Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

sloanreview.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 385 posts

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#361

Post by vcool07 »

Areading314 wrote: post #34

A huge problem with this industry is the inflexibility to pay current engineers LARGELY increasing comp each year. The thought is that there is a market rate for an engineer and that pay can increase with the market rate, but this is a fallacy. An engineer that has been at a largish company for 1 year is worth 20-30% more than the year they were hired because they have specific knowledge of the tech stack. Yet that e…

The reasoning provided by someone to me was that at a org level, it's more cost effective for the org to replace those 1-2 departures with the market rate salary, than raise the salary of the whole team to the market rate.

Many people stay back in a company even knowing they could probably get more if they try else where (ex: work like balance, friends, job security in the long term, exciting work etc). When a org has sufficient no of such ppl, it doesn't matter to them when they lose some 1-2 start performers. Also, there's no guarantee those star performers would stay back even if they are paid higher salaries !!

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#362

Post by Nihilartikel »

Wiseacre wrote: post #218
skrebbel wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice! IMO this makes a lot of sense. (I mean it feels super foreign to me but it's a much better explanation than "greed" or "yeah but the house prices")

Lack of psychological security in our society is an artifact of greed.

I don't disagree, but to put a finer point on it, I think it's an artifact of... systematically excessively enfranchised greed.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#363

Post by prepend »

Areading314 wrote: post #34

A huge problem with this industry is the inflexibility to pay current engineers LARGELY increasing comp each year. The thought is that there is a market rate for an engineer and that pay can increase with the market rate, but this is a fallacy. An engineer that has been at a largish company for 1 year is worth 20-30% more than the year they were hired because they have specific knowledge of the tech stack. Yet that e…

Pay isn’t about “worth” or “value,” it’s about the labor market.

Very few of us are paid based on a value calculation. We’re pod based on what the market values our labor and then we either fit or don’t fit into a business model that has some value.

So you’re right, but the reason we don’t get 40% raises after a year is because we can’t quit and get a 40% raise to go elsewhere. We know this and our employers know this.

Now if the market for programmers were 40% higher then we would just get that to start.

Basically employers are overpaying us that first year while we learn stuff because we come up to speed after a while and then finally “earn” our salary.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#364

Post by alisonkisk »

simplestats wrote: post #240
synergy20 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds about right to me. The company also has risks in that its interviewing process indeed just found a good match and you will be as good in real as in paper(your resume), I think the salary part covers the first year, no raise for first year makes perfect sense unless you're absolutely undervalued when you're hired. The other side is that, if you're not as good as you're supposed to be, normally you won't ge…

Overall I'd say the whole point of the interview process at senior level and beyond is to make as sure as possible that you are productive immediately. They give you tasks you can do without thorough knowledge of their process. And these days, lots of one-to-one meetings to hold your hand some and keep your productive. If you don't get a raise in the first year, it's often more about pedantry regarding the HR rules,…

No post body was provided.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#365

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

awrmc wrote: post #351
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't exist because you never experienced it? There are lots of stories about places that demand it (usually big companies and government, I suppose). For example Google was in the news several times for woke upheavals. Not sure if they do actual diversity training, but it does sound like a toxic workplace. Also interesting how quick you are to suggest the need for diversity training, while being adamant that no…

I think you've got some things mixed up. The word "woke" usually means being aware of issues with discrimination in the workplace. I'd have to agree with the grandparent comment, if you're suggesting that being aware of discrimination makes it a toxic workplace then you probably need to do some kind of diversity training, not necessarily in the workplace but just generally considering why it's not a good idea to dism…

I have followed these developments for a while. I think these days the harassment is much more likely to come from the "woke" crowd towards anybody they don't like. that is what I meant by forced diversity training, where non-minority people are told they are guilty of all evil in the world and they should tread on egg shells around "diverse people" and keep their head down.

Obviously the woke themselves see it differently. I didn't mean to discuss the pros and cons, merely to point out that the overly political correctness control is also toxic. I mean there are literally protests to get people fired because they offended the woke sensibilities. If that is not toxic, then what?

"woke" does not mean being aware of discrimination in the workplace, it means believing in the whole ideology of people being constantly held back by discrimination, with certain people to be blamed for every problem in the world.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#366

Post by to11mtm »

varelse wrote: post #259
quietbritishjim wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An engineer that has been at a largish company for 1 year is worth 20-30% more than the year they were hired because they have specific knowledge of the tech stack. Yet that engineer will likely be offered a 3-5% raise. Although I agree with your overall point, I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think the pay offered to an engineer already takes into account that they will understand the tech stack after six…

As long as you are classified as an at will employee you should give your employer at will loyalty. They don't owe you anything and you don't owe them anything either beyond the responsibilities of your job in exchange for whatever they're paying you. It's up to them to make sticking around your best option. But when I'm on interview panels and someone brings up that the person in question is a job hopper, rather tha…

Eh, Hoppers I don't worry about. Jumpers, OTOH, Are a negative.

