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

Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

hrdive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 247 posts

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#71

Post by foobiekr »

returningfory2 wrote: post #26
bbatchelder wrote: post #2

Too many times in my career have I seen an employer lose an employee, who has a ton of institutional knowledge and performs adequately or even excellently, only to replace them them with someone that ends up costing much more money, and then takes a lot of time to get up to speed (which also slows the folks who help get them up to speed). It is like they haven't taken the time to even make a rudimentary calculation o…

This is a common response to this issue, but I think there is a logical flaw in it. Employers don't know ahead of time which employees will leave and which will stay. In order to improve their employee retention, employers have to pay _all_ of their employees more, not just the ones that eventually will leave. This changes the math entirely. For example, suppose it costs 50% extra to replace someone who leaves. In re…

I would agree, but employers actually usually do know who is a flight risk.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#72

Post by google234123 »

gsibble wrote: post #13
mindvirus wrote: post #5

When I was at a FAANG, it felt like they had this down to a science. Promotions every 2-3 years. Raises once a year, a few spot bonuses throughout the year, ad hoc equity grants. People still quit of course, but looking back it felt very retention focused and scientific.

They do seem to have it down. Startups on the other hand absolutely do not.

You sure? Seems like starts are the place where you find engineers with just a few years of experience getting management roles

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#73

Post by akomtu »

woeirua wrote: post #17

When people say they want career progression, and opportunities, what they mostly mean is they want more money. Unfortunately, most companies have fallen into the trap where if someone has a title of X they can only make up to Y, regardless of how good they are at their job or how long they've done it. When that happens then the name of the game is getting a promotion in order to keep making more money. That creates…

Someone is ought to make a game like factorio out of this: you manage workers with semi-predictable output, and have to pay them out of your semi-predictable profit. You can never lower anyone's salary, only fire someone, and that costs a fee (severance). There is outside pressure that forces workers to need more money - inflation - it's also semi-predictable, but it never goes down. My suspicion is that in a well modeled game like this, there's no steady-growth mode when everyone is happy, and the organisation always collapses, even under perfect management.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#74

Post by bigmattystyles »

dbcurtis wrote: post #64
errantmind wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I broadly agree with your point, rewarding seniority is at odds with rewarding people based on how good they are at their jobs, from the perspective of incentives. The two are not always correlated and this is often why some companies hire externally instead of promoting from within. That said, companies are often wrong to hire externally as they misattribute their problems to their employees instead of to thei…

Paying for equal performance on the measurable aspects of the job is easier to do than putting a value on institutional knowledge. As an old bird that has had time to internalize the tech stack, I can make one comment along the line of “Don’t do that, and here is why...” — getting that kind of contribution noticed and valued is harder. Parent comment is really saying to find a way to put a value on institutional know…

I mean isn’t that why vesting cliffs exist? I’d extend them to be for far more money but over far longer if I was the employer, but the job market won’t bare it.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#75

Post by vasco »

errantmind wrote: post #34
woeirua wrote: post #17

When people say they want career progression, and opportunities, what they mostly mean is they want more money. Unfortunately, most companies have fallen into the trap where if someone has a title of X they can only make up to Y, regardless of how good they are at their job or how long they've done it. When that happens then the name of the game is getting a promotion in order to keep making more money. That creates…

While I broadly agree with your point, rewarding seniority is at odds with rewarding people based on how good they are at their jobs, from the perspective of incentives. The two are not always correlated and this is often why some companies hire externally instead of promoting from within. That said, companies are often wrong to hire externally as they misattribute their problems to their employees instead of to thei…

Leadership are mostly also employees by the way.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#76

Post by paxys »

mindvirus wrote: post #5

When I was at a FAANG, it felt like they had this down to a science. Promotions every 2-3 years. Raises once a year, a few spot bonuses throughout the year, ad hoc equity grants. People still quit of course, but looking back it felt very retention focused and scientific.

Yeah, big tech has had it all figured out for a while now. At my company departments would get a target retention number. Going too much under or over that was a problem. If a certain % of employees outside of the top performance buckets weren't unsatisfied with their salaries and leaving, that meant you were paying everyone too much.

It's crazy how much science you can apply to HR once you are working at a scale of tens of thousands of employees. At that point people aren't people anymore, just nameless resources to be plugged into an equation. Kinda like the "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" analogy. Stack ranking follows the same principle.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#77

Post by luckylion »

endisneigh wrote: post #65
andrewflnr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost like you need to identify which employees are key contributors and pay them appropriately. Imagine that.

Easier said then done. Firstly it requires for you to know what you’re doing is both a key project and something in which paying more would be more likely to result in its completion.

Is it though? I've never worked as an actual employee, but I'm working in long-time contracts as a freelancer with companies. I've always found it pretty easy to tell who was carrying a project and who was dead weight. Might be different and harder to calculate for new projects, but for existing ones that are maintained, observing who gets asked when weird things happen and who solves the strange issues usually identified the people who were instrumental. If someone is off a week and nothing moves, that's someone you probably want to keep (and probably also a situation you want to resolve, because that's not a good thing).

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#79

Post by duped »

returningfory2 wrote: post #26
bbatchelder wrote: post #2

Too many times in my career have I seen an employer lose an employee, who has a ton of institutional knowledge and performs adequately or even excellently, only to replace them them with someone that ends up costing much more money, and then takes a lot of time to get up to speed (which also slows the folks who help get them up to speed). It is like they haven't taken the time to even make a rudimentary calculation o…

This is a common response to this issue, but I think there is a logical flaw in it. Employers don't know ahead of time which employees will leave and which will stay. In order to improve their employee retention, employers have to pay _all_ of their employees more, not just the ones that eventually will leave. This changes the math entirely. For example, suppose it costs 50% extra to replace someone who leaves. In re…

Good managers and HR leaders will recognize when people are teetering on leaving. Not always, but I've known a few who have given raises to keep people around and knew that others were planning on leaving before they announced it. In a healthy organization you can have frank conversations. Or even ambiguous ones. It's just rare.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#80

Post by warbler73 »

paxys wrote: post #68
woeirua wrote: post #17

When people say they want career progression, and opportunities, what they mostly mean is they want more money. Unfortunately, most companies have fallen into the trap where if someone has a title of X they can only make up to Y, regardless of how good they are at their job or how long they've done it. When that happens then the name of the game is getting a promotion in order to keep making more money. That creates…

The worst part is that after a point in your career there's no path to promotion just for doing your job really well. You are expected to always take on new roles and responsibilities, some of which may not be suited for your personality or interests, and the net result often is that you get promoted and make more money but your overall useful output decreases. I know so many amazing engineers who had to essentially…

Being promoted until you are no longer competent (or happy) is a long recognized corporate antipattern dynamic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Post reply on HN