Tech Startup Buffer Publishes Every Employee's Salary, Right Up To the CEO

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Paul Szoldra reports at Business Insider that Joel Gascoigne, CEO of social media startup Buffer, reveals his salary along with the salary of every single employee in the company, and includes the formula the company uses to get to each one. "One of the highest values we have at Buffer is transparency," says Gascoigne. "We do quite a number of things internally and externally in line with this value. Transparency breeds trust, and that's one of the key reasons for us to place such a high importance on it." Gascoigne, who has a salary of $158,800, revealed the exact formula Buffer uses to get to each employee's number: Salary = job type X seniority X experience + location (+ $10K if salary choice). Gascoigne says his open salary system is part of Buffer's "Default to Transparency" and says Buffer is willing to update the formula as the company grows but hopes that its focus on work/life balance fosters employees that are in it for the long haul. "In Silicon Valley, there's a culture of people jumping from one place to the next," says Gascoigne. "That's why we focus on culture. Doing it this way means we can grow just as fast—if not faster—than doing it the 'normal' cutthroat way. We're putting oil into the engine to make sure everything can work smoothly so we can just shoot ahead and that's what we're starting to see.""

Comments

Norway

[lxs]

The nation of Norway does this for every citizen. It seems to work out for them.

Re:Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

No it does not work out well for us.

It is a gross violation of privacy and it is being used by criminals.

Re:Norway

[drinkypoo]

This is incredibly stupid. Criminals use it to pick out who to rob

Perhaps the Norwegians feel it's incredibly stupid to create a culture that creates criminals by promoting wealth inequality.

Contribution?

[smileytshirt]

Salary = job type X seniority X experience + location

So I guess productivity and contribution to the business doesn't count. Great. Time to sit back and eat pretzels!

Re:Contribution?

[psperl]

This is not true, especially with software developers. I manage quite a few of them, and it doesn't take long to be able to determine their approximate individual worth, without metrics. Activities outside of writing code are hugely influential to an employee's value, such as educating other team members and communicating with customers or our business sponsors. Obviously I can't pinpoint an exact number, but its obvious as night and day who the real catalysts are within the group, and I can adjust accordingly.

Companies that don't link your wage to your individual abilities are trying to take advantage of you. Plain and simple. I say trying, because one day it'll backfire. The most profitable companies that depend on skilled labor (not Walmart or McDonalds) pay their employees well, and do not use a uniform pay scale.

It's more like a stunt to me

[Taco Cowboy]

Sounds like something they'd do to placate "dumb money" angel investors

I do invest in startups and most of the angel investors that I know are not dumb.

That guy is running a publicity stunt.

Transparency can only work up to a point before jealousy creeps in.

There is no way to run an organization with 100% transparency - people will start comparing each others' workload (and/or contribution) with the salary figure.

The art of managing is an ART and it's a very delicate task.

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Transparency worked pretty well back in the 50's when most jobs were unionized. Everyone knew what everyone else was paid and everyone worked their fair share because the company wasn't focused solely on posting record profits.

People need leadership, not management. That's a distinction this generation has no concept of as it fell out of fashion back in the 80's. You manage boxes and machines, but you lead people.

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[Baron_Yam]

I work in a unionized environment. All wages are in contractual 'bands', every job is evaluated and placed in an appropriate band based on required skill, risk, shift, education, etc.

This means that, within the band, we all know each other's pay if we bother to look up a job classification and leaf through to the most recent contract's appendix.

We all seem to continue working without being at each other's throats.

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I think transparency is intended to forestall the structural imbalances which create jealousy in the first place.

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[penix1]

Disclaimer: I am a state employee whose salary is publicly posted...

That out of the way, most if not all those salaries posted are very, very misleading. It is gross salary+travel+incentives+any other state money that employee has received including payments made for health coverage and retirement. It doesn't include any deductions such as taxes, co-payments for health and retirement, garnishments, etc...

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[PopeRatzo]

There is no way to run an organization with 100% transparency - people will start comparing each others' workload (and/or contribution) with the salary figure.

And that is bad because...?

The art of managing is an ART and it's a very delicate task.

And if you don't believe that, just ask a manager. His work is an ART and it's very delicate and that's why he's entitled to 500 times the salary of someone who works for a living. If you ask, he'll even write a book about his ART and the great delicacy and importance of his work and why he needs to get grandly compensated if he fails and gets fired.

Re:It's more like a stunt to me

[PopeRatzo]

Middle management is not really management. They exist to give real management somebody to blame. None of the ART of management that Taco Cowboy was referring to enters into the life of a middle manager. They're just going down checklists and trying not to draw attention. They get paid as badly or worse than the bottom level workers. The 99%-1% model exists in corporations the same way it does in society generally. There are only two categories of employees.

Plus, I'd have to start taking responsibility for investor's greed, which I could never bring myself to do.

Nobody at the C-level takes responsibility for anything. Responsibility is an outmoded concept. Just look at the 2008 banking cock-up. The few criminal investigations there were took place at a level well below the C-level. Or, the fines attached to prosecutions were a tiny fraction of the windfall.

If you neglect to put $1 in the parking meter, you face a $75 fine. If a corporation steals $10billion, the fine might approach $1million, but no more. In this way, accountability is always shifted downward.

What about the other stuff?

[rolfwind]

Do they also list the stock ownership ,stock options and bonuses of every employee too?

No snark, genuinely interested in how far transparency goes and how far it has to go before transparency is actually achieved.

And what is the goal?

I know some people that do the work of 4 of their colleagues, would it be wrong to pay them 4x more? Afterall, the company still saves on healthcare, parking spaces, and other redundant costs. What a person is worth is not always reducable to a position.

Re:No respect for employee privacy

[SJHillman]

Is it respect for employee privacy or respect for being able to pay drastically different wages for the same job? A lot of times, company rules (official or unofficial) against discussing salaries protect the employer much more than the employees.