Microsoft CEO does about-face on women and raises(freep.com)
freep.com
Microsoft CEO does about-face on women and raises
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2014/10/10/microsoft-satya-nadella-women-raises/17023777/
97 comments
I appreciate his prompt and contrite apology. That's rare these days and I give him a lot of credit for it.
But I just plain disagree with your characterization of what he said. He was clear and articulate in the video. His words were not misunderstood or misinterpreted or out of context. I don't think they "came off" wrong. I think they were wrong.
But I just plain disagree with your characterization of what he said. He was clear and articulate in the video. His words were not misunderstood or misinterpreted or out of context. I don't think they "came off" wrong. I think they were wrong.
It's a skill to speak well in public quickly and smoothly. Unfortunately sometimes you don't have sound bites ready, and the thousands of faces staring at you make it hard to do analysis on the spot, so you answer the first answer that comes to mind, and thanks to that skill, it sounds thought out and considered.
Sometimes that skill is a detriment, obviously. Usually it's a boon.
Sometimes that skill is a detriment, obviously. Usually it's a boon.
Hey, I don't want to try to debate what's in another man's head... But this wasn't a hard question or a trick question and answering questions is part of his job.
Maybe he answered too quickly. Though he didn't back down when challenged by the interviewer (who got a round of applause from the audience) and says he left the conference "energized." I'm not sure at what point realized he screwed up -- I'm guessing when Twitter exploded against him?
Maybe he answered too quickly. Though he didn't back down when challenged by the interviewer (who got a round of applause from the audience) and says he left the conference "energized." I'm not sure at what point realized he screwed up -- I'm guessing when Twitter exploded against him?
The trick is that the question didn't have anything to do with women or the perceived "gender gap" (which, as Democratic activists will tell you, no longer refers to differing pay for the same job, but rather the aggregate income gap between women and men; men make more money total than women, even though they get paid the same for the same job (i.e., fewer women have high-paying positions than men)). If Nadella was asked specifically what "women" should do, he converted it to "people" in general, and his response had nothing gender-specific in it at all, and it really is a question that's equally applicable to employees of any gender or race.
It's an early gaffe from an otherwise politically-savvy CEO. Next time he'll know not to bother with minor appearances such as these, because it's not worth the cost.
EDIT: So it's actually a very long-winded question and employees not asking for a raise is the explicit subject of the question. I'm transcribing it from the video that eli linked to below (thanks for the link) so that we can see the full context. I'll transcribe the answer too.
----
Q (interviewer): So one of the questions that somebody asked was how do you-- what do you advise to women who are interested in advancing their careers but they're not comfortable putting themselves up for promotions or advanced opportunities? And there was an interesting-- I just came from the Most Powerful Women's Summit in Laguna Niguel, and some of the other people here also made that trip to Phoenix, and there was someone who was talking about the fact-- it was Mary Barr, who is probably someone whom you're familiar with as well, and she was talking about the fact that she had never asked for a raise. And then her interviewer looked out at the audience, which was a lot fewer people than here, and asked "How many people had never asked for a raise in their life?" And I would say about a quarter to a third of the attendees raised their hands. And an interesting one was Warren Buffet-- and don't ask me why Warren Buffet is at the most powerful women's summit-- apparently he's been doing it for many years. So, you know, for women who aren't comfortable with asking for a raise or sort of saying-- who aren't the younger you, let's say-- what's your advice for them?
A (Nadella): You know, the-- the thing that-- umm, perhaps most influenced me in terms of how you look at the journey or the career. There was this guy, whose name was Mike Naples, he was the president of Microsoft when I joined, and he had this saying where he would say, "Look all sys-- all HR systems-- are long-term efficient, short-tem inefficient", and umm, I thought that that phrase just captured it, which is that it's not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along, and that I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don't ask for a raise have, because that's good karma! It'll come back! Because somebody's gonna know, "That's the kind of person that I wanna trust! That's the kind of person that I reeeally want to give more responsibility to." And in the long-term efficiency, things catch up. And I wonder, and I'm not saying that's the only approach, I wonder whether taking the long-term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of, "Hey, am I getting paid right? Am I getting rewarded right?", because the reality is that your best work is not followed by your best rewards. Your best work then has impact, people recognize it, and then you get the rewards, and you have to somehow think that through I think.
-----
In context, there is some specificity to this question. The interviewer asked him what he'd say to women who are too timid to ask for raises, and he said they're in a good position because you shouldn't be asking for raises anyway, and then went on to elucidate very general principles about how high-quality works percolates through the organization before it results in increased long-term rewards.
The interviewer continues to state how she'd been hired by other women at 50k under market because she said "just pay me whatever you want", and encourages the other attendees to learn to negotiate salary. Somehow I don't really see how this is a gender-specific issue at all. Lowballing an employee like that would've been seen as a win for the female hirer, and it happens just as much if not more to male employees who walk in and say "Please mistreat me" as this interviewer did. This also has nothing to do with the question of requesting a raise when you're already employed.
It's an early gaffe from an otherwise politically-savvy CEO. Next time he'll know not to bother with minor appearances such as these, because it's not worth the cost.
EDIT: So it's actually a very long-winded question and employees not asking for a raise is the explicit subject of the question. I'm transcribing it from the video that eli linked to below (thanks for the link) so that we can see the full context. I'll transcribe the answer too.
