Boardroom Miscellaneous Thread

[AgentQ]

Four very smart developers have resigned in the past month. Fortunately not on my team, but I think one of my employees is close to the edge.

There are very obvious reasons for the departures, but I won't go into the boring details here. The theme of my month has been "professional courage" as I push back hard against the unreasonable deadlines and expectations that are driving good engineers to quit. The theme of next month might very well be "funemployement," if I push my luck too far, but at least I went down swinging.

 

[AgentQ]

One of "my" senior developers (in a team of 5) transferred to neighboring team and we got a new hire to replace him. Not fresh out of school but close. That didn't work out, mostly because the new hire had some personal issues and exemplified the worst caricatures of a "Millennial at work".

Maybe I'm just getting older, but my experience with recent college grads feels increasingly bimodal. Most of our junior hires have blown me away with their self-sufficiency, commitment to learning, and dedication to getting the job done. I've had to have several conversations about avoid burning and managing working hours with some of our most ambitious junior hires.

On the other hand, we've had some junior hires arrive with some very strange expectations about the workplace. I've learned that it's best to take nothing for granted when it comes to explaining expectations to new, junior hires. They shouldn't be left to fill in the gaps about what's expected of them and how, where, when, and why to communicate with their manager. More frequent 1:1s are a necessity at first. The extra time commitment is difficult to balance at first, but more time invested with juniors up front will pay dividends later. There is a lot of talent to be unlocked in junior candidates with the right inputs.

 

[AgentQ]

Four very smart developers have resigned in the past month. Fortunately not on my team, but I think one of my employees is close to the edge.

There are very obvious reasons for the departures, but I won't go into the boring details here. The theme of my month has been "professional courage" as I push back hard against the unreasonable deadlines and expectations that are driving good engineers to quit. The theme of next month might very well be "funemployement," if I push my luck too far, but at least I went down swinging.

You win some, you lose some.

Unemployment for software developers is less than 3%. Use it to your advantage.

I think it was RB who posted a few years ago that there was blood in the water. Still is. I'm quite happy where I am, so when recruiters contact me I say I'm not interested for less than 1.5x. Nothing has quite been a fit yet but there have been several conversations that have gotten past that comp ask. And that 1 in the 1.5x is already 20% higher than where I started just over a year ago.

If you’re happy where you’re at, then this is a great strategy. In my case, 1.5X is just not going to happen easily unless I move to the Bay Area or Seattle, which I don’t want to do. At this point I think I’d be content to walk my compensation backward if necessary to find a more reasonable environment.

I’m largely frustrated because my current position checks all of the boxes for my ideal position. By all objective, quantifiable measures I’m excelling: Products have been launched in record time, sales are up and accelerating, and my products are receiving rave reviews from customers. Without going into too many details on a public forum: My organizational empowerment has hit a ceiling within my company’s quirky org structure, but the list of my responsibilities has continued to grow uncapped. The mismatch between what I’m accountable for and what I have control over is massive, and growing by the week.

I shouldn’t be surprised. This is exactly how my former peers were driven out of the company. Everyone involved in my original hiring is now gone. The list of people above me in the org chart is a very tiny list. Yet my title and explicit authority has not changed since day 1. Compensation has barely budged. Meanwhile, there isn’t actually a position in the company for me to move up to that doesn’t start with the letter C (not going to happen) unless they create new positions in the org chart (unlikely to happen at this rate).. At least I’ve learned a lot and accumulated a couple of very, very impressive accomplishments for my resume. As much as I wish this company had worked out, it’s time to accept that the company isn’t really interested in seeing me succeed personally.

 

[AgentQ]

My score swings +/- 20 points, depending on the timing of paying the business credit card statement and the card reporting the balance to the bureaus.

Same here. At some point as it approaches 850, it feels like my credit score is just measuring my credit card balance at time of scoring. If it mattered, I suppose I could try to schedule my monthly payoff right before the scoring.

As far as I can tell, anything above an 800 credit score doesn’t make a marginal improvement anyway. Although if someone finds a way to leverage an 830-840+ credit score into even better terms somewhere, I’d be interested to hear about it.

 

[AgentQ]

Because our manufacturing operation is under-utilized, there's a relatively small volume of operations and the overhead is spread over not that many products, so our overhead rates are sky-high. But because our overhead rates are high, Ops management thinks they should always outsource because if we build in house, we will suffer that huge overhead rate. I keep telling them their conclusion is wrong, that the more product you make in house, the more you absorb the overhead; you won't pay more in overhead because you decided to build something in house that you could have outsourced. That's how overhead works. How do I convince them?

