Leaked Microsoft Memo Tells Managers Not To Use Budget Cuts as Explainer for Lack of Pay Rises (yahoo.com) 73
An anonymous reader shares a report: Microsoft employees were already expecting lackluster pay rises. In a company-wide email sent earlier this year, the tech company's CEO Satya Nadella warned staff of salary freezes and cuts to the bonusbudget. But despite previous transparency around the cost-cutting measures, employees enquiring about how the budget cuts have impacted their performance review will now be fobbed off. According to leaked guidance, managers are being ordered to dodge such questions in the name of company culture. "It's natural for employees to ask questions about budget given the decisions shared in Satya's email," the guidance reportedly states. "However, it's most important to focus discussions with direct reports on their impact for the past fiscal year and directly tie it to their rewards."
Managers should not use the budget cuts as an "explanation" for compensation decisions for individual employees and instead should emphasize that the employee's own "impact" determines "rewards." "Using budgets or factors besides the employee's impact as an explanation for an employee's rewards will erode trust and confidence within your team," the guide cautions. "Reinforce that every year offers unique opportunity for impact, and we increase our high expectations, regardless of our budget."
Managers should not use the budget cuts as an "explanation" for compensation decisions for individual employees and instead should emphasize that the employee's own "impact" determines "rewards." "Using budgets or factors besides the employee's impact as an explanation for an employee's rewards will erode trust and confidence within your team," the guide cautions. "Reinforce that every year offers unique opportunity for impact, and we increase our high expectations, regardless of our budget."
Rises? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are like me, my manager is from a country, that relies on fear to motivate people and speaks with such a thick accent that raises might as well be rises
It is not unusual for them to casually threaten RIFs or engage in long "who's to blame" sessions
I keep hoping that the organization, which is not like this at all, catches on to this behavior and puts him through management training before I get fed up and find another job
Re: Rises? (Score:2)
If i could upvote your post, i would.
Re: (Score:2)
Orianna Rosa Royle is based in London. So yes, but she's using a local term.
I do not understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they've got record profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has a monopoly. At best a duopoly if you want to be _very_ generous and include Apple. There are fewer and fewer software companies to work for because, well, there are just fewer and fewer companies period. They know this, and they're starting to exert the power that comes with it.
I mean, who's gonna stop them?
Re: (Score:1)
There are countless software companies, what are you talking about? I worked for numerous software companies for decades without ever talking to any of the mega corporations about a job.
If you want job security and a pension with great benefits, work for the government.
You get a higher salary at a big company in exchange for zero security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because they've got record profits (Score:4, Informative)
If you look up how many computer programmers there are it's 328,000. I'm using 2020 numbers here, I guess it's possible we went from 328k to 4.4m programmers in 3 years.... Or it could be that Microsoft employs a substantial number of programmers in America, and that gives them significant leverage...
For the record, Your 4.4 is the number if IT workers. The includes the guy who answers the phone to reset your password and the guy pushing carts in your office. That said, those guys could use a union to. *Everyone* who works for a living needs a Union.
Re: (Score:3)
rsilvergun thank you for identifying the source for TomEinTejas bullshit numbers and substantial misunderstanding of the situation
There was once a time when people who wanted job security and a pension worked for corporations
It has only be PACs buying politicians and the general public's willingness to believe the lie of self managed retirement funds (aka 401ks) that has allowed corporations to stop supplying pensions as part of the job offer
This is coming to fruition as the baby boomers are becoming homele
40% of homeless have full time jobs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You get a higher salary at a big company in exchange for zero security.
Unless of course your manager fudges your performance review because he has no budget for those "higher salaries"
And as your manager is not allow to admit that he can't gave you a raise because of the budget, this memo basically instructs managers to come up with another reason for not having raises..... in this case, write bad performance reports.
Re:Because they've got record profits (Score:4, Informative)
"why are you cutting budgets when you're making money hand over fist?"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how businesses work. They don't give raises because they have extra money. They give raises to retain and motivate workers. At a time when other big tech companies are cutting back, retention is not a problem, so raises are smaller.
Microsoft has a monopoly.
No, they don't. Certainly not for tech workers. Besides, that would be a "monopsony".
There are fewer and fewer software companies to work for
Hogwash.
