[elptacek]

When I was at Matasano, there was always enough inbound work (sometimes more than enough) to keep the consultants utilized. So yes, a company with a full pipeline will lose money on every qualified hire it doesn't make. Perhaps this is not the case for other industries, but for infosec consulting, there seems to be more work than there are qualified workers. Matasano ran under its own steam and did not take funding. Offering extremely high starting salaries would have killed it in its early years. It was more cost effective to create a process for finding people who could actually do the work rather than rely on the 4-page CV candidates. The expensive ones.

The net result was a win-win: you get bargain candidates and they get 4-page CVs.

[eru]

Did the salaries of the bargain candidates creep up as their value was realized?

[jerematasno]

My policy (I'm co-in-charge of recruiting at Matasano/NCC, and a lot of folks report to me) is this:

1) Hire based on current ability, not potential. Hiring based on potential is a minefield that our whole process is designed to avoid. ("Enthusiasm," "cultural fit," talking a good game without being able to walk the walk, etc.)

2) Be aggressively fair in giving out promotions and raises. Keeping someone's salary low because they're bad at asking for raises is not a good long-term strategy, especially in consulting.

Seems to be working out.

[eru]

Thanks for the answer!

> Keeping someone's salary low because they're bad at asking for raises is not a good long-term strategy, especially in consulting.

Yes, in consulting the distance between money made and each individual employee's efforts seems shorter than in a big tech company. So keeping salaries in line with impact of contributions should be easier.

[elptacek]

I do not know. I suppose even if I did, it's one of those things nobody is supposed to discuss. I overheard talk here and there about raises, but since it didn't pertain to me, I ignored it.