Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#411

Post by klenwell » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #373

I've built a team from trained-up junior devs, and it was great, I would recommend this route for anyone building a team. BUT... you have to have people who can train and teach as well as code. There are personality traits that don't align with this. The typical "aspy Dave" stereotype of a rockstar programmer is not good at this. So you have to align the entire team from day 1 as being a training environment as well…

Built a team of over a dozen programmers the past year using a similar strategy. I was able to bring over a couple more experienced developers I had worked with in the past to serve as mentors and get things kick-started. Then filled out the roster with inexperienced but capable developers.

From the very start, we put a lot of effort in our hiring and onboarding process. We treat hiring as the beginning of onboarding.

Oh, and we were too small to have an HR department. When we grew big enough, they definitely got in the way. I had to more or less fight them off over every position we hired for, because they didn't understand anything about coding, IT or creativity, and would just look for relevant experience in a similar field.

Our company is smallish with a startup vibe but recently we hired a VP of HR with a lot of corporate experience and it has started going this direction, too.

And there I think you have the answer to the OP's question: companies cargo-culting their hiring process and strategy and succumbing to that tendency that Daniel Kahneman identifies as the root of all bias: WYSIATI.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#412

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

leonroy wrote: post #327

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

So here’s something the boss of my previous company did when I went to work for him straight out of university. First year I earned a low junior dev salary. Third year after delivering a few projects and company financials improving I received a 66% raise. Fifth year a 50% raise. And I was not the only one. The idea of raises pegged to inflation seemed absurd in our company when based on performance and company incom…

...So why did you leave then?

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#413

Post by shagie » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:05 PM UTC

dharmab wrote: post #33

aphextron wrote: post #28

>I ask this because I'm 4-years-experienced as a front-end UI/interaction dev, nothing but glowing references, looking for another, similar, position (regular, not senior or lead) and have had...way too many interviews and rejections, and can't understand why companies are such sticklers for interested devs to have Every Single Box in their list of requirements checked when it would take days or a couple weeks to lea…

Don't quit your job without your next source of income secured.

There's also an element of desirability in having a job. If you have a job, it means someone has selected you and is paying you to do certain roles. In and of itself this makes the candidate more desirable than one who has either quit or been fired.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#414

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

throwaway3265 wrote: post #199

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

There is a schema that I've seen used in Nestle which is quite bad TBH: they offer a course that you have to pass for a position this guy was trying to get to. This training course was fairly long (4 years) and expensive for an individual, however the company would pay for it. BUT only on the condition the student/employee would finish it and stay in the company for at least 1 more year. Now I hear you, they cannot f…

This is common for consulting companies with MBA or field-related masters studies as well. The company effectively loans you the tuition money and forgives the loan if you come back for at least 2 years post-graduation. If you leave early you have to repay the loan with your own money.

I'm not sure this could work with normal raise-type compensation in the software world due to the difficulty of enforcing such a thing or clawing back money from people who leave early. The traditional way this was done was with pensions that ramp up with length of time at the company, but those are few and far between these days due to the overhead hit on financials.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#415

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

ivansavz wrote: post #118

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

> Does anyone have ideas about how to make this work?

Pay more. If they can make more money by switching jobs, you're not paying enough. They paid for their training by working for a lesser salary for 1-2 years, and it's not irrational for them to then want a competitive salary.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#416

Post by esotericn » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #352

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

This isn’t a hypothetical for my team. We filled a position twice with a fresh out of school dev and both times they left after a year or two for senior positions with massive raises even though they were both on the fast track for such things at our shop. Now we just hire seniors only.

If they were hired away, then it sounds like your "fast track" wasn't quite that fast. Business jargon?

Why wait?

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#417

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

ben_jones wrote: post #141

LoSboccacc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Embed salary upgrades within the employment contract. We already know jumping gives on average a 15% salary increase every two years, so you just have to beat or match that. Now people might still leave for more interesting projects, but you get one of the larger motivational factors out of the way. People often leave because negotiating a salary upgrade is way harder than navigating an interview. So, unless your hid…

The problem from zero to hero is more than that. Entry-level college graduate non-developer positions might net 50-60k even in the Bay Area. So if you hire a 22 year old with a degree at that base and then teach them how to be a react pro over the course of two years they will then be eligible for 100k+ salaries. That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down. If Starbu…

> If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee?

When Starbucks entered the market here, their $5 coffee was about 3x the price of the status quo cup.

Also, if businesses can't pay the market rate for labour (by definition, the money the employee can get in an open market is the market rate) then they don't have a sustainable business model.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#418

Post by maliker » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

I've built a team of 10 junior devs in the Washington DC area. The prime motivation for hiring juniors is that there's ton of good entry-level talent (worked on published research in college, built an app and got some users, etc.), but good mid-level has been hard to find.

We give good raises and a lot of coaching, but since our work doesn't change much, people typically get tired of it and leave after a year or two. Ideally we would find a way to retain knowledge and talent.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#419

Post by clubm8 » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

>I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave

Sounds like something a contract could fix.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#420

Post by AchieveLife » Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

ivansavz wrote: post #118

oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

Culture and individualized incentives. Build a culture that aligns with the values of people hired and performers. Most people are motivated by positive feedback incentives. Others are motivated by monetary incentives. This guides career growth.

Even if they leave, they will be back because most companies lack a unified culture with clear values.