|
Parallelwoody posted:How would yall suggest finding your market value as a 1099 consultant? I feel like I got bodied in an interview earlier when I thought I'd bring up my previous (over market) salary with a go between company. Guy went through the math and added a lot to account for the obvious, then tried to counter later that day with basically the same salary as my previous position once everything was taken into account. Haven't heard from him since but I would like to be a little more prepared for next time. Raise rates until you stop finding work. Then lower them to where you're as booked as you want.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:At my firm unless there are some broad company level adjustments, you get your comp adjusted once a year as well as promotions etc. Everyone knows when this is, so discussions occur in the lead up to that point in time. You should be having regular career advancement conversations on a at least quarterly basis regardless, but yes, the appropriate time to discuss raises is at annual raise time. Good to know, this is what I've been doing. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
TrueChaos posted:Good to know, this is what I've been doing. Thanks! Go get 'em. It's usually pretty easy to progress through a manager/engagement manager/project manager whatever the gently caress you want to call it first layer of management level. After that things do get a bit harder but one of the advantages of consulting is that it is way more of a perform-promote process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
I haven't followed this thread for a few years, but I thought it fitting to report that I recalled several of the basic interview negotiation tactics and netted a 40% pay increase, and probably $10k/yr more than I projected their range to be. I guess I've been off the market a bit too long. Never say a number, folks, and hammer home the value you'd bring to the organization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
So different kind of negotiation, business negotiation Let's say hypothetically you work at a division of giant nationally important global manufacturing powerhouse like Raytheon and you are developing a quantum computer to do X. Calculate nuclear fusion magnetic containment fields. Whatever. This is going to cost $400 million to build, says your chief designer, and your parent company's willing to chip in $100mm. Option 1 is go to private equity get a loan for $300mm or option b is go to your 3 main parts suppliers and get them to invest in the project as partners and they would get a royalty on each quantum computer built. You see the worldwide market for these things as about 200 and each computer will cost a billion dollars so it's a pretty good return on investment but also there's some risk as the project might implode So you've agreed to a term sheet and you're down to your final two line items with one of the three investors, both are truly non negotiable 1) they're added a whole bunch of conditions that would cause the contract to fall into default, and in case of default the title to the IP (not a license, the full title, like deed) would transfer to them. This clause basically weaponizes the contract to force them into default to own the IP at a significant discount 2) New condition that says that they would go into default if this new quantum computer violates export/military equipment transfer treaties that prevents sales in specific countries, which is totally impossible for the original company to control the global military landscape Anyways these two items are obviously non negotiable because the CEO of Raytheon isn't going to sign off on a deal that involves a risk of losing their quantum computer technology, but the other parties are using these negotiating points to leverage better deals on other points, like royalty %, length of royalty deal (measured in years/decades) and a bunch of other minor stuff where they're getting extra couple percent better terms on various stuff simply because of this impossible negotiating point, so A) what is this impossible negotiating point to gain concessions elsewhere called, is there a book on this stuff, it seems like a classic tactic B) how do you ultimately pull points 1 and 2 off the table, or at least prevent them from weaponizing it Hadlock fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
It's basically just a false concession. "Ok, I agree to remove the bullet that if Thanksgiving lands on Thursday I get your company. But that will cost you." You counter it by just deleting their anchor by saying "Look, the IP is not part of the concession package. So here is the new counter (anchor) with those struck out and there is no deal where those are back in." Bring the boat back to waters that are actually navigable. Of course this is part of the bigger dance, so you are maybe more or less an rear end in a top hat depending on what the negotiation looks like. And typically you have like 6 of these fronts your fighting on, so most of that strategy is out of my pay scale. But I've done vendor contracts that included crap like that and I usually just like to play the "Happy Idiot". "Gee Jolly, these term right here must have been a mistake. We can't do anything like that and aren't inclined to negotiate. So Sorry! I'm sure it was just a mistake!".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Wish I had something useful to add! Every company I've worked at was big enough to have an army of lawyers so in the end the legal team on both sides would slug those out. "Per process this underwent legal review and they made some modifications; please feel free to review with your team and we can iterate our way to a solution that will be acceptable to both parties" Though tbh contract stuff isn't even in my ballpark so I've mostly seen it from a distance. Recently I had one that's still being worked through but legal got real on about some sort of technicality that would probably never be an issue in the real world; in the end it looks like they're not going to budge though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Looking for help with a negotiation of a sort: My manager asked me to perform a project that is explicitly a team lead task. I'm a senior contributor on a team of 3, including the long-time team lead. While I was gathering information on the project, the manager directly said "the reason I'm asking you to