February 19, 2012 at 7:25 am
Cengland
In an ideal world yes they would.
Too often a developer in a non developer organisation will be totally undervalued. It is likely he will have different qualifications and knowledge from everyone else and management are unlikely to understand what they do or what the value of the work they do is worth.
What's more the career path for such individuals in such organisations is likely to be sketchy and focused on other qualifications. This is often why in such organisations completely unsuitable individuals get promoted into very responsible positions. Management have no idea what they are looking for in tech savy individuals and can be totally hoodwinked at interview.
I've seen astoundingly good students come in and be immediately more useful than all sorts of so called experts and yet they are let go at the end with not a thank you.
cloudydatablog.net
February 19, 2012 at 7:38 am
Dalkeith (2/19/2012)
CenglandIn an ideal world yes they would.
Too often a developer in a non developer organisation will be totally undervalued. It is likely he will have different qualifications and knowledge from everyone else and management are unlikely to understand what they do or what the value of the work they do is worth.
What's more the career path for such individuals in such organisations is likely to be sketchy and focused on other qualifications. This is often why in such organisations completely unsuitable individuals get promoted into very responsible positions. Management have no idea what they are looking for in tech savy individuals and can be totally hoodwinked at interview.
I've seen astoundingly good students come in and be immediately more useful than all sorts of so called experts and yet they are let go at the end with not a thank you.
Thanks for your opinion and I agree with it. I'm in that group of people where I actually cost money for the company. I feel I'm compensated appropriately and in-line with my peers. Once I feel unfairly treated, I have the option to find another job somewhere else.
Still, I don't like being an expense to the company instead of a revenue generator. However, there are things I can do for my annual performance that will still make it seem like I add value. Instead of generating revenue, I save money through reduced expenses. With reports generated through my applications and services, executives find money being lost in projects that have no ROI (return on investment). So, if I can determine those savings and add that to my performance review, then I'm in good shape.
February 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm
cengland0 (2/19/2012)
emmchild (2/18/2012)
Sales should be paid based on their ability to bring in new business. If a developer, NOT a programmer, can bring in business then pay them both equally.What about those developers that create products and services for an internal organization? For example, if someone works for HR in a major company as a developer. These people work just as hard as developers that create products and services for sales to external companies. Shouldn't they also be compensated equally for their hard work even though they do not bring in any additional money for the company?
I think this is a good point, and it's the one that bothers me. Too often we over pay salespeople, IMHO, for the business they bring in. And we under bonus/recognize the value of others.
Salespeople absolutely are important, but we sometime act as though the business came in single-handedly because of their efforts (same with CEOs). It's a team effort, and while we might sometimes bonus people more than others, we ought to recognize there is a value from many people (or departments) that enables the sales to occur.
February 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm
cengland0 (2/19/2012)
emmchild (2/18/2012)
Sales should be paid based on their ability to bring in new business. If a developer, NOT a programmer, can bring in business then pay them both equally.What about those developers that create products and services for an internal organization? For example, if someone works for HR in a major company as a developer. These people work just as hard as developers that create products and services for sales to external companies. Shouldn't they also be compensated equally for their hard work even though they do not bring in any additional money for the company?
Internal operations are a cost center. The business view of cost centers is that this functionality can be out sourced. The folks watching the bottom line will seek to trim fat from a cost center rather than take money off the table. There really is very little concern for how hard one works or which department they support. If you reduce operational expenses there will be no raise for doing your job.
Clients with budgets are the only means of being rewarded for support SERVICES. Major companies are the absolute worst places to be rewarded for non revenue generating activities. Small business will pay more to folks in non revenue generating positions provided those folks are vital to the team. Remember businesses are there to make money not be fair and equitable to everyone. I really don't see myself ever paying an administrative assistant the same as a lead developer.
February 19, 2012 at 6:11 pm
cengland0 (2/19/2012)
Dalkeith (2/19/2012)
CenglandIn an ideal world yes they would.
Too often a developer in a non developer organisation will be totally undervalued. It is likely he will have different qualifications and knowledge from everyone else and management are unlikely to understand what they do or what the value of the work they do is worth.