----
Q (interviewer): So one of the questions that somebody asked was how do you-- what do you advise to women who are interested in advancing their careers but they're not comfortable putting themselves up for promotions or advanced opportunities? And there was an interesting-- I just came from the Most Powerful Women's Summit in Laguna Niguel, and some of the other people here also made that trip to Phoenix, and there was someone who was talking about the fact-- it was Mary Barr, who is probably someone whom you're familiar with as well, and she was talking about the fact that she had never asked for a raise. And then her interviewer looked out at the audience, which was a lot fewer people than here, and asked "How many people had never asked for a raise in their life?" And I would say about a quarter to a third of the attendees raised their hands. And an interesting one was Warren Buffet-- and don't ask me why Warren Buffet is at the most powerful women's summit-- apparently he's been doing it for many years. So, you know, for women who aren't comfortable with asking for a raise or sort of saying-- who aren't the younger you, let's say-- what's your advice for them?
A (Nadella): You know, the-- the thing that-- umm, perhaps most influenced me in terms of how you look at the journey or the career. There was this guy, whose name was Mike Naples, he was the president of Microsoft when I joined, and he had this saying where he would say, "Look all sys-- all HR systems-- are long-term efficient, short-tem inefficient", and umm, I thought that that phrase just captured it, which is that it's not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along, and that I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don't ask for a raise have, because that's good karma! It'll come back! Because somebody's gonna know, "That's the kind of person that I wanna trust! That's the kind of person that I reeeally want to give more responsibility to." And in the long-term efficiency, things catch up. And I wonder, and I'm not saying that's the only approach, I wonder whether taking the long-term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of, "Hey, am I getting paid right? Am I getting rewarded right?", because the reality is that your best work is not followed by your best rewards. Your best work then has impact, people recognize it, and then you get the rewards, and you have to somehow think that through I think.
-----
In context, there is some specificity to this question. The interviewer asked him what he'd say to women who are too timid to ask for raises, and he said they're in a good position because you shouldn't be asking for raises anyway, and then went on to elucidate very general principles about how high-quality works percolates through the organization before it results in increased long-term rewards.
The interviewer continues to state how she'd been hired by other women at 50k under market because she said "just pay me whatever you want", and encourages the other attendees to learn to negotiate salary. Somehow I don't really see how this is a gender-specific issue at all. Lowballing an employee like that would've been seen as a win for the female hirer, and it happens just as much if not more to male employees who walk in and say "Please mistreat me" as this interviewer did. This also has nothing to do with the question of requesting a raise when you're already employed.
Sure, maybe he answered a completely different question about asking for raises in general and not about the gender gap, but that's definitely not what was asked and it's still a crummy answer.
And I am sorry to say that women often make less then men even doing the same job with the same qualifications. That was the whole point of the question! One of the theories for part of this pay gap is that women are less willing to ask for raises. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
And I am sorry to say that women often make less then men even doing the same job with the same qualifications. That was the whole point of the question! One of the theories for part of this pay gap is that women are less willing to ask for raises. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disp...
>Sure, maybe he answered a completely different question about asking for raises in general and not about the gender gap, but that's definitely not what was asked
From the article, it sounds like what was asked to me. The article says he was asked "how women should ask for raises". We don't know if this is what was actually asked (it's not quoted in the article) or if the author assumed a general question about raise-asking referred specifically to women due to the venue. If someone has a video where we can get some additional context, that'd be great. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough data to really argue about it. You assume the implicit context and political baggage since this was posed at a woman's conference, and I don't, and I don't think Nadella did either.
>it's still a crummy answer
I think it's a fine answer. It's what he thinks about the topic. Maybe you disagree with him and think it's a poorly-reasoned opinion, but it's still a good answer, that is, it's still an actual response to the question that's reflective of his real opinion.
As to wage gap, agreed it's not something to get into here, but here's one link from a non-partisan source. [1] I was just talking to Democratic activists that freely admitted this and believe the problem is that women are kept out of career by subtle social forces, not that they get paid way less than men for the same title/position. The DNC site wants to leave this ambiguous because they know people will be much less incensed by these perceived subtle social forces than by an obvious inequity. I'll leave it at that.
[1] http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/dnc-muddles-wage-gap-issue/
From the article, it sounds like what was asked to me. The article says he was asked "how women should ask for raises". We don't know if this is what was actually asked (it's not quoted in the article) or if the author assumed a general question about raise-asking referred specifically to women due to the venue. If someone has a video where we can get some additional context, that'd be great. Otherwise, I don't think we have enough data to really argue about it. You assume the implicit context and political baggage since this was posed at a woman's conference, and I don't, and I don't think Nadella did either.
>it's still a crummy answer
I think it's a fine answer. It's what he thinks about the topic. Maybe you disagree with him and think it's a poorly-reasoned opinion, but it's still a good answer, that is, it's still an actual response to the question that's reflective of his real opinion.
As to wage gap, agreed it's not something to get into here, but here's one link from a non-partisan source. [1] I was just talking to Democratic activists that freely admitted this and believe the problem is that women are kept out of career by subtle social forces, not that they get paid way less than men for the same title/position. The DNC site wants to leave this ambiguous because they know people will be much less incensed by these perceived subtle social forces than by an obvious inequity. I'll leave it at that.
[1] http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/dnc-muddles-wage-gap-issue/
We actually do know what he was asked because there's a video: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10060267/events/3447060 skip to 1:34:00
Please stop trying to force partisan politics into this discussion. There is evidence that women get paid somewhat less for the same jobs, even when adjusting for age and title and skills and education and experience. Check the footnotes to original research on that wikipedia page.
Please stop trying to force partisan politics into this discussion. There is evidence that women get paid somewhat less for the same jobs, even when adjusting for age and title and skills and education and experience. Check the footnotes to original research on that wikipedia page.
I'm currently reading "So Good They Can't Ignore You" which convincingly argues that getting really good at what you do - building "career capital" as the author says - is what we trade for the best jobs (compensation, flexibility, etc).