do this is that I have no confidence <the team lead> would do a good job." This is not the first time the manager has expressed frustration with the team lead. From my perspective, the team lead is a good person, a good contributor, but not a particularly good team lead. They were promoted under previous (pretty dysfunctional) management, mostly due to seniority. How do I handle this? Obviously, task one is to knock the project out of the park, which I have every confidence I can do. I'm not too worried about the interpersonal part with the lead, although I do like them, and it has gotten a little awkward. I'm happy for the increased responsibility, and had actually been applying for lead positions elsewhere (not due to unhappiness with the company, just looking for a new challenge). I would consider it a pretty ideal outcome to be promoted to lead here. I have been given every indication this won't be the last time I'm asked to perform lead type duties. Also, I genuinely believe this is a good manager and company that believes in career growth and in promoting from within, as they have done so repeatedly on other teams. I'm not trying to be naive here, just mentioning what I've seen. If I continue to be assigned this sort of work how do I set the expectation that I enjoy this, but would like my title and comp to reflect the work I've started to do? When is too soon to ask for it, and how should I go about asking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Thread wisdom: you're not negotiating, you're begging. Also it sounds like you're already doing team lead duties for the pay you're on now, so now they're just what you do. You can try bring up the promotion pathway with your boss but expect it to be a long one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
Yeah if you want to take the next step up the ladder then that's something you should discuss with your boss, you can expect it to be a long process but if the company's at all interested in keeping you/enhancing your role then there should be a road map to that destination laid out. You should also be looking for opportunities to take that step at another company. It sounds like you don't expect there to be any upward mobility for you at your current company as long as Current Team Lead is there, so if you're motivated to move up then it's likeliest that opportunity will be found somewhere else. Take the resume enhancement and use it, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Also team lead is a bullshit position explicitly designed for failure to keep individual contributors in their place. It’s an impossible position because you have all the responsibilities of a manager and very few of the tools. It’s the hardest type of leadership and it’s given to the people with no experience. Most people fail at it because they’re supposed to. Your manager sandbagging the current team lead is exactly what will happen to you if you’re the team lead. I would only consider a team lead role if the manager had a track record of promoting team leads to actual management positions. It appears that the opposite is true here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
Team Lead like a supervisor or more a Tech Lead type role? Tech Lead is very ubiquitous in the software world and you won't be able to advance without spending time in that role, either individual contributor or manager track. Getting there should be something of a priority if you're ready. Usually you are not doing much manager work but more project-oriented and bigger picture stuff than just doing tasks. Supervisor team lead sounds like what Dik Hz is talking about and is not as common. I actually use them in my team, but they come with "in less than 24 months you either become a manager or if this is not the right fit we can look into unwinding it". I just use it as a way to get someone manager but without them getting flooded and allows to back out of manager a little more gracefully if its not the right move. I have known some people who wanted to stay in that role forever because they do well with a very small team with defined boundaries and fall apart when trying to work strategically in any expanded way, so maybe that is somewhat what is going on with the existing TL? It mostly sounds like Boss is just cowardly in moving someone out of a role they are failing at. In any case, this isn't really a negotiation. It's a conversation with your Boss about what your path looks like and understanding that staying at this company shouldn't be the only option on your table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 14:04
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Also team lead is a bullshit position explicitly designed for failure to keep individual contributors in their place. Very true. Still good for the resume though, it's a better story to tell if you can at least show a history of growing responsibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Grumpwagon posted:Looking for help with a negotiation of a sort: Do well on the project and start discussing the role and responsibilities with your manager. "Hey I'm being asked to and delivering projects that are at the team lead level, admitted even by you <manager_person>. Is there an opportunity to advance to a team lead position?" That should say a lot about the intentions of the manager and, potentially, company. Also, I'm not sure where the idea that team lead is dead position or something, perhaps in some orgs. I've often heard it being considered a stepping stone for engineers to get higher IC or manager positions by having a role that doesn't actually include the full scope of people management. More of a technical management position that grants the authority to plan task breakdowns, delegate those tasks, manage the delivery of project(s), higher expectations of mentoring (e.g. 1:1s), and function autonomously without constant manager hand-holding. Sometimes companies expect seniors to do these kind of roles which can be even more of a load of bs than just having explicit team lead roles that actually give credit, authority, and pay for the additional responsibilities above a senior position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
