Salary Motivates Change

A Better Salary Isn't Enough to Motivate Change

Periodically, I take time to reflect on what I've accomplished, to consider whether my behavior has been appropriate, and to think about areas where I could improve. Everyone makes mistakes, underestimates, or overestimates situations; revisiting them with a cool, critical mind helps uncover answers that often don't surface in the heat of the moment.

We ourselves change over time, and with us, our priorities, goals, and values evolve.

Today's analysis is dedicated to a series of events that occurred at the end of 2023, which made me reflect on how difficult it is to get people to change, even when presented with an enticing offer—or at least, that's how I saw it.

From time to time, I need to integrate new members into my development team, either to replace those who have left the company or to expand the team for new projects.

Leaving a company is a normal practice that, as I've described before, every manager should anticipate, though it is often underestimated.

To quote Jane Austen:

No one is ever too old to change, because change is the only constant in life.

Therefore, we shouldn't be alarmed if a team member decides to leave, but we must be ready to manage the change, sometimes abruptly.

There are many reasons for "leaving." In my case, it involved programmers who left the company for other opportunities, retirements (yes, it happens, it's not a mirage), and relocations: it's wrong to force a programmer to stay on a project they don't feel connected to. Either we motivate them, or it's better to move them to another project with different challenges, to avoid harming both them and, by extension, the team they're part of.

This time, I needed to find someone to replace a programmer who was retiring: standard procedure, managed well in advance to avoid disruptions and ensure a smooth handover.

Great, but What's the Problem?

The problem arose during the selection phase when new programmers declined my offer. And no, the reason wasn't the salary, which was higher and aligned with the candidates' expectations.

In the past, I thought salary was the main reason to entice a programmer to change companies, influenced by the countless times I'd read it was the first thing people considered when deciding to change jobs, but I had to rethink that.

I focused too much on salary, a victim of the fact that it's one of the few objective parameters we can evaluate and because it's the most discussed and first evaluated parameter in many programmer forums during any change.

Let's take a step back and look at the needs I had to meet.

The search was for an experienced Java programmer interested in joining our development team for a backend product used across Europe.

Focusing the request immediately is crucial when approaching a candidate for the first time: it saves time for both parties and avoids unnecessary time-wasting.

Many programmers hate working on projects they don't know, don't understand, or don't find stimulating. By discussing the project and the visibility it offers right away, you convey to the candidate how important and visible their work will be.

The second aspect I address is technology.

Working with technologies considered "obsolete" or "old" is a deterrent for many programmers.

"I don't want to work on Java, it's an old language, I'm not interested."

is a phrase I've heard many times. Just as I've often heard:

"What version of Java do you use? 8? No thanks, I'm not interested."

Even if the language or technologies used aren't an issue, being able to use a recent version of the language or technologies they don't know is an incentive for many programmers. Similarly, making it clear that the project is continuously evolving and that efforts are being made to bring the product to a more recent version of the language is an additional incentive, as long as it's not unfulfilled.

In my case, it was a project that started in Java 11 with a completed port to Java 17, using various libraries and frameworks.

The important point is that I wanted to convey that the project was continuously evolving and that the candidate's work would be crucial to the project's success.

The third aspect I address is salary.

Knowing it's an important aspect, I mention the salary I can offer during the first interview to avoid creating false expectations: it's an advantage for everyone. The candidate already knows what they can expect, and I know if the candidate is interested or not.

By immediately focusing on the project, goals, and compensation, the candidate already has a complete picture of the situation and can decide whether to continue the selection process.

Partly due to the clarity, partly due to demonstrating that the tech stack was up-to-date, and partly due to disclosing the salary upfront, I received an adequate number of applications and, after a selection phase, identified some promising candidates. They were suitable for me, the team, the managers, and, most importantly, all the candidate's requests were met: working in a familiar field, using recent technologies, having a higher salary.

Despite the encouraging premises that led me to believe everything could be resolved positively, I received unexpected negative responses:

"I'm not ready for it."

When Salary Isn't Enough

The main reason some candidates rejected our offer was that they didn't feel ready for the change: their current job, though less stimulating, less interesting, and less paid, was still a secure and familiar job.

Change, even for the better, was perceived as a risk, a leap into the unknown.

This made me realize that even if you're in a company that doesn't satisfy you and you have every reason to change, if you're not inclined to change, you won't, or at least not for a minimal change. Stronger motivations or a dialogue that makes the change feel not like a moment of stress but a moment of growth and enhancement are needed.

I've noticed this phenomenon especially among more mature individuals, who prefer to stay in familiar contexts rather than face change, even if beneficial.

The "comfort zone," even if problematic, can make us accept toxic situations as normal.

The greatest obstacle to change is not ignorance or resistance, but the illusion that what we are doing now is safe.

This also made me think of all the times someone confessed to me that they were dissatisfied with their job but didn't want to change for fear of not finding something better.

The fear of change is a common feeling, but it can be overcome with the right strategies.

Based on what I've observed, some strategies that can help overcome the fear of change are:

• Small Steps: for those who dislike "brutal" change, the technique of small steps can help. Do you feel unsatisfied with what you're doing? Start studying what you want to do. Dedicate time to it every day, and over time, you'll have enough knowledge to make the leap you've always wanted.

• Growth Mindset: don't view challenges with fear, but as opportunities to grow and evolve your situation. Having a growth-oriented mindset allows you to almost seamlessly break free from your mental cage.

• Visualization: don't view change negatively, but try to take your mind beyond and think about what positive things could happen once you've changed.

• Social Support: seeking support from colleagues, friends, or mentors helps better understand what can happen and provides the encouragement needed to overcome the mental obstacle preventing change.

The Mistakes I Made

It's easy to blame the candidates if someone decides not to accept your offer. Addressing the issue intelligently should instead prompt the question: where did I go wrong?

If we can't understand what didn't work, we won't be able to improve.

In my case, I tried to find the answer beyond salary, beyond the project, beyond the technologies used.

And if behind that "I'm not ready for it" there was actually an "it's not exactly what I'm looking for"?

I tried to understand what might have driven a programmer not to accept an offer that seemed enticing.

One of the reasons I considered was certainly the corporate environment in which the candidate would have to work, or at least the way I portrayed it during the interview.

Some talk about "corporate appeal," which is the attractiveness a company has towards a candidate.

Corporate appeal is a combination of factors ranging from work style to corporate culture, from benefits offered to growth opportunities, from training possibilities to working in a stimulating environment.

Corporate appeal is an important factor that is often underestimated, but it can make the difference between a candidate accepting the offer and one who rejects it.

Showing that your company has values, believes in valuing people, offers growth and training opportunities, and provides a stimulating and comfortable work environment can make the difference between a candidate accepting the offer and one who rejects it.

Conclusions

Thinking that just offering a higher salary can motivate change is a mistake I've made throughout my life.

I haven't brought on board people who could have made a difference for my team and my project.

This taught me that the main job every manager should do is to make their company attractive to candidates, to make them perceive that working there is an opportunity for growth and enhancement.

Making the candidate feel that they will be able to work independently, with the right tools, that they will grow year by year, and be an important piece for the company's success.

At that point, many aspects that were previously considered fundamental become secondary.

Salary, the project, and the technologies used become just details, secondary aspects compared to corporate appeal and the growth opportunities the company offers.