Nadella's initial comment was inarticulate in the sense that it could easily be misunderstood, but I heard "trust that if you acquire rare and valuable skills, the system will work for you, no matter your sex".
Nadella's initial comment was inarticulate in the sense that it could easily be misunderstood, but I heard "trust that if you acquire rare and valuable skills, the system will work for you, no matter your sex".
Do you agree with Satya that asking for a raise actually hurts an employee in the long run? And that women are therefore at an advantage in this regard because they are less likely to ask for raises? I find that really surprising and I'd love to see any research that supports it.
Is that what he said exactly?
FTA: "He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along. Not asking for a raise is "good karma," because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust"
I read: "Focus on developing your craft and the salary (or control, or flexibility, etc) you can gain through exchanging your growing value will naturally grow as well." Being better naturally provides you with more options.
FTA: "He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along. Not asking for a raise is "good karma," because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust"
I read: "Focus on developing your craft and the salary (or control, or flexibility, etc) you can gain through exchanging your growing value will naturally grow as well." Being better naturally provides you with more options.
I think what I wrote is accurate. He said not asking for raises is "good karma" and that because women don't ask for raises they actually have an "additional superpower." But watch the video and judge for yourself. http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10060267/events/3447060 right around 1:34:00
There is a subtext of “logic and reason will trump context” here, which is distinctly Rationalist in nature.
Part of the issue is an unfortunate framing of racisim, misogyny, etc. as being illogical. This misrepresents a structural issue; racism and misogyny are entirely logical within their respective ideological underpinnings.
Hence a core issue: that there is a congruency between conditions and events and an underlying ideological system. To suggest that one can transplant conditions and events of another ideological system (EG Rationalist to Teleological) is a myopically laughable proposition.
Part of the issue is an unfortunate framing of racisim, misogyny, etc. as being illogical. This misrepresents a structural issue; racism and misogyny are entirely logical within their respective ideological underpinnings.
Hence a core issue: that there is a congruency between conditions and events and an underlying ideological system. To suggest that one can transplant conditions and events of another ideological system (EG Rationalist to Teleological) is a myopically laughable proposition.
Being the CEO of one of the largest tech companies, he should already have thought threw a monumental issue like the egregious sexism and racism in the tech industry. If he started thinking about it on a panel honoring one of the few women in tech, he's part of the problem.
Neither the question or his response had anything to do with gender. The only connection is that it was incidentally asked at a conference marketed to women. He was asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He said he thinks it jeopardizes the trust between a report and a boss. That's a perfectly valid answer, whether you agree with it or not.
He should just avoid these types of conferences all together so that things like this don't get negatively construed by association.
He should just avoid these types of conferences all together so that things like this don't get negatively construed by association.
> Neither the question or his response had anything to do with gender.
I wasn't there, but the article says that both the question and his response addressed women:
> Earlier at that conference, Nadella was asked to give his advice for women wanting to ask for a raise. He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along.
I wasn't there, but the article says that both the question and his response addressed women:
> Earlier at that conference, Nadella was asked to give his advice for women wanting to ask for a raise. He said it's not about asking for raises, and that women should trust in the system to reward them as they go along.
I transcribed the full question and response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8437781
He was asked what he thought about women who are too afraid to ask for a raise. And he said he thought they were better off because people shouldn't ask for a raise anyway. The question did specify women, though really it's applicable to anyone who is too nervous to ask for a raise, and Nadella responded with a non-gender-specific response except an attempt to pander by saying being afraid to ask for a raise "might be an additional superpower" of female employees, in effect stating that women have superior political instincts.
He was asked what he thought about women who are too afraid to ask for a raise. And he said he thought they were better off because people shouldn't ask for a raise anyway. The question did specify women, though really it's applicable to anyone who is too nervous to ask for a raise, and Nadella responded with a non-gender-specific response except an attempt to pander by saying being afraid to ask for a raise "might be an additional superpower" of female employees, in effect stating that women have superior political instincts.
He should just avoid these types of conferences all together so that things like this don't get negatively construed by association.
Absolutely. And this shows how useless this type of conference really is. If there's only one right answer to the question, the only benefit to attending is to pose for holy pictures about how sensitive you are to the needs of $DISADVANTAGED_GROUP.
Absolutely. And this shows how useless this type of conference really is. If there's only one right answer to the question, the only benefit to attending is to pose for holy pictures about how sensitive you are to the needs of $DISADVANTAGED_GROUP.
I fully agree! He should have just said "I know it's a huge problem, and candidly I don't have the answer, the research shows that women get short shrift for asking for raises, and there doesn't seem to be a clear good way to do it. Of course, that's something we don't like to see at Microsoft, but changing/countering subtle biases is extremely hard, and this conference has inspired me to allocate some resources, and take a hard look at what is possible here"
It's not so much specifically what he said. His entire attitude is evidence of the system in which women are not paid equally and they are not given the recognition they deserve. Where women are expected to shut up and stop bothering the men about these things.
It's telling in that it's something he hasn't put much thought towards before.
Mis-spoke? He clearly thinks workers shouldn't ask for raises, they should just shut up and take whatever their bosses give them.
On top of believing something as retrograde and absurd as that, he is tone deaf to the especially unfair treatment of women.
Whether he should resign or not really depends on whether these views reflect those of Microsoft's board of directors.
EDIT:
Apparently Microsoft has a sock puppet/shill brigade on HN now. That's unfortunate.
On top of believing something as retrograde and absurd as that, he is tone deaf to the especially unfair treatment of women.
Whether he should resign or not really depends on whether these views reflect those of Microsoft's board of directors.
EDIT:
Apparently Microsoft has a sock puppet/shill brigade on HN now. That's unfortunate.
