|
As with everything, TANSTAAFL. The danger with offering "marketing" instead of salaries is that it locks your company into valuing (and continuing to offer) the boon that got people to join it in the first place. Google (and HP before it) used to distinguish itself with "We take care of our employees, give you decent work-life balance and flexible working arrangements, and let you work on self-directed projects. We will probably not be the absolute highest compensation you can make, given your skill level." This worked great when it actually offered those. At the very first hint of layoffs, or RTO, or manager-directed product priorities, Googlers ask themselves "Wait - why am I working here again?" In pretty short order, the only ones left are those that actually are motivated by money, but couldn't get a better offer. Similarly, Apple offers "the ability to work on products that users love", and tends to pay a bit less than similarly-skilled employees can get elsewhere. This works great, until users cease to love your products. Current Apple is lucky that they are still on top, but historical Apple absolutely went through this sort of brain-drain from 1993-1997, when they were not on top in product quality and so there was no real reason for skilled people to work there. The big advantage of paying a lot is that you know that the type of person you get is motivated by money. If you want them to do something, pay them a lot for it, and make that pay contingent upon them actually doing it. It takes ulterior motives out of the equation and gives the corporation flexibility, because the only reason people work for it is the money. |