Re:Because they've got record profits (Score:4, Informative)
If I was a Microsoft Office developer for the past 20 years, I'm not sure how well my skills are going to transfer to other companies unless I'm looking to radically change what I do for a living. It's not like the LibreOffice team is going to be able for afford to pay me $150K a year with full benefits by giving their product away.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was a Microsoft Office developer for the past 20 years.
Then either you've made partner by now, so this news doesn't apply to you or you're looking a little grey around the temples and you don't have long left there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, software engineers don't give a fuck what the end product is or how it operates. They care what the tickets say the software is supposed to do, and they build their little piece of it to spec.
It's not like a guy that's been working on a compute engine at the heart of a spreadsheet couldn't figure out how to apply any of that to any of the myriad of financial or billing software out there - much of it bespoke custom solutions for their business vertical, because off-the-shelf software lik
Oh I know how they work (Score:2)
And have you been paying attention to market consolidation? Hell, when I see a start up these days they're not trying to bring a product to market, they're hoping Microsoft or Google buys them out. Maybe Apple if they're really lucky
Re: (Score:2)
There is no one using any desktop OS for business tasks in any serious numbers.
Fixed that for you. Let's not forget that Linux runs basically the entire internet and virtually all large-scale computing platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
>> They don't give raises because they have extra money.
They do not even want to give raises when market forces demand it.
Nowadays they get their political shills to scream about HYPERINFLATION whenever market forces result in higher pay for workers, we are destined to become impoverished unless we break the system that seeks to enslave us
Re: (Score:2)
That's because market forces aren't actually demanding it.
If they *were* demanding it, then Microsoft would be losing employees left and right, and be unable to recruit more.
Market forces result in market changes. No change? Then there's not actually any significant forces involved.
You want to turn the personal discontent of yourself and your colleagues into a market forces *without* having to leave your job? Join a union so that your collective force can push back against the juggernaut you're working f
Re: (Score:2)
There are fewer and fewer software companies to work for because, well, there are just fewer and fewer companies period.
You're dividing the software development market into Apple and Microsoft? So no developers work at Google, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, Oracle, Intel, Adobe, Salesforce, Hewlett-Packard, Intuit, VMware, Symantec, CA Technologies, Citrix, Cisco, or any of the other giants—and within those giants, various teams—not to mention none work at any of the estimated 33 million small businesses operating in the US?
Nowhere for a software developer to go, in fact, nearly no companies at all. What an absurd and as
Re: (Score:3)
100%.
This is an official policy of gaslighting individual contributors into thinking that it's their fault that the beancounters are doing belt tightening, and thus it's their belts that deserve another yank.
In reality, it's far more likely that the strategic direction or some large-scale execution fuckup is to blame, and that blame resides in the C-suite. But they're not going to accept it, so out goes the pro-gaslighting memoranda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I do not understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling someone that they do not get a large raise because of budget cuts when that is the truth is just being honest. Obscuring that was the reason would sow the distrust that MS is trying to avoid especially if the employee had a good review but got a terrible raise.
It doesn't sound like that's quite what's going on here.
There's the annual raise everybody gets, and then there's performance related raises and bonuses.
It sounds like the annual raises are a no-go (frozen). The performance based stuff on the other hand still exists, but it's been reduced quite a bit.
The problem they're probably worrying about is the manager telling someone "we can't give you a raise/bonus because of the budget" and then having them find out their buddy got a raise/bonus.
That's the scenario
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then your manager doesn't get to try to gaslight you into thinking that your lackluster compensation bump was the result of your perceived lackluster performance, rather than upper management fuckups and strategic botch jobs that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
Just regular manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to see here.
Basically tell them they didn't get a raise because they didn't do very well at their job.
You can have an A+ performer and instead of being like sorry, budget cuts, you don't want them know they're fantastic, you want them to think it's their own fault so they don't bail for a competitor.
Re:Just regular manipulation (Score:4, Interesting)
That's backward.
If I didn't get a raise because of budget cuts, I might wait to see if things improve.
If I'm told I didn't get a raise because of poor performance, I'd figure I wasn't understood or appreciated and start looking for a new job.
Re:Just regular manipulation (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how people who know their worth and performance accurately based on market conditions react.