I put on my sales person hat in these situations. Who are the primary decision makers? What are their primary criteria? What is the decision-making process? What are the key metrics by which they measure success? Are there any political undercurrents in the decision making process? If so, who are the key players driving that shadow influence? Get answers to those question as if you were selling them on the in house capability. Your most efficient plan of attack should appear naturally after you've answered these questions.

You can show them charts, spreadsheets, and financial models all day long, but if your ops people are any good then they should already have their own models. They likely don't want to see you show up with slides about how they're doing their job wrong. The challenge becomes understanding their models (again salesperson tactic: listen) and identifying where their inputs, outputs, or measuring methodologies are flawed.

 

[AgentQ]

I presume the current best practice is to not tell my current boss until I have a written offer in hand. Our relationship is... Ok.

+1

There is no upside to revealing anything to your current boss yet, regardless of how healthy that relationship is. Behave as if you're going to be in this job forever, until the day you submit your 2 weeks' notice.

Also: Good luck!

 

[AgentQ]

Wear a nametag that says "Definitely NOT AgentQ"

I agree, this will increase your chances of getting the job.

However, I'm not the one interviewing tomorrow.

 

[AgentQ]

Maybe you should look at those jobs that pay double and really see if they’re that much worse? You might be surprised. I have found the places that pay really well tend to suck way less.

I think it's more accurate to say that compensation isn't strongly correlated with company culture. I regularly interview candidates from a certain nearby FAANG office who tell me up front that they're willing to take a pay cut to escape to a job with better work/life balance.

Even within companies, culture and job satisfaction vary greatly from one team to another. A good job can become a bad job overnight with as little as a bad reorg or a random budget cut.

I will agree that staying with the same tech job more than 2-3 years will generally put your earnings behind the curve. Market rate for tech jobs has been rising faster than typical year-over-year raises at most companies. Switching jobs every few years is a way to reset your earnings to market rate. I do agree with DrWebster that changes jobs is not without risks, though.

 

[AgentQ]

think it's more accurate to say that compensation isn't strongly correlated with company culture. I regularly interview candidates from a certain nearby FAANG office who tell me up front that they're willing to take a pay cut to escape to a job with better work/life balance.

It’s Apple, huh?

No, but you're on the right end of the alphabet.

 

[AgentQ]

As another hiring data point... I had a developer drop out of consideration because I was 12 minutes late calling her. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To be fair: If someone came to the BR complaining that their interviewer was more than 10 minutes late for a scheduled call, I wouldn't expect the feedback to be positive.

Companies are traditionally on their best behavior during interviews. When something goes wrong during an interview, there's a tendency to assume that it's a sign of deeper problems. "Where there's smoke, there's fire".


On the other hand, I have seen an uptick in candidates with unreasonable expectations for interviews. My favorite are the candidates who want to bill us $100/hr for the time they spend interviewing with us. I'm not sure where that idea started, but that's a hard pass from me.

 

[AgentQ]

I've never heard of such a thing.

I've only seen it once.

The candidate thought our 30-minute take-home interview coding problem was us trying to exploit him for free labor. (It wasn't)

 

[AgentQ]

Ages ago, I had a job interview where the practical test was where they wanted to know why their website was down and restore it to service. I could see why it was down and I could see how to restore it to service, so I described it to them, rather than clicking and doing free work for the time required because it was clear this person was using their "job interview" for free web work for what was supposed to be a computer tech job.

You'd be surprised at the unscrupulous stuff that you run across over time.

On the topic of dysfunctional companies: Few things surprise me any more.

I know the "work for free" job interviews are out there, but it's definitely the exception rather than the rule. I have seen some companies push the limits of what's reasonable in take-home interviews. One of our offices here had a take-home problem that was easily 40-80 hours of mixed design and mobile app development work. They hired the only person who actually completed the task, but who knows how many other qualified candidates just laughed and moved on.

My rule of thumb is 30-90 minutes for senior candidates and 1-4 hours for junior candidates, with the assumption that junior candidates might spend part of that time researching the concepts and tools involved.

 

[AgentQ]

Hiring is so fun!


Said no one, ever.

I enjoy hiring and interviewing.

For me, the key was to have an efficient interviewing funnel. The early stages should be as high-signal, low-effort as you can make them. Quickly filter down to the promising candidates. Repeatable tests, rubrics, and interview question checklists should constantly evolve to improve overall efficiency.


