Live data from Hacker News

Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

hrdive.com

121–130 of 247 posts

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#121
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…

> The two are not always correlated

Not always, but still I would assume that people with complex tasks generally become more experienced and accumulate specific knowledge over time that makes them better at what they do. Therefore, it should be the default for employees to get a raise every now and then, unless there are clear signs that someone is not performing and the employer is not interested in keeping the person.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#122
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…

Rewarding seniority works if you have a fair system of performance management in place. Assuming your tenure at a single company is directly correlated with your ability to perform well, and grow and improve your value to the company over time, it would make sense.

That being said, when somebody finds that fair system sustainably in place at a company, let me know. Fair and accurate measurement of an employees performance, free from bias and favoritism ... I'm just not sure that's how people work.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#123
post #114
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70 hrs/wk is for a rare work emergency. 100 hrs/wk will send someone to the Emergency Room.

Yes, it does generally lead to ER (particularly for stress symptoms being confused for something serious) now and then.

Stress can also cause serious permanent damage, not only transient symptoms that might be mistaken for something else.

If I see a colleague who's too stressed, I'll impress upon everyone the importance of correcting that.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#124

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.

In my experience this is a challenge because everyone believes they are a key contributor.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on now. That seems like an intellectually dishonest example. Do you really think anyone is proposing the pay growth of a janitor should be so high they're getting CEO rates?

If pay were calculated by seniority, and not title, how else would it work?

By calculating it based on seniority and role, or based on experience and role.

Both the janitor and the SWE get more valuable as they get more familiar with the company, but it's still a different role.

OTOH, a SWE doesn't need to be promoted to Principal Engineer to be more efficient at IC work because he knows your proprietary systems inside out.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#126
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…

100%. One counterexample (unfortunately the only one that comes to mind) is sales, where performance has an immediate positive cash & profit impact that is trivial to measure. Top salespeople can earn more than the CEO's of their companies. In the backend of the org, this is harder to do, because the impact is hard to measure and comes to fruition later in the game. One solution is to have small teams of engineers th…

> millions of tiny startups.

Sounds a bit like what Google does internally for promotions. Except their execution is failing so badly it is starting to affect the company. And also that I have no faith in this concept any more.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#127
post #67
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…

"most companies have fallen into the trap where if someone has a title of X they can only make up to Y," Eh, most of the people in the established pay range tend to be at the low or mid range, so the company likely has the ability to pay more. Once they're at the top of rhe range, that shouldn't be much of a problem either... but that assumes the range was created using good industry data. If so, then there shouldn't…

A lot of problems seem like they go away if you assume that you've solved them correctly.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on now. That seems like an intellectually dishonest example. Do you really think anyone is proposing the pay growth of a janitor should be so high they're getting CEO rates?

If pay were calculated by seniority, and not title, how else would it work?

seniority * title…

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#129
Prioritizing hiring over retention is the least bad thing a company does. Companies do terrible things, like:

- Dissolve good teams.

- Losing great employees for nothing

- Prohibition of documenting procedures (Yes, I've worked on one of these)

- Encouraging bullying behavior.

- 50% of time lost in meetings.

The explanation of all this is that... 99% of the companies where I worked the objective was not profit, they existed only for someone to demonstrate control over other people. Meetings is showing the power of "request a meeting". An employee asks for a raise? We don't give in to employees, etc.

If you understand this, all the weird stuff makes sense.

Re: Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study suggests

#130
post #116

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…

Seniority has a very real value in tech, though. It probably doesn't have much value if you're say, a doctor, working with different systems each time that look similar. But in programming, you deal with systems, you know the undocumented gotchas of the system, and understand the flow of it better than someone who's completely new to it. You know when Chesterton's fence applies and when it doesn't. I often tell start…

> you know the undocumented gotchas of the system ... when Chesterton's fence applies and when it doesn't.

All too real. Unfortunately, i do think that relying on such expertise is fraught with danger - because both your bus-factor is 1, and it makes it hard to bring up new people.

In practise, this is hard to avoid, but i think a real senior developer should know to document the undocumented, and to communicate (using various mediums) to ensure that nobody needs tribal knowledge to work on a system.

Post reply on HN