People who are in positions or it's a newer experience for them will be easier to manipulate this way. One of the benefits of hiring younger people.
If I didn't get a raise because of budget cuts, I might wait to see if things improve.
This is also something newer and less experienced people tend to think. How many years are you going to wait? 1? 3? If they know they can get you to stay at your current rate, thinking they're going to come give you a big raise now that the company is doing better, fat chance. They'll only give you a raise if you have leverage which usually comes in the form of competitors offering more for your services.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... wouldn't people just be like "Ok, according to you, I needed to have more 'impact'." This could mean the manager is shitty, the team is shitty, or the company is shitty.
Instead of doubling down, it might just be easier to jump to a different company.
Alternatively, if people are getting laid off... and you didn't get a raise or a bonus this year... and they're telling you your performance doesn't justify a raise or bonus. You might be getting laid off? Like, this would be the perfect time to sta
They got it backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Being honest is what builds trust. Dodging questions is what erodes it. This applies especially to competent people who can detect BS.
Been around that block... (Score:5, Insightful)
...both for myself, and advising others. The first level manager is told "We're not giving out any raises, but don't admit that. Tell your direct reports that they're not getting the money they expected is all about their performance. I've even been able to make some of the better first line managers admit this is what's going on privately.
Regardless, this never, ever, ever, works out well for the company. It doesn't increase productivity, just discontent. Add insult to injury for your top performers? Buh bye.
The converse often works a little better, especially if the business is a small one hitting choppy waters: "We love you and what you're doing. We literally can't afford to pay you as much as we value you. But we've got plans to fix that." You get a lot more positive response from that - assuming that the budget problems are actually real.
But often they're not. In big companies like Microsoft, "Corporate Culture" is often a synonym for "making excuses for incompetent and/or greedy, short-sighted, executive leadership". It has nothing to do with actual positive corporate culture or long term shareholder value.
Don't work for the dark side (Score:2)
If you do, you deserve every bit of mistreatment you get.
Ah, yes... (Score:4, Informative)
The old it's your fault you didn't do enough, not our fault at all explanation. That's a classic, I'm sure the employees will love that response...
Re: (Score:3)
It works even better when you send it to hundreds of managers, expecting that not a single one of them will leak that shit out of an obligation to stand by their team that put in the work, made that manager look better, and deserves better compensation for all their efforts.
At least, that's what a good manager would do with this bullshit - make sure their team knows the real score, and then leak this shit to make your bosses look like the inept greedy shitstains they are.
Re: (Score:2)
The old it's your fault you didn't do enough, not our fault at all explanation. That's a classic, I'm sure the employees will love that response...
Does management think anyone would believe them anyway?
Not as if budgets at large companies are kept secret, especially publicly listed ones. Also, people who work at MS aren't stupid.
A small company might be able to keep a lid on stuff like this because only 2 or 3 people know. At somewhere like Microsoft, hundreds of managers will know an few would bother keeping it a secret.
Idiots which never learn (Score:5, Interesting)
Before that, they lost Crispin Cowan, though I do not think the reasoning was ever made public. Losing him effectively put a halt to efforts to reduce the privileges associated with core system services, and resulted in some pretty bastardised attempts at creating per-user service instances running atop a service control manager which is not really built for them.
The question is, who will they lose next? Perhaps Mark Russinovich needs a pay cut too? Idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
And get back into the office while you're at it! Those chairs are going to float away.
Just blaming the victim (Score:2)
"Why are we not giving you more money? Because *shuffles papers* you suck, that's why! Sure we made more money this year, and since you suck we are going to make even more! BWAHahahahaha!"
Textbook Corporate Gaslightling (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially what this says is, even though it is directly due to the budget cuts, blame the employee to try and trick them in to increasing their productivity.
Executive management, for some reason, always thinks this kind of mindfuck goes unnoticed. It's an insult to their own employees' intelligence to try to bullshit them this way.
It also sends the message that the executives don't believe the is worth working for during a year when raises are crap. It happens at every company and when there are other reasons to stay (like maybe the company is honest with employees and doesn't treat them like imbeciles) people will stay despite the poor raise.
