This this this. "Exceeds expectations" gets you the B+ treatment, at best. Meanwhile, slacking off and doing the bare minimum gets you a C rating. Every year that I bust my ass with proven results, there's always some excuse in store for me and "well maybe things will be better next year," and the same customary 2-5% raise as last year.
Eventually I got bored, stopped trying, and still walked out of reviews with average or above-average marks and same pay bump. This is after getting talks from my manager about upping my game and narrowly avoiding a PIP.
If an employer wants me to bust my ass for them they need to make it worthwhile. If my work unlocks significant value (verifiable 6 or more figures) for the company then I expect more than a token amount of that to be sent my way.
SWE pay may be high but they use that as a cudgel to keep you from claiming value proportional to your contributions, and don't even get me started on the trap that is equity compensation
As an industry we have favored marketing of software over the quality of software. Promotion has been tied directly to that choice (expressed as "productivity" and "delivery") and then the people promoted by that system make hiring choice. It would be unexpected if the emergent outcome was not as you have described it.
Not as an industry, as a society! In "free market" liberalism, selfishness manifests as self-promotion, because money and success is tied to others perceiving how good job we are doing. In other words, the (supposedly objective) free market metric of selling service to others becomes a target and is being manipulated.
I can see why outstanding contributions won't make a big dent in salary, but they absolutely have to make a huge difference in bonus. If I have an outstanding year my bonus should be at least an integer multiple of a more normal year.
SWE work can be super impactful depending on what you're working on (especially in startups), why can't we share in more of the glory? In some companies, if you run the numbers and divide that result by the total number of hands that have touched the project you can STILL come up with net revenue or even profit that is 100x+ what you're being paid. And not seeing more than a token piece of that is just wrong.
If I knew that performance could net me 2x or more of my salary, you can bet I'd be a lot more motivated to work hard.
> I assume from the day I start that I will be gone in less than 18 months.
This is my mindset now, but man, I would like to be able to actually stay at a place for 5+ years.
My father worked at an engineering firm for over 15 years. Although this had its own cons like everything, I'm jealous of the camaraderie that my father had with his coworkers. I suspect I'll hit local maximum for pay/career at some point in my future and try to find a job where I can stay long and cultivate meaningful connections.
Networking. If I'd have been a better performer in the past, I'd have probably followed some of my high performing coworkers to their jobs and gave better overall job satisfaction. Being in teams that value good code and perform with good work life balance makes work enjoyable.
This is true. I’m currently working 3 remote jobs (just gathering as much cash as possible) and one is a good one with a tech firm and the other two are at technologically incapable places.
The two tech incapable ones are pretty annoying, or at least would be if I gave a damn about my performance there.
Also never met such mean people. Tech is so nice in comparison.
I probably should have followed this route. I've been at my job for over a decade and all my big promotions and large pay raises happened in the first half of that. Been single digit raises since then and I don't think there's any more room to move up unless I want to try management, which I really don't.
I see resumes like that a lot. In generally move past them. The cost of churn is high and people who constantly job hop aren't worth the effort or the potential impact to team morale. I say this as an engineering hiring manager. I've job hopped too but I always shoot for at least for years. I don't always make it but I plan for it.
Normally people don't like to job hop. It is unnecessary stress. However, people have responsibilities to their families. If you are concerned of job hoppers then why don't you help them to alleviate their burden. If not, and if other companies are paying higher somewhere else, why would that person stay? That would be doing a disservice to him/her and his/her family.
son: "dad, why can't we go to vacation this year?"
dad: "sorry son, don't have enough money. still got bills to pay and dad's company don't give enough raise."
son: "why can't you just find another job?"
dad: "that's treason son, we don't do that here. think of the team morale son."
If someone job hops I don't recommend them for further interview rounds. Even in an agency setting were turn over is high. I don't want people like that on my team.
I have one 7 months stint in my resume and that is framed by 5.5 on one side and now more than 7 years in my current job.