Also, no matter how much you dislike hiring, it's better than being understaffed. And certainly better than firing people.

 

[AgentQ]

"For this type of position I expect a salary in the neighborhood of $XXX".

Reply with what you expect from them, not what has happened in the past and is immaterial.

Exactly this. Steer the conversation back to your terms.

"I would need at least $XXX to make a move".

 

[AgentQ]

I was going to say that I'd require well-above market rate compensation to put up with that crap. Honestly though, it's probably not just about hot-desking. That sort of decision-making points to organizational disrespect that I'm not sure I'd tolerate for any remotely-plausible price.

I'd only tolerate it if it was a mostly work from home thing, with showing up some days because of meetings. Would be fine in that kind of situation.

If you otherwise like the company, a transition to hot-desking is a perfect opportunity to negotiate work from home.

This is how several of my friends started working from home. Chances are good that everyone's managers know full well that the hot desking situation is not great. They'll be desperate to retain employees.

 

[AgentQ]

The only arrangement worse than hot-decking is oversubscribed hot-decking: Installing fewer hot-desk stations than you have employees.

The idea is that some employees will always be traveling, sick, or on vacation, so you don’t need 1 hot desk station per employee.

In practice, there are absolutely days where 99% of everyone is in the office at the same time. It becomes an arms race to arrive early enough to get a good desk, or even a desk at all.

I can’t imagine how demoralized I’d I had to sit on the floor for a workday because my employer refused to buy enough desks.

 

[AgentQ]

We’re about to embark on hotdesking since many/most people work from home 2+ days a week. I was dead set against it, but now I’m kinda-sorta on board with it.

I see hanser's transformation into corporate manager drone is nearly complete.

( )

 

[AgentQ]

When he starts advocating thin clients the transformation is complete.

I’m about to ask if I can swap my surface (which I use only for email) for a thin client.

At this rate, we're headed for a Bill Lumbergh end game. Hanser, let us know if you feel the urge to wear suspenders and have employees come in on Saturday. We'll arrange the intervention.

 

[AgentQ]

Fast forward to yesterday, where I learned that Jim requested two things:
1) 30 hours a week instead of fulltime
2) Monday and Tuesday off, Wedensday remote office only; little if any exceptions to this.

1) we can live with; it is not ideal, but it is a solvable problem. 2) on the other hand is an absolute deal killer. The role we had in mind -- and which he had help draft! -- requires a certain amount of flexibility that categorically excludes the type of assurances he seeks. As a matter of fact we explicitly spoke about this before he left, and he ensured me that he'd be aware of this and that it'd not be a problem.

It sounds like Jim doesn't want to work there. Or maybe he doesn't want to work at all. He's definitely trying to find the limits of what he can get away with and still collect a paycheck and benefits.

Personally, I'd love that work schedule. 3x10s with 1 WFH day would be a sweet deal. Missing 40% of the workweek is as close to half-time as you can get while still retaining benefits. Where do I sign up? :bigdumbgrin:



It sounds like Jim thinks he has all of the power in this negotiation, or that you don't have any alternatives. I'd insist on 40 hours, offer 4x10s, and set strict expectations for WFH days. In my experience, new parents tend to vastly overestimate their ability to be productive while WFH with young kids in the house. Meanwhile, start warming up the hiring process to fill the role if Jim won't budge.

 

[AgentQ]

I noticed that Jim's schedule would mesh nicely with his wife having the same plan, but Thursday/Friday off. Both WFH on Wednesday and split kid duties.

Good point. That probably explains it. I wouldn't expect an actual 10 hours of productivity out of that Wednesday.

I'm all for flexible working schedules, work location flexibility, and being accommodating to parents. So much so that my team has no fixed schedules at all. One of my employees watches the kids while his wife is at work during the day, then starts his workday around 4PM when his wife gets home. He's a natural night owl, so he loves this schedule. This arrangement works because he can be trusted to get his work done, he's available 5 days a week like the rest of the team, and we still have a 1-hour window of schedule overlap for team calls every day. He also has a dedicated home office where he can isolate himself from the family while working.

However, I've also learned the hard way that flexible schedules are a lightning rod for people who are trying to game the system. You have to be very careful to differentiate between people who want flexibility to shift their work schedules, and those who want flexibility to minimize their working hours. The latter is toxic to the whole team, as everyone else has to pick up the slack.

 

[AgentQ]

Finally: Who's handing out 6 months paid paternity leave? Holy shit!

