| This is quite interesting, and I'm curious to see how it goes. I do think the definition of "fairness" is off, though: > Because using years of relevant experience is transparent and repeatable, both for leveling and promotions, it carries a strong measure of fairness Or more precisely, there are lots of ways to define "fair". And in this case fair is defined as "more years in post means more money, whatever your job is". This is not general fairness (perhaps nothing is) but it rewards loyalty. Other types of fairness (which actually their sales teams get) is "create more value, get paid more". I.e. kicking back for 10 years in a role that's fairly straightforward and hard to measure might reward someone as much as working incredibly hard and transforming the business for 10 years. That could well be considered unfair. I think rather than "fair" it's just "easy to measure", which accounts for the lack of need for promotion recommendations. I've never known them take very long, but yes, a length of tenure calculation will always be quicker. I would say also that I am curious as to how competitive this can possibly be for attracting talent. Desirable employees who need incentive to move to a company will generally get more money, as otherwise they won't move. Additionally retention might be an issue, as the same principles apply; market forces will mean that other companies that pay according to what an employee will agree to work for will have extra cash to wave at daily.co employees. Finally, I suppose that in the short term, powered by VC money, this is likely to work, and it's as good a way to spend VC money as any. I don't think we should call it a revolutionary way of working, as having a pit of money to prop up an idea does not make the idea sustainable for other companies. It might remain automatically workable for years to come if the company raises more money without having to survive on its own merits. |