My pay increased by >90 percent in my current job. The people I work with are really great and I couldn't in good conscience recommend someone for that team that goes out of their way to support each other that is only in it for themselves. I personally don't want hedonistic people on the team I am playing on.
And a word about crafting BS emotional stories around how a family suffers because someone doesn't job hop. WTF.
If one can't go on vacation because they did not receive a raise they are not acting financially responsible. Especially when having a family.
Vacation imho always should come out of a play money budget. Put aside some amount of money every month for play and/or vacation. Next to money you put to the side for emergencies. Then pay the bills and still have money to spend. This is financially sound planning.
If either one of these is missing people are not planning their financials good enough. At least imho.
If anyone ever tells their kid that they are incapable of going on vacation because of a raise too low their kid should answer that they are sad their parents are lying to them about their financial incompetence.
The majority of people do not like investing their own time to change jobs.
The majority of people do not want the mental and emotional burden of changing jobs and feeling guilty over it.
The majority of people do not get amazing job offers frequently and will have to manually filter to find better opportunities.
The majority of people do not like taking a risk which may not pan out. Especially while having little savings.
Job-hopping being so prevalent is a result of the market. Despite the increasing number of barriers. If you do things differently from the market that prevent those incentives, I assure you, the majority will stop job-hopping.
Thanks for the long reply. It seems our way of seeing things are just different, irreconciliably different. Like, fire and water different. Like, extra terrestial beings different.
That being said, skipping on job hopper’s resume actually brings positive on both sides. We avoid wasting each others’ time. You are doing the right thing.
Actually, real life is way way more cruel than the 5 line dialogue that I described above. You don't know what people struggle in their life.
Maybe, hmmm, just maybe, they are supporting a few older generation women in their family that are all divorced and no longer can work? Just maybe, hmm...
Maybe, just maybe, that person has an aspiration of doing better for the world instead of chasing compensation, but limited by his/her circumstances, so he/she has to do leetcode + jumping ships all the time, just maybe.
Reality is brutal, cruel. Some people have so much, yet some people have so little.
I value other personality traits and people scoring differently on the big five. Especially agreeableness. I experienced them providing a better and more long term productive team setup.
So I pass on candidates that (on average and I might miss out on great people once in a while) tend to value short term personal gains.
In the end it is a question of how (better in which direction) one tries to influence the environment one is in.
And I decided to take an approach geared towards longevity and sustainability of the team environment.
Well, I got over 200% in the last 5 years. And my current employer will give a raise of 20% after one year with them. This was negotiated before.
In short: if you are unhappy with your payment, you have to realize owe more to yourself and your family than to some random company. Find another job, negotiate as much as you can and move on.
>If someone job hops I don't recommend them for further interview rounds. Even in an agency setting were turn over is high. I don't want people like that on my team.
You can get assured, people don't want someone like you near them, too. You are doing them a favor. :)
I don’t like to job hop. I hate change. I hate having to learn new people.
I’m the kind of person who has eaten the same breakfast since I was 13. I have 5 of the same shoe as I don’t want to have to find another new kind of pair. I like rules and consistency and knowing a system well.
But if I don’t, I will end my career millions of dollars poorer.
Essentially as soon as I am comfortable in an org, I have to leave unless I want to forsake a big chunk of money.
It's such a seemingly self-contradictory view and I love that you're sharing it because it makes complete sense in the world of ill-logic in which we find ourselves.
Loyalty means nothing as an employee now (and for a while) in the same way that existing customers don't get the perks that new sign-ups get. Employees are being viewed more and more the same way as customers; is this an extension of "if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail"? It worked for customers, which are people, why can't it work for employees since they're also people and therefore afflicted with the same psychological pressure points.
It's all a calculation of the individual status: Is their leaving going to cost them more than staying for a lower-than-CPI "raise"?