In general people do not ask for raises in big IT companies in US including Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others. The raises are function of performance review, title and budget with very little input from your actual manager. The best way to increase your income is not to ask for a raise but to either get promoted or find position at another company.
I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
> In general people do not ask for raises in big IT companies in US including Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others.
Yes and do you think this benefits the workers or the companies?
You do know about the recent anti-trust lawsuit against several of the companies you named for their non-poaching agreements right?
These companies do all that they can to hold their workers' wages down.
> I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
Imagine how well you'd have done for yourself had you not been such a pushover.
EDIT:
I will also add that it has always been my philosophy that if you do not feel you deserve a raise, you're doing a shitty job.
Yes and do you think this benefits the workers or the companies?
You do know about the recent anti-trust lawsuit against several of the companies you named for their non-poaching agreements right?
These companies do all that they can to hold their workers' wages down.
> I have never ever asked for a raise in my life and I did pretty well for myself.
Imagine how well you'd have done for yourself had you not been such a pushover.
EDIT:
I will also add that it has always been my philosophy that if you do not feel you deserve a raise, you're doing a shitty job.
[deleted]
I completely agree with your comment, but I really think you should give differing points of view the benefit of the doubt. It's ridiculous to assume that people who disagree with you must therefore be part of some conspiracy.
I think things should be taken further - he should be charged and executed for failure to adhere to the politically correct feminist worldview.
He didn't 'misspeak'. He answered the question clearly and eloquently, but terribly. Are you really suggesting that he suddenly lost control of his voice and said the complete opposite of what he meant to say?
How come he has managed to do a complete 180 turn and now strongly believes that women should ask for a raise? He didn't believe that at the talk. Why should we accept this 'belief' now?
How come he has managed to do a complete 180 turn and now strongly believes that women should ask for a raise? He didn't believe that at the talk. Why should we accept this 'belief' now?
The simplest explanation is that, as a manager, he doesn't want employees asking for raises, because this can trigger a wave of people asking for raises, which can result in significant increase in expense, and/or significant decrease in morale if the employees don't get what they want.
This concern overrode his other concerns at the time he was speaking live in front of a crowd.
This concern overrode his other concerns at the time he was speaking live in front of a crowd.
From my perspective the first answer he gave is not a "wrong answer." It's the corporate party line. It's exactly what managers are coached by finance to tell their employees.
The revised answer is the politically correct one. It's what fits with the current pro-feminist narrative in media and pop culture.
The revised answer is the politically correct one. It's what fits with the current pro-feminist narrative in media and pop culture.
I see what you are saying, but he wasn't 'thinking out loud', he was speaking at a conference, and I would find it hard to believe that he didn't have a prepared speech. I think this was exactly what he wanted to say, whether he realized how it sounded or not.
There is a large difference between answering a question incorrectly and having it planned as part of a speech.
Tell me you've never started answering a question and halfway through you start realizing the path you've started going down is not what you want to be saying.
Just look at these comments on this article - he admitted his mistake and he still is being lambasted.
Tell me you've never started answering a question and halfway through you start realizing the path you've started going down is not what you want to be saying.
Just look at these comments on this article - he admitted his mistake and he still is being lambasted.
He was asked a panel question, he wasn't giving a speech.
oh, ok, I apologize, I missed that.
I do agree that he probably said what he meant, but I don't know that he meant what people think he meant. I'm assuming here of course, but I think he may have simply neglected to mention that his advice would be the same regardless of sex or gender. And I think his later comments support that idea.
Nadella let his guard down and said something expressive of a true corporate reality instead of a mindless politically-sanitized soundbite.
It really has nothing to do with women at all (except that he was asked the question at a conference marketed primarily to women). Nadella was, essentially, asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He expressed his real opinion that asking for a raise outside of formal review contexts is in bad taste. This shows the real thought process behind an executive that rises through the ranks; it doesn't matter if they're worth more money, what matters is that they're endearing themselves to their bosses, because long-term that just might end with you getting made CEO of Microsoft, whereas harming that trust or sense of professionalism to demand an extra $50 tacked on to your paycheck just might end up with your career at a dead end.
Think what you want of it, but that's Nadella's real opinion, that he allowed to accidentally slip because, for a moment, he didn't see the potential political ramifications and just tried to provide some honest, substantive career advice. Employees may not like the intimation that they can't just make demands for things that they feel are deserved, but that's how successful political operatives play the game, and politics absolutely is a real element in any and every employment situation.
I think it's awesome when this kind of stuff gets exposed.
It really has nothing to do with women at all (except that he was asked the question at a conference marketed primarily to women). Nadella was, essentially, asked what he thought about employees asking for raises. He expressed his real opinion that asking for a raise outside of formal review contexts is in bad taste. This shows the real thought process behind an executive that rises through the ranks; it doesn't matter if they're worth more money, what matters is that they're endearing themselves to their bosses, because long-term that just might end with you getting made CEO of Microsoft, whereas harming that trust or sense of professionalism to demand an extra $50 tacked on to your paycheck just might end up with your career at a dead end.
Think what you want of it, but that's Nadella's real opinion, that he allowed to accidentally slip because, for a moment, he didn't see the potential political ramifications and just tried to provide some honest, substantive career advice. Employees may not like the intimation that they can't just make demands for things that they feel are deserved, but that's how successful political operatives play the game, and politics absolutely is a real element in any and every employment situation.
I think it's awesome when this kind of stuff gets exposed.
I agree with your main point but while there is a pay gap between men and women in similar roles within a company it is particularly an issue for gender paid less (in practice women).
Patio11 made a great point years ago which is still true.
For that matter, if you think that there is a vast pool of untapped female talent working for 80% of the price of equivalent male talent… what are you doing hiring men, again? That would suggest that you could field whole teams of ladies and clean up.
