“In 1968, the year Intel opened shop, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland cast a theory that surely influenced Andy Grove. First, said Edwin Locke, “hard goals” drive performance more effectively than easy goals. Second, specific hard goals “produce a higher level of output” than vaguely worded ones.<p>In the intervening half century, more than a thousand studies have confirmed Locke’s discovery as “ one of the most tested, and proven, ideas in the whole of management theory.” Among experiments in the field, 90 percent confirm that productivity is enhanced by well-defined, challenging goals.<p>Year after year, Gallup surveys attest to a “worldwide employee engagement crisis.” Less than a third of U.S. workers are “ involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace.” Of those disengaged millions, more than half would leave their company for a raise of 20 percent or less. In the technology sector, two out of three employees think they could find a better job inside of two months.”<p>Excerpt From: Doerr, John. “Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs.” Apple Books.
I know I wouldn't. In fact, about 10 years ago I started working 4 days a week instead of 5, taking a 20% pay cut. I wanted the extra day to be with my family, help out with school, etc. By switching companies and going back to working full time I could easily make 2x the amount of money I'm making right now, but it still wouldn't be worth it. I can always work more and make more money, but I will never get another opportunity to see my kids grow up.<p>In my case, time is money but money does not equal time.
I finish my current role on Friday, and start a new one next Monday.<p>The difference is pretty much 20%.<p>On why I took it:<p>* The money is better<p>* It has more potential for fulfillment<p>* The money is enough to offset the risk that it won't suit me
Restated: “would you accept an offer to shorten the time before you can retire by 20%?”<p>It would take a lot of free coffee and fooseball at your current gig to make that be worth turning down,
All things the same, why wouldn't you?<p>There are very few companies out there that wouldn't replace you in a heartbeat for someone taking 20% less, everything else the same.
I recently switched jobs for a 40% raise.<p>The extra money feels good but I do miss the tech stack and my former team members. It is exhausting to work with people who do not share the same thought process and are very risk averse.<p>When I accepted the offer, I knew this could happen but felt the pay raise would neutralize this :) yes and no.<p>Next time— I will jump ship for more of a raise.
I did the other way round. Intentionally went to a company which paid me 30% less, but I'm unionized and have a job security until pension (it's a gov organization). I'm in the early 40's with a record of senior developer and PM roles in FAANG companies, but started to feel the ageism issue. I believe I could survive 15 more years in the tech but it wouldn't be sufficient for me to retire. Overall on average I prefer to earn 30% less for the next 30 years than earning 30% more for 15-20 and having nothing for the rest.
There is no incentive for commitment at most places. And that’s no surprise: how can any company compete with the whole world minus that company for future career opportunities? Even Google cant do that.<p>And sure people would leave for a raise. It’d be interesting how the survey is worded. Would they take the raise for a more boring or stressful job, a longer commute or to work in something less ethical?
It's likely, however there are other considerations. Flexibility. Workload. Work-life balance. New management style. Etc. I wouldn't do it automatically, but for the right position, definitely. I haven't gotten a raise in half a decade and each year benefits are going down. But work life balance and flexibility are really nice. So it's a tough call.
I'm working with really good people, as a remote worker and I have probably and objectively one of the best work conditions one can get without playing politics or being someone's "yes man" or something similar.<p>I am already paid extremely well and I am not a greedy person anyway.<p>So, 20% more means nothing to me unless I have the same conditions, which are so rare.. that I've never seen before.<p>If it means to wake up and deal with awful people, that's a definite no.<p>If somehow I can end up working with as good people as my current colleagues and bosses, I would only take the job if my current company doesn't suffer because of me. Yes, I am loyal person and it's probably looked down upon in this day and age, but it is what it is.<p>So, probably no.
I wouldn't leave for any realistic amount. 20%, 50%, 100%. Even a x10 wouldn't be enough to make me leave (after that it starts to get really unrealistic, and I don't hypothesize on unrealistic situations).<p>The other dev in my company won't either, at least not until 100% (we both know he could get that by jumping ship to go to defense/banking jobs that pay at least double our salary).<p>Why is that? For me, I'm a founder (the other dev is not), and I'm emotionally invested in our company success. The biggest other factor is that we do social good. That's the main reason we are there and will stick there as long as the company runs. Salary is enough to live confortably, and way higher than the minimum wage, so we aren't complaining. The work is interesting as well, and we get to have a good dev culture, focused on making things better. All the people working their are nice.<p>Finding another company that satisfies all the non-monetary consideration is a crapshot, frankly. I would be very hesitant even if I was not a founder, a lot of things aren't apparent until you are several months in your new contract.
I don't understand the connection between the text and the title question, btw:<p>If my current job gives me enough to live decently, and I feel it's satisfying, 20% is too little to jump ships into the unknown. Of course, if the destination company is good and I have insider information about the environment, this could change.<p>Otoh, if I make too little money to sustain myself, I'd jump ships at each +20% chance .
i've always made decisions outside of money. While i'm not the most highly paid, i've grown over time consistently. The work, your team and your goals usually out weigh your compensation if you live within your means. Go with a role who is going to provide long term growth and interesting work. The money will follow.
In my current job, I have (mostly) sane management, co-workers I like and get along with, and do work that helps people. I've been around enough to realize that it's pretty sweet to have that. I'd have to think hard before leaving that, even for more money. (It might depend on how badly I needed the money.)
Would depend on what the new company does, where I currently am I'm very happy with the ethics and morality of the business model, it would be hard to find somewhere that ticked all the boxes but if it did then sure.
It depends on whether I have “enough” to comfortable meet my short term commitments, long term goals, and have nice to haves on the level that I desire.<p>To keep things short, let’s just say that my career stagnated until 10 years ago and I was basically at the salary level and skillset of a junior software engineer, my side hustles evaporated and I met my now wife and (step)children she was taking care of by herself.<p>I was living in a nice neighborhood with a horrible school system. She was living in a condo in the best school district in the state. We were worked together and we were both laid off. I was able to get a comparable job literally the next week, but she had to take a job either with crazy inconsistent hours or one paying less...<p>2012 - we were barely getting by when we moved to an apartment on the better side of town and we were both recovering and paying back money because of $life. I stayed at the company just long enough to finish modernizing my tech stack and I jumped ship for $25K two years later.<p>2014 - now between the $25K I was making and the extra $10K she was
making we had enough to comfortable live our lives, get a new car she desperately needed and get myself a new car so I could hand my old one down to my son who was now a senior to go back and forth to college with the next year - and car insurance for teenager.<p>We had enough to qualify for the house we wanted in the school district we wanted, but I knew it would be a stretch.<p>But by 2016, I knew I could call up my list of well curated recruiters and get a job making $25K more that would make buying a house much more comfortable. We started the process of getting a house built, as soon as we closed, I made a few calls and had a job making my target salary before the first mortgage payment was due.<p>Now, in 2019, things are different. The only job opportunities that I have in my local market that pay even 25K more that I am qualified for without going into management are consulting jobs. I just don’t want to do that now and I wouldn’t take the 25% raise that they have offered me.<p>Sure we could build our net worth faster, but it wouldn’t make any significant difference in our lifestyle.<p>Money was the major motivation for me leaving a job between 2008-2016, but now it would be based on whether I am working with technology that keeps me marketable and whether I like the environment.
I left my full-time job to start my own business. I work more than I used to but I also make more than I used to. Part of the upside is that I do hope to retire earlier than most, but I do miss having a more 9-5 day.
I wouldn't. I work for myself and I gave away 50% of my income to work by myself on my own product. I wouldn't go back to working for someone else for 20%, not 100 or even 300% more income.