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

81–90 of 247 posts

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#81

Post by pixl97 »

gsibble wrote: post #19
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…

Almost all of the companies I worked at hired senior positions from outside the company instead of promoting from within. The other issue I ran into was being so good at the position I was in that I was "unpromotable". Got told that a lot as an IC. Was then told even though I was fully qualified for the promotion, I would not get it nor the accompanying salary.

That's when you know it's time to leave.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#82

Post by localhost »

When a senior person walks out the door, they also take their network with them. Whoever the company replaces that person with, they are not going to have the same (or if external any) network. A lot of interesting and important work at large companies gets discovered by ICs (Individual Contributors) with solid networks talking to other ICs in other teams. That work won't happen without ICs who know a lot of people throughout the company.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#83

Post by pixl97 »

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…

You have the choice of managers knowing what the job is or managers that have never done the job. In general managers that know what the job is are better managers.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#84

Post by woeirua »

wisnoskij wrote: post #39
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…

"Reward seniority and loyalty regardless of job title" Well janitor retention would surely go through the roof, but I think you might lose a lot of upper management and software engineers.

Why? Because they would prefer to keep running on the neverending promotion treadmill? I think a LOT of engineers would rather stay engineers if they could keep getting reasonable raises. The problem is that almost all companies make it impossible to keep getting raises past a certain point _without_ getting promoted.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#85

Post by dan-robertson »

andrewflnr wrote: post #47
returningfory2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Well obviously it isn’t necessary to pay them ‘appropriately’ (as I assume you’re suggesting that many don’t. It may also be the case that the cost of losing a key employee times the expected number lost is less than the cost of paying them all enough that they’re paid ‘appropriately’).

But I think the more important question is: who are these key contributors? It’s perhaps easy to identify some of them, particularly those who are louder, and perhaps it is also possible to identify those who appear important but are, in some sense, bluffing. But there are also likely those who are key but whom the system for evaluation overlooks. It’s probably better for those people if they leave as they may find an employer who can better recognise their talents (and leverage them and pay them for it). I don’t think I’d do a great job at recognising such key people even among those I work closely with but maybe I’m just bad at that sort of thing.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#86

Post by dbish »

duped wrote: post #54
dbish wrote: post #52

The confusing thing happening over the last 1-2 years (and in previous cycles) is that many current employees are also down significantly on their stock grants in public big tech. Employers seem to see this as ok, and that’s the risk they take when taking stock, yet they are willing to go and pay a new hire with an updated price that means they make far more than you. It incentivizes leaving and wouldn’t cost the emp…

In terms of number of shares or dollar amounts? Because tech has taken a massive slam in the last year in the markets. Employees should see that like a lot of investors do, which is a discount on blue chips. It changes the calculus a bit if you don't plan on executing on vest or holding after you do for tax reasons, which makes a lot of sense. But if you're considering a role at a big tech right now and plan to last…

Dollar amount. It’s a hit comparatively because anyone joining today would make 100s of thousands more for some roles and someone who took the hit over the last year can just go reset their stock elsewhere. Holding for tax reasons makes no sense for public companies. Vested shares count as standard income.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#87

Post by neilv »

clnq wrote: post #45

I work for a tech company that promotes internally quite well in recent years. But they also only want to hire senior, principal and lead level engineers to develop a mature workforce. Unfortunately, they fail to attract enough talent to replace attrition, which is high due to increasingly paltry employee numbers. And all in all, while the promotion-to-hiring ratio is good, there is too little hiring to keep employee…

70 hrs/wk is for a rare work emergency.

100 hrs/wk will send someone to the Emergency Room.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#88

Post by wisnoskij »

woeirua wrote: post #84
wisnoskij wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reward seniority and loyalty regardless of job title" Well janitor retention would surely go through the roof, but I think you might lose a lot of upper management and software engineers.

Why? Because they would prefer to keep running on the neverending promotion treadmill? I think a LOT of engineers would rather stay engineers if they could keep getting reasonable raises. The problem is that almost all companies make it impossible to keep getting raises past a certain point _without_ getting promoted.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN