Comment by jiveturkey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiveturkey | Hacker News Reader

A little bit off on the equity section, and unnecessarily low contrast (why?!), but in general a good and pretty comprehensive primer. One bit of opinion that was injected, that I disagree with:

> Cost of replacement. Compensation increases can be justified based on proving you could make more by going elsewhere. This perversely [emphasis mine] incentivizes people interviewing outside the company. Netflix is famous for this approach.

Why is such incentivization perverse? It's really great for employees to know what their market value is. It stops you from doubting if you are worth more, it gives you the warm fuzzy that you are actually being paid fairly, and that your employer is essentially making a guarantee to pay you fairly. It also is great to be somewhere that is so confident of their ability to retain you, that they encourage this. I'd say this is the opposite of perverse.

No comment on Netflix otherwise, but this approach to pay is extremely fair, extremely transparent, and so IMO extremely desirable.

This approach does, however, require work on your part if you are to take advantage of it. It's not for everyone.

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but it's a perverse incentive from the company's point of view. By the time the employee has gotten to the stage of getting actual offers from other companies, they've already gone through all the friction of the job hunt; at that point, the path of least resistance is in fact for them to leave the current job, otherwise they have to go through the new process of getting a counter-offer from their employer, with all the risks that involves too.

I don't find that perverse. Netflix is confident that they offer both top of scale pay, and top of scale satisfaction. And they want their employees to be happy. That kind of employee is maximally productive. They actively want to get rid of less than dedicated, top performers.

Yes, if you are in a weak position as employer, not confident of your ability to retain employees, it is perverse. Or if as an employer, you don't judge quality of employee so much as long as you get SOME output from them.

Your argument amounts to: unsatisfied employees shudder might leave, or even worse be encouraged to leave by this policy. I believe that Netflix actually desires that. Unsatisfied employees are not maximally productive employees. We can see this in their recently updated culture deck -- "if you don't like it here, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

As well, the mere projection of such power (encouragement to seek outside offers) is enough to keep most employees satisfied that their employer is paying them, and every one around them, fairly. Without them having to act on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com