Our American-ness is showing.

 

[AgentQ]

You don't see full parking lots until 10am.

What the actual fuck? Do these people not have families?

If we're being honest: Not usually. Many people generally snap to 8-6 (EDIT: I meant 8-5) schedules when they start having family obligations.

Though I do have one coworker who watches their kids in the morning before work so his wife can exercise and run errands. It works out well for them.

 

[AgentQ]

So I find myself in an unreasonable position where I wouldn't want to do the simpler jobs but also a little jealous of their relaxed situation. I know that I should be focusing on my stuff and not worry about others, but I was just curious if anyone here has experienced something similar.

What specifically do you envy about their situation? Are you able to pinpoint it?

Alternatively, what specifically would you want to escape in your current situation?

 

[AgentQ]

sad part is that I know not to, but just delivering on time, to crazy deadlines, is seen as a massive accomplishment.

But is it rewarded proportionally with high bonuses and significant raises? Or just recognition?

Not delivering on time is not something that we have the option to do in most cases (.gov, some timelines are politically imposed, etc.). It would also reflect poorly on my Director and manager, who are both awesome people and great at shielding their staff from the worst of the "small p" politics.

We're losing more staff to burnout these days. And this being knowledge work in a very, very specific field, that staff is not quickly or easily replaceable. I just want my team to make it through unburned, at this point.

Speaking from experience: Shielding teams from politics and unreasonable expectations only works as a temporary measure. The only sustainable solutions for overworked teams are to hire your way into an appropriately sized team, or to work on fixing the organizational problems causing the overload in the first place.

Unfortunately, most companies that chronically overwork employees are doing so with full knowledge that they're pushing the limits. If someone is constantly buffering or pushing back on the intentional overwork, the organization will eventually find a way to remove or work around that person (Ask me how I know).

 

[AgentQ]

Or, more likely, just seen as part of the job, so you get to keep your job.

Ironically, when companies are losing employees left and right from burnout, the last thing they want to do is fire someone to shrink the team even further.

 

[AgentQ]

I'd by-pass the Grandboss notification, unless he reaches out to you directly. Seems petty otherwise.

Agreed. Compensation and lack of promotions/raises is reasonable to bring up in an exit interview or if you're directly asked. Going out of your way to throw people under the bus on your way out is not a good look, though. You may not have all of the information.

Also, how often did you get direct assignments from your skip-level boss? If that's a common dynamic at your company, I wouldn't be surprised if your grandboss shares more responsibility for your problems than you might expect.

 

[AgentQ]

There is nothing that can be said in an exit interview that will ever help the person exiting. There's plenty that can be said that can be detrimental. Say nothing.

In smaller companies, I've used exit interviews to defuse any tensions on my way out the door. Explain that I enjoyed working with everyone, thank the company for the opportunity, and explain that I'm moving on to the next chapter in my career with a significant compensation motivator attached. That's about as blameless as it can get.

I do agree that it's not helpful to rehash old issues on the way out the door. Usually, the reasons for someone's departure aren't a surprise to anyone on their immediate team. It's more effective for the companies to interview remaining employees so they can attempt to course-correct before anyone leaves. I've never seen a company make efforts to speak to remaining employees when someone leaves, though.

Some people just can't resist the opportunity to speak their mind on the way out the door. I agree that it's not beneficial to the employee. If someone absolutely must, I recommend they focus on the facts, avoid singling anyone out, and let the company draw their own conclusions. To hijack the example above: It's much more impactful to say "I enjoyed working here, but I couldn't justify staying any longer knowing that I didn't have any opportunities for career and compensation progression" than to say "My boss was too incompetent to ensure I was paid well". Any attempts to draw conclusions for them, explicit or otherwise, will weaken your point.

 

[AgentQ]

Oddly, I haven't received anything yet, so I send off a e-mail to our first line of ITS support, the guys we go to when we need things escalated or investigated, asking him what the deal is. To summarize:

Me: Hey, what's going on with these onboarding tickets?
ITS: What onboarding tickets? We just had a meeting today and didn't see any in our zone.

Someone should be reviewing the intake tickets daily, following up with requests for missing info or replying with missed requirements like the 14-day lead time. If the ticket submitter must escalate to get a response, the system is broken. It should never be the submitter's responsibility to prevent tickets from falling through the cracks in another team's process.

 

[AgentQ]

Health is "fully paid for" for me and my spouse (and kids, if I had any), at no cost. If that's as good as I think it is, an HSA would be mostly moot. It can't really mean no premiums, no deductibles, and no co-pays... can it? Is that a common benefit, or did I just hit the healthcare jackpot?