If the lack of increases is due to cuts, say it's due to fucking cuts. In the absence of a healthy raise I would at least prefer to a company that is straight with me. Trying to manipulate people like this can make them start feeling like they are crazy, which is not what you want.
Re: Textbook Corporate Gaslightling (Score:2)
MS isn't completely wrong (Score:2)
Hamsters wheel complain on hamsters performance (Score:1)
And that's why I'm not a manager anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like to be the face of the lying corporation that pays me. The guys in my team trust me, and the last thing I want it so lie to their faces because I've been instructed to do so.
Trust is a huge part of building a successful team, and if the company does something that impacts my team's members and tells me to shift the blame onto them because the higher-ups are a bunch of cowards who can't own up to the consequences of what they decided, I don't want to do their bidding - out of decency for the guys in the team, and also because it breaks the trust that makes it work.
The company culture is lies and deception? (Score:2)
Let's assume 220 000 people work at Microsoft, $70 000 000 000 / 220 000 = ~$318 182 / person. This means Microsoft is forgoing compensating its employees, so it can flex and establish, what should be an illegal, monopoly in the gaming industry.
If th
Smells (Score:2)
Corporate culture stink to high hell.
Same old sad song (Score:2)
Bad times: Sales are down, no raises.
Good times: Sales are good, but we need to stay lean/nimble/agile/purple in case the current trend doesn't last, no raises.
Lasting good times: Sales are good, here is a 2% raise. Wait? Why is everyone leaving?
Ugh... so much I want to say here... (Score:2)
I'm trying not to be snarky.... but my experience as a long-time Microsoft customer and I.T. worker expected to help support their products is that they don't DESERVE many big raises. I know this is (obviously) a generalization. Every company has their "rock star" employees who do outstanding work. But my overall experience (mirrored by many in the industry I've talked to) is basically:
- Support tickets put in about O365 related issues like Exchange mail generally take DAYS to even get an initial response
Re: (Score:2)
I second this. O365 support is atrocious. After 30 years in IT, I can sort it out myself unless it is a bug. Good luck trying to report a bug to O365 support - your ticket will be months long, go through a bunch of Engineers, and they'll try to get you to just close it many times. What joke.
Top Performers Know It (Score:2)
While there are certainly folks with delusions of grandeur, most of the true top performers know what they are and the value they add. Telling a manager to gaslight them isn't going to work out in anybody's favor (especially if it conflicts with the rest of the performance review). The top-performer is going to hear "time to find a better gig."
My company (smaller than MS) actually handles this much better. There is a company factor and a personal factor. Your comp is a product of the company factor times th
That's right Timmy you killed Santa Claus (Score:2)
Stop hitting yourself (Score:2)
MS: stop hitting yourself employees!
Everyone needs to unionize to stop this BS.
Re: (Score:1)
The people that aren't getting their deserved raises don't need a union. They are, after all, still getting a raise, they just aren't getting the extra merit bonus that they would traditionally have gotten for being substantially better than their peers.
Freeze all raises? (Score:1)
Stupid (Score:1)
"Lie to your reports in order to improve trust" is the literal dumbest take.
The way it worked... (Score:1)
Each corporate entity was assigned a raise pool -- a percentage of payroll perhaps equal to inflation, perhaps a bit more or less. Zero-sum game. What one employee got, another didn't. If a top highly-paid performer in a group was given the raise he deserved nobody else could get one -- and in all likelihood the top guy deserved MORE. Given the nature of the group I dealt with, we had ONLY top performers; anyone less was quietly laid off. Having to give performance reviews (good) that justified only a
Gaslighting? Seriously? (Score:2)
So let me get this straight... Microsoft's approach here is basically to gaslight their employees, in the hopes that they won't realize that they're worth more than Microsoft is willing and/or able to pay them?
And then of course, the fact that they're trying to pull this trick has been leaked... likely by a disgruntled manager who didn't get his own bonus this year, either. Gee... who could have possibly predicted that turn of events?
Wtf (Score:2)
The media wrote that Satya Nadella already emailed employees that there will be low / no pay raises due to the economy.
https://fortune.com/2023/05/10... [fortune.com]
So now this âoeleaked memoâ says to NOT say that pay cuts are due to budget cuts?
Is the media just giving feeding us contradictory bullshit?