<story><title>Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries</title><url>https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-salaries/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>humanrebar</author><text>If you felt you were underpaid, leaving is fair. I don&amp;#x27;t really understand the requirement that all bosses are paid more than those they supervise, though. I mean, emotionally I can understand feeling that way. But I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s a rule of nature or something.&lt;p&gt;For instance, coaches often make less than their star players. Directors and producers often make less than star actors. Hospital directors seem to make less than surgeons.</text></item><item><author>angarg12</author><text>I worked for a very old fashioned company in Germany that used a similar system to pay employees. After about a year I became the lead of my team. But since some of my colleagues had been in the company about 10 years, they were getting paid more than me. Frustrated, I left for a better (and better paying) job.&lt;p&gt;I believe these systems produce a &amp;quot;dead sea effect&amp;quot;. High performer will leave, being able to get better deals elsewhere. Low performers will stay, since they can&amp;#x27; find a better deal elsewhere.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nerdponx</author><text>I think this makes a lot of sense. Management is not &amp;quot;better&amp;quot;, it is simply &amp;quot;different&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;And in terms of actual value delivered to the business, I doubt that a low&amp;#x2F;mid-level manager delivers &lt;i&gt;significantly more&lt;/i&gt; than an experienced and productive individual contributor.&lt;p&gt;Organizations need both good managers and good individual contributors. Clearly managers of technical contributors need enough technical experience to make sound management decisions. But that doesn&amp;#x27;t seem like a good reason to constantly promote people upwards, nor does it seem like a reason to always pay managers more than ICs by default.&lt;p&gt;However I think in some cases managers end up subject to extra risk if a project goes bad, so they are probably entitled to some increased &amp;quot;hazard pay&amp;quot; for that. (The risk&amp;#x2F;responsibility structure might be inverted at some toxic dysfunctional organizations, but that&amp;#x27;s beside the point.)</text></comment>
<story><title>Rethinking Levels, Promotions and Salaries</title><url>https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-salaries/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>humanrebar</author><text>If you felt you were underpaid, leaving is fair. I don&amp;#x27;t really understand the requirement that all bosses are paid more than those they supervise, though. I mean, emotionally I can understand feeling that way. But I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s a rule of nature or something.&lt;p&gt;For instance, coaches often make less than their star players. Directors and producers often make less than star actors. Hospital directors seem to make less than surgeons.</text></item><item><author>angarg12</author><text>I worked for a very old fashioned company in Germany that used a similar system to pay employees. After about a year I became the lead of my team. But since some of my colleagues had been in the company about 10 years, they were getting paid more than me. Frustrated, I left for a better (and better paying) job.&lt;p&gt;I believe these systems produce a &amp;quot;dead sea effect&amp;quot;. High performer will leave, being able to get better deals elsewhere. Low performers will stay, since they can&amp;#x27; find a better deal elsewhere.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>soco</author><text>Here in Switzerland, most of the non-IT people I&amp;#x27;m talking with are genuinely surprised that for instance project managers are paid less that developers. For them just hearing the word &amp;quot;manager&amp;quot; = big buck.</text></comment>