HSA can still function as a tax-advantaged retirement account. Moot point for you, because you don't qualify for an HSA unless you have a high deductible plan.


As for "fully paid for" health insurance: That usually means the employer pays the premiums for you, but your deductibles, co-insurance, and out of pocket maximum limits are unlikely to be 0. Great insurance plans can have $0 deductibles, but you'd still be on the hook for the copays up to the out of pocket maximum.

 

[AgentQ]

I'm pretty sure both plans were HSAs, but I only actually went for it once. Once I got the card and saw the fine print that the bank was going to charge me for this wonderful service I never bothered to activate the card. It might still have money it in for all I know.

Why are there even multiple kinds?

You don't have to use the card to access to the HSA funds. You can file your expenses against the HSA account at any point in the future. If this is really an HSA and not an FSA, the funds are yours. For example, I've always maxed out my HSA but I've never withdrawn from it. I plan to keep it that way until retirement. In my case, the primary benefit of the HSA is the tax-advantaged savings.

You don't even need to keep the money in your employer-sponsored HSA account. You can transfer the funds to a 3rd-party account like Fidelity's HSA offering, although your employer would continue to deposit directly to the sponsored account. Most people just transfer funds out 1-2 times per year.

 

[AgentQ]

I've never been more tempted to quit my job without having something else lined up.

My job search is progressing more slowly than I had hoped. Meanwhile, the toxicity at the office is getting worse by the day. It's a shame, too, because my job was otherwise quite great up until recent changes this year.

Financially, I can afford to take some significant time off. However, I'm mostly worried about the impact on my career prospects. Especially if the economy has a downturn right about the time I decide to go job hunting again.

 

[AgentQ]

At some point it is better to take time off than to be dragged down into the muck.

Coincidentally a couple people I know have quit without anything lined up. I would consider them good company.

Time off is exactly what I need right now. We had a liberal vacation policy when I started here, but now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that genuine vacation is, literally, not allowed. I took one Friday off recently, and I was formally reprimanded for waiting until the evening to respond to the day's Slack messages and e-mails instead of real-time throughout the day. For perspective, my Slack notification count is typically in the 3-digits range by the time I wake up in the morning.

I've also had several friends quit without having jobs lined up. It's hard to tell if it made their job search more difficult, but some of them were unemployed for longer than they wanted to be. Unexplained resume gaps are an additional hurdle in the hiring process.

I could have likely had this going years ago, but never had the guts to just leave and start finding clients.

You know yourself, but I wasted at least five years unhappy in other companies before getting to the tipping point.

Great point. Your comment about not having the guts to make the leap is spot on for me. I've even had two former colleagues reach out, unprompted, asking if I was available for consulting work in the past year. I've scheduled a lunch with one of them to test the waters.

My main concern is still long-term career prospects. It sounds like you're happy with the consulting business, but do you worry about your ability to transition back to a corporate job if necessary?

 

[AgentQ]

Da fuk? So they take the stand that you can't go anywhere without internet access? No hiking in the mountains, taking a cruise, etc?

Unbelievably, that was the directive. Vacation auto-responders are now forbidden, because it implies that you're off the hook for responding to e-mails. I thought it was an exaggeration until I was pummeled for taking a day off doing exactly what you said: Hiking in the mountains.

I have a short backpacking trip scheduled with some old friends in a month. I'm going on the trip regardless of the consequences. The good news is that I'll be financially just fine if my job disappeared tomorrow, but I have some lingering concerns about what will happen to my team when I disappear. I've been shielding them from a lot of nonsense this year.

Wow, yeah, time to GTFO.

Well, obviously. :bigdumbgrin: The real question I'm trying to answer is what's next, and whether or not it's a good idea to take some time off in between this job and the next.

 

[AgentQ]

Being reprimanded by your employer for not working on days you've taken paid time off?

"Untracked vacation time"

When I started here, vacation time was actually respected and encouraged. Some pockets of the company still get away with 2-3 week long genuine vacations. Unfortunately, my division is not one of them.

AgentQ - did you see Norrick's recent posts about transitioning back into a corporate job from running his own consulting business for some years? It might help give you some anecdotal flavor and things to consider.

Norrick's posts came to mind when I first considered consulting work. His most recent posts don't paint a glowing picture of consulting life, though.

 

[AgentQ]

Sometimes you smile and nod and play by the dumbass' rules.