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-thin...
For that matter, if you think that there is a vast pool of untapped female talent working for 80% of the price of equivalent male talent… what are you doing hiring men, again? That would suggest that you could field whole teams of ladies and clean up.
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/02/23/women-men-and-other-thin...
Going through a job hunt, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn there are a bunch of really nice employees out there, of all races and genders and ages, that are being passed over for completely nonsense reasons.
I think that's true, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not women are paid equal wages for equal work. If they weren't, a company could cheaply acquire the best talent by only hiring women.
That was a stupid statement. Raises don't come to anyone who doesn't ask, men or women. In addition, raises don't seem to come at all in IT, except by changing jobs.
Unfortunately, when you feel it's time for your compensation to be bumped, it's probably time to look for another job. And that's ignoring the situation where you have a bad manager/company where asking for a raise will instantly make the environment hostile.
Unfortunately, when you feel it's time for your compensation to be bumped, it's probably time to look for another job. And that's ignoring the situation where you have a bad manager/company where asking for a raise will instantly make the environment hostile.
Asking doesn't work in any corporation I've ever been at. There's an annual review cycle.
They'd like you to think that. But I know companies where the raise cycle is separate from the review cycle (it actually happens right before reviews, oddly), and they don't announce the raises until after reviews are completed so that you THINK there's an association.
I also know people who the only raises they've ever gotten were off-cycle, because they asked for them.
I also know people who the only raises they've ever gotten were off-cycle, because they asked for them.
Asking has been the only way to get a raise above inflation in any corporation I've ever been at, even after taking on extra responsibilities.
if you ask for a raise and they say its not part of the annual review cycle, or any other excuse, it means 1 of 3 things: They cant give you a raise because they cant afford it (very rare), they do not think you are worth it, or they think you are worth it but don't think you will walk.
If you ask for a raise and they give you an excuse like that (or pretty much any other), start preparing to leave. It usually helps that you ask from a position of strength, so you can actually leave immediately.
If you ask for a raise and they give you an excuse like that (or pretty much any other), start preparing to leave. It usually helps that you ask from a position of strength, so you can actually leave immediately.
Extend this: be ready to leave every day. Treat each paycheck as a renewed offer of employment. Compare it with your current options of employment. Make the best decision for you.
Even if you don't change jobs very often, this position and attitude give you clarity.
Note: this is not at odds with the 'asking for a raise doesn't work' position. Its just that, employment means getting pay for work. If you can do better somewhere else, and you have no other personal reasons for staying, then go!
Even if you don't change jobs very often, this position and attitude give you clarity.
Note: this is not at odds with the 'asking for a raise doesn't work' position. Its just that, employment means getting pay for work. If you can do better somewhere else, and you have no other personal reasons for staying, then go!
You weren't doing freelance?
It does work like that in those corporations. They just prefer you to think it doesn't as it keeps wages down.
If a top sales guy walks into his manager's office and says he wants a 20% hike, he'll be getting a 20% hike.
It's just you didn't try/get yourself in a strong enough position.
If a top sales guy walks into his manager's office and says he wants a 20% hike, he'll be getting a 20% hike.
It's just you didn't try/get yourself in a strong enough position.
I've been lucky in my career. I'm valued; I get paid well; I have equity and perks.
It can't work as you describe either. What if he asks the same thing the next day?
That seems like an incomplete statement. He might get a 20% hike once, because he's undervalued. That's an "equity adjustment." But obviously that wouldn't work every day.
In sales it works well, either by commission or you have actual numbers on your value.
[deleted]
Anecdotal, and not only anecdotal but anecdotal with a sample size of exactly one.
I'm currently working as a software engineer at my first post collegiate (post college? Collegiate sounds cooler.) position. I started a bit under market and after about eight months I scheduled a meeting with my CTO to review my compensation. Stressed that I enjoyed working at the company but I had come to understand that in similar roles at other companies I would receive a significant boost in compensation. I provided examples of value that I bought to the team (which was simple because I was one of the first programmers hired in the states by the company and had proved myself many times and received many exemplary quarter reviews from my CTO and super) and was asked for an indication of the salary I would like.
I provided a range, and my next paycheck was at the top of that range.
I got very lucky in that the day I asked, my CTO sent along a request, which happened to be on the day that all salary reconsiderations were happening and so within a few hours it was approved. That was merely chance. I had no internal understanding of the system prior.
However, prior to asking, I did my research and concluded the best way to receive a raise was to 1) ask. 2) stress that I would like to stay in the company and enjoyed my work there. 3) show the value I bought to the team. and 4) to do so a little before my one year review.
I'm now a vested employee :-).
I'm currently working as a software engineer at my first post collegiate (post college? Collegiate sounds cooler.) position. I started a bit under market and after about eight months I scheduled a meeting with my CTO to review my compensation. Stressed that I enjoyed working at the company but I had come to understand that in similar roles at other companies I would receive a significant boost in compensation. I provided examples of value that I bought to the team (which was simple because I was one of the first programmers hired in the states by the company and had proved myself many times and received many exemplary quarter reviews from my CTO and super) and was asked for an indication of the salary I would like.
I provided a range, and my next paycheck was at the top of that range.
I got very lucky in that the day I asked, my CTO sent along a request, which happened to be on the day that all salary reconsiderations were happening and so within a few hours it was approved. That was merely chance. I had no internal understanding of the system prior.
However, prior to asking, I did my research and concluded the best way to receive a raise was to 1) ask. 2) stress that I would like to stay in the company and enjoyed my work there. 3) show the value I bought to the team. and 4) to do so a little before my one year review.
I'm now a vested employee :-).
