The other devs are going to be PISSED if they find out they're making less, and everything will start derailing.
There's loads of other good devs available instead.
11–20 of 231 posts
The other devs are going to be PISSED if they find out they're making less, and everything will start derailing.
There's loads of other good devs available instead.
Why it needs another 6-12 months to get them to be productive? Is it some system programming position? I can't imagine anything else that would require a year to get people into shape.
I.e., what if you agreed to let them keep their current job title, but gave them the responsibilities and salary of a junior dev until the skill gap was closed?
Then (a) they have a way forward, (b) they avoid a career-limiting feature on their resume, and (c) you wouldn't be overpaying for their work.
That's the best balance of kindness and fairness I can think of at the moment.
You have to fire. No hiring process is 100%. It is worse to have them stay. If your organization is unable to fire people because you have 'not firing people' as an objective, you're optimizing for things that aren't advancing the business, and essentially shooting yourselves in the foot.
At a large company they likely wouldn't recover from this situation either - but they have the financial and management resources to just sandbag him with the worst jobs until he quits, which I'm assuming you can't afford.