Sometimes you smile and nod and play by the dumbass' rules while looking for a new job.

Sometimes you fight the battle. Pick and choose these wisely.


I think in this case, you communicate status however the TPTB wants. You don't have the leverage, which means you conform to *their* API. Even if you fight this battle ("Your process could be better"), the local improvement (you are literally the only one that benefits from their POV) isn't worth the political capital it would cost to maybe win.

A bit harsh, but generally true. I'd add that if you reach the point where "dumbass" is the best way to describe your boss, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

It's important to give their system an honest try before dismissing it out of hand. You won't have good ground to propose a new system until you've demonstrated a good-faith effort to work within the existing system. Otherwise, it just looks like you're demanding that everyone else adapts to the way you like to work, regardless of how much merit your argument has.

So, ask your boss explicitly how he would like to receive that visibility. Write notes down. Put it on a sticky note on your monitor if you have to. Set a calendar alert to send the visibility report or whatever on Monday, Wendesday, and Friday. Give it a try for a few months. Until you do that, they're not going to be very motivated to listen to your suggestions.

 

[AgentQ]

How many emails do you all typically get in a day? It's rare that I get more than 10.

The idea of being so flooded with emails that you have to triage and eventually start ignoring them completely is astonishing to me. Maybe I'm just not important enough.

I generally get 10-20 e-mails that require thoughtful responses, another 10-20 FYI e-mails that I have to parse and integrate, and then between 50 and 200 e-mails from automated systems (ticket trackers, etc) that I need to parse and maybe comment on.

My real killer is Slack notifications. One of my least-favorite parts of my company culture is the long-running multi-way private messages. I get a push notification for every single line from every participant in the conversation, and they're impossible to find after the fact.

Ironically, I wish we could move more conversations out of chat and back to e-mail threads for this reason.

 

[AgentQ]

Does anyone else find that Blind is one of the most toxic social media platforms out there? The responses to just about every question or thread are almost universally unhelpful, insulting, or outright nasty. It seems like the platform was a good idea, but just turned into a venue for bragging about your TC and LC scores.

Did you ever check out Yik Yak or the other anonymous pseudo-forum apps aimed at edgy high schoolers and angsty college kids?

Blind feels like the next evolution of those old forums. Same users, but now with added smugness because they've been given high TC after grinding leetcode problems for a year. It's shockingly bad.

 

[AgentQ]

It's an anonymous platform to talk about work, primarily focused on tech companies/culture. It's mostly a bunch of tech bros telling you that your $180k entry-level software engineer offer from FAANGU isn't enough to live on in the Bay, and you should really learn how to code your way through interviews better.

That sums it up perfectly.

I think they were going for Nextdoor meets Glassdoor, but instead it's more like LinkedIn crossed with 4Chan.

On the hiring side, I find it useful to browse Blind occasionally. Many junior candidates go looking for industry advice and end up consuming Blind-type drivel. Knowing what they're reading makes it much easier to spot bad behaviors in candidates. Same reason I browse Reddit's /r/cscareerquestions and HN comments occasionally.

 

[AgentQ]

That acronym usually revolves around whoever is paying the most at the moment. Uber is up toward the top: https://www.levels.fyi/2018/

$UBER is down, but not enough to really be a game changer in compensation (yet).

 

[AgentQ]

It's not the "they get stock grants and bonuses" that's unbelievable. It's that they amount to multiples of what Glassdoor says is their totally believable average salaries. Not percentages, but multiples.

Yeah, I get 10-15% of my base salary in bonuses and grants in a good year, and I understand that at Amazon, Google, Facebook and the like, every year is a good year (until it isn't). But 2X? 3X? Do we have any people working for them on here who are willing to divulge their base pay and total compensation to validate these numbers?

Glassdoor shows base salaries. Levels.fyi shows base + bonus + equity. Compare the base numbers between Glassdoor and levels.fyi and you'll see they're in the same ballpark for newer companies like Uber.

Many of those high-compensation positions pay as much or more in equity than they do in base salary. That's where the 2X and 3X discrepancies come from.


levels.fyi also caters to people explicitly seeking high total comp. I get the impression it's skewed toward the best negotiators and those actively seeking high compensation numbers. I only have one inside source at one of these companies who vaguely corroborated the numbers as being in the right ballpark, though she suggested the levels.fyi data was about 20% higher than their internal comp data.

It's going to be interesting to see how the equity-based comp plays out if/when we hit a major pullback in tech stocks.