downout posted:Do well on the project and start discussing the role and responsibilities with your manager. "Hey I'm being asked to and delivering projects that are at the team lead level, admitted even by you <manager_person>. Is there an opportunity to advance to a team lead position?" The fact that it’s common or accepted practice doesn’t make it not bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Also team lead is a bullshit position explicitly designed for failure to keep individual contributors in their place. I feel like I got lucky and ended up at one of the least bad companies around here and I dont want to leave just yet but I'm paying attention to this thread because I'm still learning a lot and I'm hoping it can help me move up here rather than finding another job somewhere where I'll hate my manager, colleagues, culture, or whatever. edit: \/\/\/\/ I think he had a bad experience with it somewhere which is why I said I think its dependent on the org. I absolutely believe there are companies out there that abuse the title/role, but in some places its used more appropriately and in my example I think it fits. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Leading a team is a management role but team lead is never a management position. That’s why it’s bullshit. If you want someone to be successful, make that person a manager, train them in management, and give them the tools of a manager. Promoting individual contributors, giving them responsibilities for team leadership, and not giving them an actual management role is the bullshit. I think you're misunderstanding what that role typically is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Zarin posted:Wish I had something useful to add! Every company I've worked at was big enough to have an army of lawyers so in the end the legal team on both sides would slug those out. Having been one of these lawyers, I can add that in the original posited situation where a proposed clause is simply wholly unacceptable, rather than having disadvantageous commercial terms, we'd turn the draft of the contract with those clauses completely struck - i.e. we wouldn't preemptively give them anything in return for the striking of an obviously not-going-to-happen language. On the conference call going through each round of changes, the other side would then either just be fine with that, and the point was closed, or, occasionally, have some real reason they wanted this (which was more common around investment contracts, an investor wanted to do diligence or have inspection rights or such which violated the confidentiality obligations or treaty rights or policies of my clients), and then the conversation becomes "okay, we hear your concerns, what do we to get you comfortable on those that isn't a non-starter for us?" In other words, you don't conflate the price/control/business terms negotiation with these impossible clauses yourself. You just strike them and let the other party (whose lawyers also know this was an overreach) come back and actually say their concerns and then have a conversation about those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Lockback posted:I think you're misunderstanding what that role typically is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I have to disagree with this as it being a bullshit position is highly dependent on the org. The company I work for has a great track record for promoting team leads first. The people that get promoted to team lead that struggle or do not continue to grow stay there while the ones that are successful get promoted or get hired to other parts of the company. The team lead on my current team has a very different role from our manager and said team lead is great at what he does and is compensated appropriately as far as I can tell, but he's not a manager because he is not managing people. However if our manager gets promoted or leaves he will 95% chance be promoted to manager and have to pick someone else to be the team lead that is doing what he is currently doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:If team lead and manager are very different roles, it sounds like a recipe for failure to have 95% of your managers eventually replaced by team leads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:If team lead and manager are very different roles, it sounds like a recipe for failure to have 95% of your managers eventually replaced by team leads. So...you should only ever train managers who've previously been managers before?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Lockback posted:So...you should only ever train managers who've previously been managers before? What you shouldn’t do is stick them in a “leadership but not management” role before you start coaching them or evaluating them for management skills. Doubly so if that role is considered a shoo-in for being the next manager.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:No you coach them in leadership skills and give them leadership opportunities regardless of their title in order develop management skills. And then stick them in a full management role if they display aptitude in those skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:And again, this is highly org dependent. My org does a good job of it and its working out fine. Like... I'm not trying to defend corporations and say there is never abuse of that, or say that there isnt a better way. But you're just aggressively saying "NO ITS BAD!" and you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Dude you said that a guy who’s not a manager and doesn’t do management is a 95% lock to replace your current manager and you see no problem with this at all? Dik Hz posted:you coach them in leadership skills and give them leadership opportunities regardless of their title in order develop management skills. And then stick them in a full management role if they display aptitude in those skills. I provided additional information about how it works across the org (indicating how it works if the person in the team lead position is not great). My org uses the "Team Lead" position well so I feel like you posting over and over saying its bad in all cases is wrong. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This is happening: A good manager can make a bullshit system work well enough to get good outcomes for their team, but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t bullshit. That’s what I meant by “I wouldn’t take a team lead position unless the manager had a good track record” in the original post of mine that you quoted. So I’m really struggling to understand why you extrapolated my post about the concept being bullshit into “every team lead position is bullshit”.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This is happening: Yeah this is how its done in every place I've ever been. Bad people get into roles regardless, but having a step in between IC and manager as part of a longer leadership journey is pretty normal. In software, having a tech lead is frequently a required step up the IC ladder too, which I have mixed feelings on but it's certainly common. I am not sure what is warranting the reaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:No you coach them in leadership skills and give them leadership opportunities regardless of their title in order develop management skills. And then stick them in a full management role if they display aptitude in those skills. This sounds like giving people responsibilities beyond their role but none of the pay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