The "churn" cost to the company doesn't seem to be a KPI in most places. "Seat-filled = seat-filled" may be the equation, with no preceding multiplier as to the knowledge or expertise held in each seat.
Good point, it's probably always been just a story and after a certain amount of bitter experience we eventually realise it is not true.
A persistent, rolling wave on the sea of fiction that eventually breaks on the shores of the gritty-sanded beach of experience behind the dunes of which is built the school of hard knocks.
I think it meant something in the West long time ago. And it still means something in Japan. But to have employees giving you loyalty, you have to give them something else in return.
Okay. You might end up millions poorer. But at what cost?
I once had an offer that was 20 percent higher than the current salary I received at that time. I passed on it. I valued working with my coworkers more.
I have a standard of living that is fine by me. I do not complain. My SO was able to go back to university and we still have our house, are able to pay the mortgage, put aside play and emergency money.
Sure. I could already make more money. But to what end? What should I do with it? I would probably increase the amount of money I donate as I did with every raise. I would put more into my retirement fund. Other than that? I would probably buy more crap.
Why should I care about theoretically making millions more (or hundreds of thousands in Germany to be more realistic). I enjoy the fact that I can trust in my colleagues offering help and trusting my knowledge and my opinion. We know each other well enough to trust each other and have a good relationship. We can be vulnerable with each other.
Something I did not have before.
Why would I throw this away just because I theoretically could make a few bucks more?
Wow. I just realized why I value my team/environment so much (and believe me, there are a ton of things I am unnerved about at my current job regarding processes from the parent company).
> Okay. You might end up millions poorer. But at what cost?
Not to be snarky but... "millions"? the answer is right there in your question. You are making it seem like getting that extra money is going to cost OP their health or family, when in reality, the higher paying job will likely have better WLB and more interesting technology.
Why should I want to earn millions while doing something I despise. As if money was worth living against my values. Not everybody buys into this ideology.
I actually don't do things purely for monetary reasons. Gladly my parents instilled some better values in me.
To be clear - I definitely have no problem with earning money. I absolutely like to make money if it coincides with my values. But only then.
You move past them but there are another ten hiring managers who wouldn't, so it wouldn't make an impact on the guy sending the resume.
People job hop either because the payment is not enough, either the work environment is bad. As a hiring manager, if you want to have stable teams on the long run, you just have to make them happy. Push for decent salary raises and provide them a nice environment.
Nice double standard, lucky that your current employer didn’t apply your heuristics to you, so you could close the door behind you.
Changing jobs is such a hassle, I suspect most people wouldn’t do it as often if companies were nice places to work with raises to match the market. But that’s harder to do than blame candidates and only hire those that appear to settle for less.
I'm twenty five years in and have about 15 companies now. I finish projects and move on to a new one typically at a new company. Only a couple times were leaving part way through something. Would I be seen as a job hopper?
Are you contract? Then maybe not, if it was "contract ended, moved on". If FTE, yes, very much so. I usually don't care if someone job hops, but that's at best 7 years you haven't stayed at a place for more than 6 months...unless you have unicorn skills that I needed for 6 months I'd not take a chance on you.
I agree. Seeing this resume I wouldn't even ask HR to schedule an interview.
Actually I wouldn't schedule an interview if I needed the skills for six months. I would rather hire a freelance person because that would give me more control and flexibility. Even with the ability to let someone go within 2 weeks in the first 6 month of an employment in Germany.
Eventually I got bored, stopped trying, and still walked out of reviews with average or above-average marks and same pay bump. This is after getting talks from my manager about upping my game and narrowly avoiding a PIP.
If an employer wants me to bust my ass for them they need to make it worthwhile. If my work unlocks significant value (verifiable 6 or more figures) for the company then I expect more than a token amount of that to be sent my way.
SWE pay may be high but they use that as a cudgel to keep you from claiming value proportional to your contributions, and don't even get me started on the trap that is equity compensation