[ChrisMarshallNY]

I was just chatting with a friend of mine, this morning, about this kind of thing.

He works as a highly-skilled tech, at a major medical/scientific corporation. They have invested years of training in him, he brings them tremendous value, and they know it. He was just telling me how he used that value to negotiate a higher compensation package for himself. Not as good as if he swapped jobs, but he really has a sweet gig.

People who stay, take Responsibility for the code they write. They will need to face the music, if it doesn't work, even if they are not responsible for maintaining it.

They are also worth investing in specialized training, as that training will give great ROI, over time.

But keeping skilled people is something that modern management philosophy (in tech, at least) doesn't seem to care about.

Until corporations improve the quality of their managers; especially their "first-line" managers, and improve their culture, geared towards retaining top talent (which includes paying them more -but there's a lot more that needs doing), I can't, with good conscience, advise folks not to bounce.

[eastbound]

> But keeping skilled people is something that modern management philosophy (in tech, at least) doesn't seem to care about.

I’m a founder for 10 people and this is the first thing we think about. Except for low performers; except that youngsters need a variety of experience to be proficient at life; except that the team is not performing well(1). 25% or 30% increases for half the workforce are frequent.

(1) The biggest remark from management coaches is that giving raises lowers employee performance, which I can fully witness in my company. It’s not even good for morale. I’m just happy that people exit the company fitter and with a girlfriend, even a kid and sometimes a permanent residency, but business-wise I’ve been as good as a bad leader.

I’m reaching the sad conclusion that employees bring it upon themselves.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Paying more is not the answer (but it is also not not the answer -we need to pay well). Improving the workplace environment, into a place people want to stay, is important.

My friend could double his salary, moving almost anywhere else, but he gets a lot of perks at his work, and is treated extremely well by his managers.

They just gave him a rave review, and that did more to boost his willingness to stay, than a 10% raise. He will still negotiate a better salary, but is more likely to be satisfied with less than he might have, if they tried to treat him badly.

Treating employees with Respect can actually improve the bottom line. They may well be willing to remain in difficult situations, if they feel they are personally valued.

I know this from personal experience. When they rolled up my team, after almost 27 years, the employee with the least tenure had a decade. These were top-shelf C++ image processing engineers, that could have gotten much higher salaries, elsewhere.

[trinsic2]

Yeah I agree with this. It really depends on the culture of the business. If the employee feels valued, giving raises increases feeling valued.

The problem is our current form of corporate culture. Employees don't feel like they matter, there efforts are a cog in a wheel. If you get a raise in this type culture, it only matters to the bottom line and there is no incentive produce because the employee is already unhappy in the first place.

Change your business culture and these problems will disappear, IMHO.

[scarface_74]

How is paying people less than market value good for morale?

[nouripenny]

Is there any alternative to raises that don't lower employee performance, like some kind of bonus scheme? Or do you find some unfortunate relation between money vs motivation?

[scarface_74]

Truly unlimited PTO where you judge employees by their performance. I just spoke to my manager at the job I started late last year and he said it is customary for people to take 5-6 weeks kid a year.

We also have a 401K match with an immediate vest.

[FridgeSeal]

I could finally get all the skiing in that I wanted to with time off like that!

[tonyedgecombe]

I remember reading some research that showed that bonus payments have no or even negative effects on performance for intellectual work.

[rr808]

Sounds like he's lucky though. Many companies are happy to let you specialize in their area of business, own the special software, get to know all the vendors & business contacts then really not pay you well. You dont get to find out until 5 years in when you have skills that aren't really transferable to a new job.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

His skills are quite transferable. Many of the company’s customers would love to hire him away. The company doesn’t have a noncompete, and he’d probably quit, if they tried.

[7bit]

> But keeping skilled people is something that modern management philosophy (in tech, at least) doesn't seem to care about.

If they would care then job hopping would not exist. If staying at s company would be more. Beneficial to your salary, why would you ever want to change company, if you are otherwise happy?

[scarface_74]

> Not as good as if he swapped jobs, but he really has a sweet gig

If your main motivation for working is to exchange your labor for the maximum amount of money possible, I don’t see how that is the positive outcome you think it is.

I personally wouldn’t leave my current job if another one for $100K more fell into my lap. But the “unlimited PTO” where the custom is to take at least 5-6 weeks off during the year not including paid holidays and it being fully remote is hard to beat.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

I mean pretty much exactly what you said.

I apologize for being unclear.