzzier idea of what the company does

Yea, I recently turned down an interview when I was told there would be 4 technical interviews, followed by a 2 week trial period working as a contractor. How about no!?

Corp: "We only hire the very best"

Programmer: "Too bad, I consider myself mediocre, bye"

Can't upvote this high enough. Yep, I also consider myself mediocre. (My "world" has people like Eric Lippert, Anders Hejlsberg and Jon Skeet in it - there's no way in hell I can say I'm among the best with a straight face.) I am safely in the middle :)

This reads like a Dilbert comic strip.

Corp: "We only hire the very best but we're willing to pay the very least possible"