True in some situations but totally depends on the company, on your boss, and on your performance. At my current employer I've been kicking ass at my job and getting regular raises without having to ask for them. Granted, my starting base salary was lower than what a lot of tech companies offer, but I work for a competent, fair managment team and I rarely need to put in more than 40 hours a week.
I've received several raises over the last few years without asking. I also get large bonuses...If you are under good leadership this happens.
This is why I'd avoid doing "pro women" events in general. If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist. There's no win, no benfit.
Just avoid that entire area, the entire topic. There's no rational discourse that can be had.
I think we all learned that after the "protests" over that public safety briefing a few years ago where essentially a [male] police officer suggested women could avoid some harrasment by exposing less, and it caused a "national debate," and protests across the US.
I'm all for more women in tech. I just don't like most of the other people who also feel that way, they're very sexist in their own right (but they consider their sexism rightous which makes it even worse).
I seriously doubt if it was a women CEO we'd even be talking about identical comments.
Just avoid that entire area, the entire topic. There's no rational discourse that can be had.
I think we all learned that after the "protests" over that public safety briefing a few years ago where essentially a [male] police officer suggested women could avoid some harrasment by exposing less, and it caused a "national debate," and protests across the US.
I'm all for more women in tech. I just don't like most of the other people who also feel that way, they're very sexist in their own right (but they consider their sexism rightous which makes it even worse).
I seriously doubt if it was a women CEO we'd even be talking about identical comments.
> If it goes well nobody cares, if you slip up then everyone jumps all over you and calls you a sexist.
Most things in life are like this. Do what's expected and it's just another day. Fuck up and you'd better prepare for a shitstorm.
Most things in life are like this. Do what's expected and it's just another day. Fuck up and you'd better prepare for a shitstorm.
I think you're correct, but at least most of the time people just think you incompetent. When you screw up in this context people think you a bigot and or think worse of your character.
You can recover from people thinking you made a mistake or were incompetent. You sometimes cannot recover from character assassination.
You can recover from people thinking you made a mistake or were incompetent. You sometimes cannot recover from character assassination.
The point is it's a valid answer that wouldn't be considered a fuck up outside of the context of a women's conference. Having that context attached makes everything said much more dangerous.
So its become poison to speak at women's conferences? You'll toe the PC line or be raked over the coals by the public.
"Not asking for a raise is 'good karma,' because someone will know that that's the kind of person he or she will want to trust, he said."
It's not even about women. His statement shows that he's out of touch when it comes to women AND men.
It's not even about women. His statement shows that he's out of touch when it comes to women AND men.
It's standard manager-talk, worrying about how to keep a lid on the company's #1 expense: salary.
Not that I agree with his viewpoint, but it's not hard, at all, to grok where he's coming from.
Not that I agree with his viewpoint, but it's not hard, at all, to grok where he's coming from.
Agreed, but it's especially odious in the context of a reducing the gender pay gap at a conference for women.
Employees shouldn't get raises because they ask for them, it should be part of a company's annual review process.
I had a job for four years at a small company, didn't get a single raise. I told them I was quitting, and ON THE SPOT they offered to DOUBLE my salary.
No thanks. I'll be moving on.
No thanks. I'll be moving on.
Happened to my cousin many years ago, except they offered to triple his salary.
People don't see how insulting this is. Internally, you've already decided you are underpaying me by half, and think I'm a sucker.
People don't see how insulting this is. Internally, you've already decided you are underpaying me by half, and think I'm a sucker.
The proper thing to do is take the raise and start looking for another job. When asked what your current requirements are you can quote your now doubled salary.
Employees' lives don't revolve around the annual review process.
There are plenty of valid reasons, including feeling underpaid, that can't and shouldn't wait for the annual review process.
As a manager, if you have a valued employee that is approached by another company and offered a 10% bump in salary and your response to that employee is "We'll see what we can do during your annual review", you are guaranteed to lose that employee.
Raises offered during the annual review process are typically merely cost-of-living adjustments. Unless a promotion is attached, it is hardly ever anything but.
There are plenty of valid reasons, including feeling underpaid, that can't and shouldn't wait for the annual review process.
As a manager, if you have a valued employee that is approached by another company and offered a 10% bump in salary and your response to that employee is "We'll see what we can do during your annual review", you are guaranteed to lose that employee.
Raises offered during the annual review process are typically merely cost-of-living adjustments. Unless a promotion is attached, it is hardly ever anything but.
Issues faced by either the employee or by the company need to be communicated as soon as possible so that the results of the employee review do not come as a surprise and so that a plan/ideas can be thought of ahead of time. If the company has a problem with the work that you're doing or views your role within the company differently to you, they need to tell you as soon as possible so that corrective action can be implemented. Likewise if your salary is not sufficient, or there are other aspects that you feel are lacking such as training etc, communicate it early! Don't necessarily expect though that the company can implement a solution immediately, that may only happen as part of the employee review process itself, but at least now they're aware of the issue and can make any necessary adjustments to the budget before it's locked in for the year.
If neither party communicates their expectations on remuneration or job function, resentment builds up and someone snaps. Either it comes from the company in the form of disciplinary action or firings, or the employee goes and looks for a new higher paying job and won't even accept more money from the existing employer to stay because they've already felt their trust has been betrayed.
Expectation management is a continuous process for both parties, not something that should happen just once or twice a year.
If neither party communicates their expectations on remuneration or job function, resentment builds up and someone snaps. Either it comes from the company in the form of disciplinary action or firings, or the employee goes and looks for a new higher paying job and won't even accept more money from the existing employer to stay because they've already felt their trust has been betrayed.
Expectation management is a continuous process for both parties, not something that should happen just once or twice a year.
That sounds all well and give but it entirely ignores external factors.