What's more the career path for such individuals in such organisations is likely to be sketchy and focused on other qualifications. This is often why in such organisations completely unsuitable individuals get promoted into very responsible positions. Management have no idea what they are looking for in tech savy individuals and can be totally hoodwinked at interview.
I've seen astoundingly good students come in and be immediately more useful than all sorts of so called experts and yet they are let go at the end with not a thank you.
Thanks for your opinion and I agree with it. I'm in that group of people where I actually cost money for the company. I feel I'm compensated appropriately and in-line with my peers. Once I feel unfairly treated, I have the option to find another job somewhere else.
Still, I don't like being an expense to the company instead of a revenue generator. However, there are things I can do for my annual performance that will still make it seem like I add value. Instead of generating revenue, I save money through reduced expenses. With reports generated through my applications and services, executives find money being lost in projects that have no ROI (return on investment). So, if I can determine those savings and add that to my performance review, then I'm in good shape.
Shareholders like quarterly results. If a position is viewed on an annual basis there will be trouble. Executives think quarterly too. If you mention your performance over the last 4 quarters and the focus is on the next 2 quarters there will be a problem. I'm not for or against the quarterly perception. I just make money off of the reality that exists because of the perception in the minds of paying clients.
February 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm
I think very highly of ssc and red gate. The services and products are so good they sell themselves. There is a massive amount of sales and marketing involved in getting uninformed people to use scc and buy the crazy awesome products from redgate. The world we live in is not fair to most people. Without the efforts of marketing and sales redgate would cease to exist. No matter how crazy awesome the products are, people still need to be told how much they need to spend money. That's what makes the sales folks valuable.
February 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm
emmchild (2/19/2012)
Internal operations are a cost center. The business view of cost centers is that this functionality can be out sourced.
I have to respectfully disagree. Developers for a program that you are planning on selling can be outsourced easier than a function like HR. Generally there are secret components of the job like SSN and Salary that companies do not trust outside companies to handle properly.
February 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm
emmchild (2/19/2012)
Shareholders like quarterly results. If a position is viewed on an annual basis there will be trouble. Executives think quarterly too. If you mention your performance over the last 4 quarters and the focus is on the next 2 quarters there will be a problem. I'm not for or against the quarterly perception. I just make money off of the reality that exists because of the perception in the minds of paying clients.
We do have an annual review but it's supposed to be a finally summary of all your quarterly reviews all rolled up. However, it usually does not work that way. You can have an above target for 3 quarters and then when you get your final annual review, you get a meets. How is that possible? If you average them out 1=Needs Development, 2=Meets, 3=Exceeds, you can even get a "Needs Development" for the last quarter and still get an "Exceeds". 3+3+3+1 = 10. 10/4 = 2.5 (the minimum threshold for an Exceeds).
I've discovered that the quarterly reviews are really meaningless because they do not represent what you will get at the end of the year. The EOY review is what your bonus and salary increases are based on in a pay-for-performance methodology. I understand the details on how this works and could probably write a book about it. Just believe me when I say quarterly reviews mean nothing if you're doing good. If you're doing poorly, you should take note and do something abut your performance because that usually does affect your annual review.
February 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm
emmchild (2/19/2012)
Internal operations are a cost center. The business view of cost centers is that this functionality can be out sourced. The folks watching the bottom line will seek to trim fat from a cost center rather than take money off the table. There really is very little concern for how hard one works or which department they support. If you reduce operational expenses there will be no raise for doing your job.
Clients with budgets are the only means of being rewarded for support SERVICES. Major companies are the absolute worst places to be rewarded for non revenue generating activities. Small business will pay more to folks in non revenue generating positions provided those folks are vital to the team. Remember businesses are there to make money not be fair and equitable to everyone. I really don't see myself ever paying an administrative assistant the same as a lead developer.
While this may hold true in some places -these are certainly not universal truths. As the outsourcing exercises at many organizations have shown time and time again:
- you can't just keep cutting. Outsourcing fails miserably in certain aspects. Pretty much any time you start outsourcing your IP or any process that makes your company distinctive tends to lead to spectacular failures.