downout posted:This sounds like giving people responsibilities beyond their role but none of the pay. I think that good managers do it in the way I describe, but you’re right in that usually precedes the bump in pay that should accompany an increase in responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
I recognize I work in a weird space but it's pretty normal (and probably expected) to have people take on extra responsibilities without pay in order to get promoted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Yeah that’s the problem right? How do you train the skills necessary for advancement? You can’t never develop people or your talented people all leave. You can’t just throw people into roles and hope they work out. Formal programs get co-opted by all sorts of corruption. It’s a really difficult problem to solve. And again, I'm not trying to say there isnt a better way or say that some corporations are virtuous here because they're all still probably assholes in the end, but I'm living in an example of how "Team Lead" positions are working in a way that is not doing what you described before and in a way that benefits the company and the individual in a less abusive way. edit: And yeah people have to show that they want more responsibility and are willing to take on, and success at, taking responsibility for something over their pay grade before they're going to be considered for upping their pay grade. Its not optimal and gets abused by lovely companies all the time, but unless theres a better way to figure out who should get promoted its what works. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I recognize I work in a weird space but it's pretty normal (and probably expected) to have people take on extra responsibilities without pay in order to get promoted. Yes, I wasn't intending to remove this as a possibility. Just contrasting the options of having a role between senior and manager that has some of the responsibilities with the pay vs. staying at a senior role and just being expected to take on the responsibilities for some indeterminate amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Like I just described? Line employee shows promise => promote them to team lead to recognize their promise which gives them more responsibility, more pay, and be in a position to learn leaderships skills while not being responsible for a whole team or managing peoples pay and performance => if they do well, find a way to promote them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:I don’t agree that sticking someone in a leadership role before they have a chance to learn leadership skills is a good business practice. So I guess we’re going to have to disagree. If a company is incapable of detecting good candidates to take on additional responsibilities, or is unwilling to take that minimal risk on people, sorry to tell you but that company sucks. The whole idea of "don't be afraid to fail" becomes laughable when you look at general decision making patterns of management, especially in regards to human capital. Sorry, "resources".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
I don't think that most companies efforts to teach "leadership skills" in any kind of formal way is successful at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:I don’t agree that sticking someone in a leadership role before they have a chance to learn leadership skills is a good business practice. So I guess we’re going to have to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Like I just described? Line employee shows promise => promote them to team lead to recognize their promise which gives them more responsibility, more pay, and be in a position to learn leaderships skills while not being responsible for a whole team or managing peoples pay and performance => if they do well, find a way to promote them. I'm wondering if this is where the issue lies (see bolded). When I was a line employee, my "promotion" to Team Lead didn't come with any additional pay. If I'm being honest it their way to have someone to hold accountable for 3rd shift without having to pay for a 3rd shift supervisor. I suspect that Team Lead is sorta the wild west where some companies do it well, others are just looking for free management, and a lot of companies are somewhere in-between. However, that makes it hard to discuss because it's a term that ends up meaning different things to different people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
FWIW my experience is closer to Dik's than the rest of yours. My notion of "team lead" is it's usually putting a target on your back for no extra compensation, but it's something you accept for a year or two and then leverage that ~leadership experience~ into an actual management position, usually at a different company. But I have less and less specific experience in this arena than the rest of you, too, and I've never worked in tech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:FWIW my experience is closer to Dik's than the rest of yours. My notion of "team lead" is it's usually putting a target on your back for no extra compensation, but it's something you accept for a year or two and then leverage that ~leadership experience~ into an actual management position, usually at a different company. But I have less and less specific experience in this arena than the rest of you, too, and I've never worked in tech. That’s just my experience though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:42
|
|