For example, what if a big competitor moves into town, and they're paying 20% more than you. Are you just going to ignore it for 11 months while they pinch tons of your employees? No of course you aren't. So that statement is untrue even from a company's perspective.
That whole "annual review" thing is a manipulation by HR to take the discussion of pay and benefits off the table except for a predetermined period they themselves select (and can be ready with ammo against your requests or a list of increased responsibilities).
Honestly it is just a very effective technique that reduces pay increases and delays pay increases as much as possible (e.g. new employees often not getting their first bump for 12 months, even after they lave their probation period (e.g. 6 months)).
For example, what if a big competitor moves into town, and they're paying 20% more than you. Are you just going to ignore it for 11 months while they pinch tons of your employees? No of course you aren't. So that statement is untrue even from a company's perspective.
That whole "annual review" thing is a manipulation by HR to take the discussion of pay and benefits off the table except for a predetermined period they themselves select (and can be ready with ammo against your requests or a list of increased responsibilities).
Honestly it is just a very effective technique that reduces pay increases and delays pay increases as much as possible (e.g. new employees often not getting their first bump for 12 months, even after they lave their probation period (e.g. 6 months)).
That's exactly what Google did to Microsoft when they opened the office in Kirkland. About six people in my group left right away, and I'm sure dozens more since then.
And the reaction by Microsoft was exactly what you describe. Ignore it for a year or two.
And the reaction by Microsoft was exactly what you describe. Ignore it for a year or two.
"I was inarticulate" is such bullshit. He was perfectly articulate in expressing the message he did. It's the content people are reacting to, not the presentation.
In a statement to Microsoft employees Thursday night, Nadella went further, saying he was "completely wrong."
But others in this thread are acting as if he "misspoke" which clearly wasn't the case.
It's not 'I was wrong', but its pretty darn close.
You have to give it to him, for better or worse on the original statement or his actual views on the topic, he's sucking it up and admitting he was wrong.
That's more than I've been able to say for Microsoft in a long time.
You have to give it to him, for better or worse on the original statement or his actual views on the topic, he's sucking it up and admitting he was wrong.
That's more than I've been able to say for Microsoft in a long time.
If you read his e-mail he admits he was "completely wrong"
http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-...
http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/09/satya-nadella-email-to-...
From a Gawker commenter (< http://valleywag.gawker.com/i-became-ceo-by-patiently-waitin... >):
"I became CEO by patiently waiting and having faith in the system."
Said no CEO ever.
I've met a lot of executives who've become executives with that type of attitude. Affability is one of the key properties of a successful politician. If you seem pessimistic, defeatist, etc., people are not going to want you to be in a leadership position. You have to act like everything is sunshine and flowers and project that image.
Nadella did become CEO by patiently waiting and practicing good politics, which includes projecting a faith in the system and not ruffling feathers by asking your bosses to pay you more money.
Nadella did become CEO by patiently waiting and practicing good politics, which includes projecting a faith in the system and not ruffling feathers by asking your bosses to pay you more money.
[deleted]
He gave an off the cuff answer that was wrong. He didn't write an essay about it that was proofread and considered. I'm not surprised that people are assuming they 'know his heart' based on one quick answer, but I am disappointed.
Something I've not seen pointed out elsewhere too, is that (unfortunately) this is an answer that every manager of every large company has ready at the tip of their tongue. It pops out from rote memorization. Not about women, but about all employees: "We only give raises as part of the normal annual review process. I understand you think your compensation needs to be reconsidered because ...... and I'll make sure to discuss that with the rest of the management team at review time." It's not good, but it's a well rehearsed blow off answer for which every manager is trained.
I think he's a good guy who is handling the aftermath well. He gave a stupid answer and apologized. I honestly the bigger mistake is telling employees to trust the system, rather than a single off the cuff answer that didn't fit well.
Something I've not seen pointed out elsewhere too, is that (unfortunately) this is an answer that every manager of every large company has ready at the tip of their tongue. It pops out from rote memorization. Not about women, but about all employees: "We only give raises as part of the normal annual review process. I understand you think your compensation needs to be reconsidered because ...... and I'll make sure to discuss that with the rest of the management team at review time." It's not good, but it's a well rehearsed blow off answer for which every manager is trained.
I think he's a good guy who is handling the aftermath well. He gave a stupid answer and apologized. I honestly the bigger mistake is telling employees to trust the system, rather than a single off the cuff answer that didn't fit well.
Good for him for acknowledging his mistake. He seems to have moved fairly quickly from his original flawed advice to an unsatisfying "[I] was inarticulate" and on to a solid "I answered that question completely wrong". Getting all the way there by the end of the day is admirable, and the lesson of that goes a long way toward making up for the original mistake.
And while I'm handing out praise, good for President Klawe for calling out Nadella on his answer and providing a better one. (She's been leading some great changes at my alma mater, and this sort of thing has a lot to do with why.)
And while I'm handing out praise, good for President Klawe for calling out Nadella on his answer and providing a better one. (She's been leading some great changes at my alma mater, and this sort of thing has a lot to do with why.)
You will never be able to move forward if the only possible reaction is negativity. That's not a feeling people want to join in on.
I don't understand the point of correcting him. If you see that the CEO of a major tech company thinks this way, you shouldn't jump to correct him, we should look at society as a whole and see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. Asking a question about what a woman should do when she wants to ask for a raise is a bad idea on a lot of levels. There are very significant problems with gender and race in society, but asking a person who neither has to ask for raises, nor is a woman is a bad idea. Creating questions based on a problem like this is shortsighted, because this problem isn't going to be solved on an individual basis.
As usual I expect the original story to far outlast this. Outrage is the order of the day.
Software's pseudo-meritocracy is especially tricky to navigate. It's hard for everyone; it's even harder for women and minorities.
