Lemma: Culture > Compensation


 

Let's try to produce a framework for comparing job offers.

First we should identify what factors make a good offer and add them together.  Then let's disregard everything but the dominant factor, just like we do in Big-O analysis.  At risk of being cynical, let's go ahead and say what most people probably consider the dominant factor, money.

We can rationalize this somewhat because many of the disregarded factors correlate closely with money.  Where there's money there's talent, benefits, perks, even social status.  However there may also be politics, competition, even big egos.  Whatever discomfort you may have with the offer, we can collectively call this "culture mismatch."

To score an offer based on what we have so far we could say:

Offer Score = Comp/Culture Mismatch 

We should also make sure to consider the long term possibilities of each position.  A high pay job with little upward mobility will eventually become a mediocre pay job.  Our ability to do well may depend on many things: culture-fit, skills-fit, luck, etc.  Let's pluck out what we can quantify.  Generally we'll be measured against our peers by our contribution, cost, and cultural fit.

Growth Score = (Execution - Cost) * Culture Match
Growth Score = (Execution - Cost)/Culture Mismatch

The overall ranking should then be the combination of these two:

 Overall Score = Offer Score + Growth Score 

= Comp/Culture Mismatch + (Execution - Cost)/Culture Mismatch 

= Comp/Culture Mismatch + Execution/Culture Mismatch - Comp/Culture Mismatch

= Execution/Culture Mismatch 

= Execution * Culture Match

Presumably one's execution will be constant across at all positions.  Since the score's purpose is comparison, we can divide all scores by the same constant and rename the score.

Overall Score / Execution Constant = Culture Match

 Final Score = Culture Match

When you consider the effect of income tax and proportional increases in living costs in higher paying locations we can further disregard the importance of compensation.  This doesn't mean a candidate shouldn't care.  They should shoot for a competitive offer for their position in their market.  However, their cumulative, long term reward and mental health will likely be superior in a position where they feel a positive connection with their peers.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Engineering Truisms

This is a brief collection of quotes, laws, and truisms that I've gathered over the years.  I've kept those that have consistently proved themselves across organizations and projects during my career.
Read more

The Telescoping Constructor (Anti-Pattern)

Image
The Telescoping Constructor Looks like this: Widget(varA) {...} Widget(varA, varB) {...} Widget(varA, varB, varC) {...} or Widget widget = new Widget(x); widget.setVarA(...) widget.setVarB(...) widget.setVarC(...) There are both shared and specific problems for each variety.  Let's talk about both. The 1st case, supernumerary constructors. What's wrong with this? Well, the good news is you provide  quiet consumption since there's a bespoke constructor for every use case.  Rather than have noisy construction, where the consumer must fill in a bunch of nulls, you move the noise into the implementation.  We shouldn't make assumptions on how many times the class will be used, so keeping the complexity to ourselves is generous and will lead to a more maintainable macro system. However, one problem here is that the end consumer is not restricted in their choice of constructors.  Like shopping at the super market, somet
Read more

A Strategic Approach to Precision Process Automation

Image
The global tech labor arbitrage trade has matured since its start in the Clinton era.  We've witnessed real estate in places like Mumbai and Singapore appreciate to levels rivaling NY and London.  The rising tide lifts all boats.  As global tech labor costs have flattened somewhat, software has gotten more expensive to produce and maintain.  The market is betting that AI will largely alleviate this by supplanting much of software engineering as a practice.  However, until this plays out, being judicious about when and how to use software is more important than ever.   While it's constructive to build software systems as "black boxes," it's folly to view them as crystal balls.  Increasingly, software is operations .  That engineer who knows the code like the back of his hand is your foreman.  Code is not static, it's constantly evolving to meet business demands and improve efficiency.  "Software Engineering is programming integrated over time."  Th
Read more