The difference (at least to me) is time. Hoppers are people who typically change jobs every 1.5-3 years.

Jumpers, will have a long history of 6 month stints, very few if any gigs longer than a year. At most places I've worked, depending on the quality of on-boarding it took most engineers 1-3 months to be productive, and 3-12 months to understand the system well enough to make impactful changes to the ecosystem safely.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#367

Post by NotVerstappen »

varelse wrote: post #323
aksss wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employment contracts are a double-edged sword that would warrant their own discussion. Also you’re not really signing an agreement that they can fire you, you’re signing an acknowledgement of the at-will employment status so you can’t claim any illusions that you had an employment contract, but that status is typically derived from state law and advertised on the job posting you applied for. That paper you’re signing…

I once had to sign a non-compete that came with paying me my full salary during the noncompete period to do anything but what I was doing. I was great with that. And when I left, they chose not to enforce it anyway, but I felt like that was a fair deal.

Paying your full salary is not at all common - though I agree that is sufficient to make a non-compete fair and wish it would become normalised.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#368

Post by varelse »

to11mtm wrote: post #366
varelse wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you are classified as an at will employee you should give your employer at will loyalty. They don't owe you anything and you don't owe them anything either beyond the responsibilities of your job in exchange for whatever they're paying you. It's up to them to make sticking around your best option. But when I'm on interview panels and someone brings up that the person in question is a job hopper, rather tha…

Eh, Hoppers I don't worry about. Jumpers, OTOH, Are a negative. The difference (at least to me) is time. Hoppers are people who typically change jobs every 1.5-3 years. Jumpers, will have a long history of 6 month stints, very few if any gigs longer than a year. At most places I've worked, depending on the quality of on-boarding it took most engineers 1-3 months to be productive, and 3-12 months to understand the sys…

There's a trade off between exploration and exploitation. And sometimes, because they put on their best face to recruit you, you can't figure out that a seemingly promising idea is actually nonsense and it will never work without joining the effort for at least a month or two to go far enough down the rabbit hole until you realize it's full of manure.

I've lasted anywhere from 30 days to over a decade depending on the gig. And every one of those moves was the right choice. I prefer to rely on my own research of the person's career track and the number of people they can summon as references to say nice things about them. Tech culture brings out survival traits and I'm not going to hold anything against people who act in their own best interest.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#369

Post by cableshaft »

freedom2099 wrote: post #58
swift532 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if I assume too much, but I think you'd be thinking quite differently if you had to consider buying your first home on the French riviera now, on something like a 60.000-100.000 euro pre-tax salary.

I just did (although not my first, that one I bought 10 years ago)… sold may old apartment (still in the French Riviera) and with my wife we bought a very nice house 100m from the sea! Mortgage interest rates are great at the moment… 0.9% ain’t bad!

Roughly how much did you spend on the home, if you don't mind me asking? I'm curious how expensive that area is.

Most homes that are near the sea are pretty damn expensive in the US. Or if not, have significant flooding, hurricane, and/or will probably be underwater thanks to climate change in 10-15 years.

Re: Toxic culture is driving the great resignation

#370

Post by phil21 »

Nihilartikel wrote: post #118
skrebbel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand the American thirst for money for the sake of it. If HN comments are to be believed, top performer at your average FAANG easily earn $500k per year. At that point, aren't you well past the point where more money brings more happiness, even in high cost-of-living places? What's the point? Why not find a job that's fun and fulfilling?

I think that the American thirst for money is perhaps sometimes greed, but most often it's a gnawing psychological side effect of our relative lack of personal security in our society. A person can have $100k in the bank and still be bankrupted and left literally living on the streets if they have the audacity to get cancer, lose their job, and have unlucky circumstances. (edit) This insecurity is a 'feature', not a…

> but most often it's a gnawing psychological side effect of our relative lack of personal security in our society.

This is really it. I certainly have some lifestyle inflation in my life, but not a lot compared to many others in my income bracket. I have no desire to increase my consumption beyond where I've been for some time.

Even though I logically know I'm in a great financial position - especially compared to the average citizen - seeing the costs and trends just make the treadmill seem endless. Then you add in elder dependents, kids, and probably some extended family who will also need help. It tends to be overwhelming.

I'm coming to the conclusion "security" is an illusion and always has been, so I'm trying to take a different approach towards money moving into 2022.

Post reply on HN