First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf.
You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that.
The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option.
The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk.
The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.
First, asking for "a raise" is generally going to lead to failure, and complicate the relationship if not done properly. It sounds like you're asking to get more money for the same work, and that'll leave anyone cold: especially a middle-manager. An owner can (in theory) recognize your value and say, "yeah, that number sounds about right" but, if you're asking a middle manager for a raise, you're asking him to sit in a bunch of meetings and argue with assholes on your behalf.
You're better off to ask for a promotion. But there are two problems with that.
The first is that companies often give promotions (whether a title bump, or actual increase of scope) in lieu of raises. "We don't have money in the budget, but we'll certainly let you take on more responsibility if you can get your regular work done". Of course, "if you can get your regular work done" is code for, "we'll give you absolutely no support, and you won't be able to delegate what's on your plate, so we're really just giving you permission to do higher-level work." Of course, these phony promotions eventually lead a person to take the external mobility option.
The second issue is that asking for a promotion is often taken as more confrontational than asking for a raise. You're implying, to your boss, that he missed something. You're questioning his evaluation of you. Companies think of themselves as perfect meritocracies and you make enemies if you challenge that perception. And if you do so while acting on your own behalf, you look like an entitled jerk.
The most effective way to get promoted (and, possibly, to get raises) is to take on more responsibility without asking, hope that it's noticed and, if not, to ask for formal promotion. (You should usually present this, to your manager, as "We both know that titles are silly, but I've been doing a lot of work with other departments, and having that credibility makes them more willing to take my work and my needs seriously." Make it about the benefit to him, not you.) However, taking on responsibility is risky as hell because it usually means you're intruding coveted turf. (This isn't just "big company politics"; you see it in tiny startups, as well. Mad Men is set in small companies and, after Season 3, in a startup.) Sometimes this pays off, but often it backfires and leads to demotion ("allow me to clarify what is your job and what is not your job") or termination. For reasons that are probably cultural, it's clueless white men who are most eager to take on that risk. Hence, they get promotions and raises faster, but also (presumably) get fired more often.
I think this is great advice. I don't think it supports your assertion that this game is more difficult to play as a woman or a minority. If you claim that "clueless white men" take more risk, and therefore end up on both extremes (promoted or fired) more often, then they aren't privileged.
If you claim that "clueless white men" take more risk, and therefore end up on both extremes (promoted or fired) more often, then they aren't privileged.
Most people who are privileged are white. There's definitely a disproportionate representation. Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged. People who talk about "white privilege" as something extended to all whites haven't been in Appalachia recently.
Gender is much more complicated. There are overprivileged men and women, but gender norms are the strongest at the bottom and top of society, while the middle is most gender-egalitarian. That's why I have no problem making jokes about "rich Daddies" and "trophy wives" when I lampoon the upper class (which is not the same set of people as "the rich"). They actually are deeply sexist, so those depictions are pretty accurate. The result of this is that the upper class directs overprivileged women to the fatuous (sitting on boards of art galleries without understanding art, fashion, etc.) and overprivileged men to positions of power.
Most people who are privileged are white. There's definitely a disproportionate representation. Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged. People who talk about "white privilege" as something extended to all whites haven't been in Appalachia recently.
Gender is much more complicated. There are overprivileged men and women, but gender norms are the strongest at the bottom and top of society, while the middle is most gender-egalitarian. That's why I have no problem making jokes about "rich Daddies" and "trophy wives" when I lampoon the upper class (which is not the same set of people as "the rich"). They actually are deeply sexist, so those depictions are pretty accurate. The result of this is that the upper class directs overprivileged women to the fatuous (sitting on boards of art galleries without understanding art, fashion, etc.) and overprivileged men to positions of power.
> Most white people are not privileged, because most people are not privileged.
This is a misrepresentation of what white privilege means. It means that all things equal being white gives you an unearned advantage in (western) society. The same applies to gender-privilege, cis-privilege, wealth-privilege, and so on. Our society would be better if we wouldn't give or deny people opportunities based on those attributes.
All white people have white privilege, but a white person can obviously still be less privileged than a person of color. You can argue that "most white people are not privileged" because on an absolute privilege scale most white people aren't all doing so great, but that still semantic nonsense for the reason I give above. Nobody makes the ridiculous assertion that being white automatically makes your life awesome, so to use white privilege like that is a straw man. To put it simply: being white and poor in Appalachia sucks, but being a poor minority in Appalachia sucks worse. Therefore white privilege.
This is a misrepresentation of what white privilege means. It means that all things equal being white gives you an unearned advantage in (western) society. The same applies to gender-privilege, cis-privilege, wealth-privilege, and so on. Our society would be better if we wouldn't give or deny people opportunities based on those attributes.
All white people have white privilege, but a white person can obviously still be less privileged than a person of color. You can argue that "most white people are not privileged" because on an absolute privilege scale most white people aren't all doing so great, but that still semantic nonsense for the reason I give above. Nobody makes the ridiculous assertion that being white automatically makes your life awesome, so to use white privilege like that is a straw man. To put it simply: being white and poor in Appalachia sucks, but being a poor minority in Appalachia sucks worse. Therefore white privilege.
They are, but with a price: The price is that they can't show up again at their former company, but now are at their next with ALL the benefits. I usually chose that. Noone gives it to you (on the silver plate). You have to demand it. It's a struggle for everyone. Which is a change (to former times): My dad happily got old in one company (IN ONCE CITY, with friends, family and everything there). HE got the promotions and raises. WHAT changed ?!?
[deleted]
As someone who frequently thinks out loud as a way to work through ideas, I totally get how you could say things that you don't mean or come off entirely wrong given hindsight.