[thinkingkong]

I think this type of information is desperately needed for all geographies and way more (smaller) companies. The one challenge is that the pay grades themselves are usually dependent on a common definition of certain roles, which is definitely also missing. It would be great to be able to have _some_ kind of standardized career track for Individual Contributors and Managers within software engineering so we could continue a healthy conversation about compensation, roles and responsibilities.

[Zaheer]

Zaheer from Levels.fyi here. Our next feature is actually better regionalization. This is the top ask we've gotten so far. Additionally we're considering coming up with a standard leveling so that we can provide industry-wide granular information easily.

Ping us at hello (at) levels (dot) fyi if you have more feedback!

[davidjnelson]

> we're considering coming up with a standard leveling so that we can provide industry-wide granular information easily.

Please do! Thanks :-)

[markdown]

request :)

[ody4242]

My former employer used "Towers Watson grading" which is sort of a global grading system. Obviously the purpose was not to maximize the compensation of an employee, quite the opposite.

[magicnubs]

Exactly. All of these "pay banding" methods are used to enforce a culture of no one asking for more pay regardless of the value of their contributions, because "sorry, even though I think you deserve a raise, you're at the top of the pay band for your role/title, there's nothing I can do". If your manager has to convince their manager to fight with their own manager to get you an out-of-band pay increase, it's almost never going to happen.

It seems to me that now title inflation is countering this somewhat. I'm the newest hire in my organization and my title is "Analyst". I'm the only person at this level in the entire group, because I've been here less than a year. Everyone else, who have each been here 3 years or more, is "Manager" or higher (about 2/3rds are "Director" or higher) even if they are really just individual contributors with no direct reports or management duties, because they have to increase people's pay to keep from losing them, but they can't do it without bumping them up a pay band, which is only allowed with a "promotion". But while this is true in my group, there are groups where there are 200+ individual contributer-level people, and maybe 10 managers, and those people are never getting pay raises.

It reminds me of how "VP" is an inflated title in investment banking roles.

> In brokerage firms, investment banks and other financial companies, "vice president" is a seniority rank rather than denoting an actual managerial position within the company. It is a relatively junior position, usually does not denote managerial responsibilities and companies have a large number of vice presidents, perhaps as an inexpensive way for a company to recognize employees, or perhaps because of delayering when an employee can't be moved higher in the organization but still deserves recognition. In most cases, the title merely implies that someone is in a medium-seniority individual contributor role

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_president#Use_in_financia...

[vostok]

It's a middling role that pays circa £300k in London. It seems pretty sensible to call someone a VP if they make that much.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/ru-en/311356/salaries-and...

[sweeneyrod]

I think that quote about VPs overstates things - a VP in IB will usually manage some analysts/associates.

[huac]

VP is (apparently) also a title which legally denotes that the holder is an "officer" of the corporation, and can enter into deals on behalf of the corporation. Having a lot of those people around is typically a good thing for financial institutions (e.g. for quicker decision making).

[JoshTriplett]

Financial institutions also need such people at individual branches. Companies have far fewer sites than banks have branches.