- a lot of markets haven't been growing, so sales can't grow forever. When you're in a saturated market - VALUE starts to play a much stronger role. Having actual quality and good strong processes behind the product makes a LOT of difference to customers when the markets are flat.
The new lessons people are learning from Apple and such is that cost-cutting to the bone has diminishing returns. If you have a good product and staff that is dedicated to making your product the best there is and the most desirable, sales will come all on their own.
All I would say is, if the org you work for only sees you as a cost and there is no way to show your value, then - find an org that WILL see value in what you offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 19, 2012 at 10:45 pm
cengland0 (2/19/2012)
emmchild (2/19/2012)
Internal operations are a cost center. The business view of cost centers is that this functionality can be out sourced.I have to respectfully disagree. Developers for a program that you are planning on selling can be outsourced easier than a function like HR. Generally there are secret components of the job like SSN and Salary that companies do not trust outside companies to handle properly.
Have you heard of http://www.adp.com/ ? We are talking about money and who should get paid based on perceived value. People with budgets will only look at the functionality and the risk associated with acquiring said functionality. People actually worship Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. These guys were excellent sales guys!
Starbucks Batistas would be hauling in low 6 figure salaries based on your logic.
February 19, 2012 at 11:02 pm
The only person who will pay you what you are worth is you. There is a cost associated with everything in business. My advice to anyone seeking a job would be to avoid the cost centers as a means of employment. There is no career path for most people in cost centers. Start a company that provides services similar to the those of the cost centers and reap the rewards.
Have you ever asked yourself why HR works with multiple staffing agencies in the information age? Disintermediation will eventually have an impact on this industry. Until then its business as usual.
February 20, 2012 at 6:30 am
Who should get paid the most, programmers or sales people? It depends. It depends on how much each job contributes to profit (and both do), and it depends on how much you must offer to get a qualified person to take the job.
Since labor is a market and subject to the same pricing laws as the markets in stocks, gasoline, office chairs or anything else, pay will generally fall between two numbers; how much a job is worth and how much must be paid.
A job, whether revenue producing or cost generating, is worth the amount it adds to the bottom line or it wouldn't exist. Revenue generators are obvious, but a risk manager, for example, is worth the difference between the cost of accidents and what that cost would have been without her. Programmers in an insurance company like the one where I work are service providers, like electricians and plumbers, while at a software firm they comprise R&D or at least the cost of goods sold. In either case, their work contributes to net profit, and that amount is how much they are worth.
But no company buys anything for what it is worth, whether programmers or pencils. They pay only as much as they must. There may be a dozen places to buy pencils and they will deal with the one that costs the least. Likewise, from a dozen qualified candidates available for a job, they will hire the one who costs the least. And those candidates compete with each other just as aggressively as the office supply stores do.
February 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Steve Jobs was a marketing and sales genius who stole every technical idea he ever had, presented them successfully as innovation, and ended up with a company that's got more than twice the market value of Microsoft. (I realize any Apple fans out there will consider my statement about him stealing ideas as blaspheme that requires burning me alive at the stake, but I can defend that statement with facts if I have to. Shouldn't need to, as the data is publically available.) What he was good at was presenting his (copied from others) technology in a form-factor that was easy to sell, and providing sales and marketing campaigns that generated fanatical product loyalty, even when the products were of lower quality and higher price than competing products (check out Mac computers in the late '90s for proof of that).
In all fairness when Jobs and Wozniak's dad had that argument about who should own how much of the new company, Woz, the more technical of 2, felt that if it weren't for Jobs ability to sell that he'd still be programming in the basement at HP 😉
Also, if they're production costs at Foxconn are so low then you would think that their products would be discounted more than the 20% they're said to be now.
Ken
February 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm
ken.trock (2/20/2012)
Also, if they're production costs at Foxconn are so low then you would think that their products would be discounted more than the 20% they're said to be now.
Ken
"Send in the Clones!" Well, there aren't any, so Steve/Tim can charge monopoly prices. And they have.
February 21, 2012 at 10:22 am
Supply & Demand:
Good-Excellent developers/engineers are hard to find and should command what the market will bear.
'Good' salespeople are easy to find but excellent reps should be compensated based on the value they bring. Those developers will have nothing to do without the 'sale'.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 119 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply