Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#11

Post by j_baker » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #2

With all due respect, I think the author has to be careful not to be jaded. While burnout and echo chambers are a real problem in the valley, an engineer who genuinely enjoys short sprints and hackathons, or staying up all night occasionally to prototype something they're excited about is not necessarily a bad hire. Some of my fondest memories are of building something alone, or with colleagues, all night because it…

Some people just like to work like that, and that's ok. What's wrong is when you require people to work like that or when people who work like that get ahead disproportionately.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#12

Post by moosey » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:11 PM UTC

meatysnapper wrote: post #4

In a situation where companies underpay, and the only way to get a raise is jump shit, how could you not expect a mercenary culture?

I kept scanning this article for talks about money, but there were none. It isn't even about underpaying - it's that changing jobs supplies one of the best sources for engineering pay raises.

There are evolutionary flows through the work force that don't require this (moving into leadership positions) but as they mentioned, generally hiring into the top levels comes from a tight circle of people, having gone to the same school, or some other such limitation. So if you didn't go to Stanford, what's your play?

I could understand why someone running a company wouldn't want to address this, but paying your engineers solidified salaries while company profits rise, and possibly with limited amounts of share in the company, is a good way to guarantee that they'll have to jump ship at some point, just to keep up with inflation.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#13

Post by killface » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

ffn wrote: post #3

The author makes some good points about hiring and working, but what's with this fixation on diversity? If you're a small start up (i.e. 5 or 10 people in his words), your goal should be to build a product and get it to market. And if you happen to be a 30s something white male workaholic who knows a few other 30s something white male workaholics who will work with you to get it out, why shouldn't you just throw dive…

Because "diversity" is the catchphrase of the day when it comes to programming and most technology in general. Some butthurt people see a bunch of white males sitting on computers and making really good money, and wonder why we can't have moms do it at home part-time while taking care of kids (it's just typing, right?), or why we can't just hire 1,000 minimum wage people of (color|poor economic means|criminal backgrounds|dragon-kin) to hack something together.

Our industry is seen by outsiders as an old-boys club full of young boys who viciously hate and destroy any attempt at diversifying. Unfortunately, when these sjw types score a small victory, they see it as a big victory. The rest of us see it like a quota system -- we're forced to deal with less talented people just so somebody doesn't get butthurt that there's not enough females or black people or whatever.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#14

Post by eabraham » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

"Your goal, as a hiring manager, is to find the people who want to invest in their careers, who are aiming for mastery and not just looking to make more money or build a shiny resume."

Why are these two concepts mutually exclusive? Experience, money, and mastery are just a few of the side effects of a successful career.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#15

Post by rifung » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

kelukelugames wrote: post #7

ffn wrote: post #3

The author makes some good points about hiring and working, but what's with this fixation on diversity? If you're a small start up (i.e. 5 or 10 people in his words), your goal should be to build a product and get it to market. And if you happen to be a 30s something white male workaholic who knows a few other 30s something white male workaholics who will work with you to get it out, why shouldn't you just throw dive…

As an ethnic person who evaluates a company's demographics before joining, I want to say diversity is unnecessary for being financially successful. Working with people who are different can even be difficult. But at the end of the day, what is the founder trying to achieve? His or her personal and broader definition of success might include being inclusive. Anecdote: working in a homogenous environment can suck for m…

I imagine the founder is trying to make a successful company. Being that diversity is correlated with financial performance, it makes sense to try to have a diverse team. On the other hand, you're right in that you can't just throw different people in a room and let them work things out.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#16

Post by killface » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:17 PM UTC

meatysnapper wrote: post #4

In a situation where companies underpay, and the only way to get a raise is jump shit, how could you not expect a mercenary culture?

Especially when a lot of the big companies are facing heat (and/or lawsuits) for artificially capping engineer salaries because they didn't want to pay more?

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#17

Post by pnathan » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

Point one: if you want me to want to stick around, your company has to have challenges I want to work on over time.

Point two: do not underpay me. I will tolerate a fuzz around market rate, and I will adapt to market conditions. I will quit as soon as I can if you systematically undervalue me (see point one: my value will go up).

Point three: build a company designed for fifty years, to deliver use and value, and you might get people looking to stick around for fifty years.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#18

Post by killface » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

moosey wrote: post #12

meatysnapper wrote: post #4

In a situation where companies underpay, and the only way to get a raise is jump shit, how could you not expect a mercenary culture?

I kept scanning this article for talks about money, but there were none. It isn't even about underpaying - it's that changing jobs supplies one of the best sources for engineering pay raises. There are evolutionary flows through the work force that don't require this (moving into leadership positions) but as they mentioned, generally hiring into the top levels comes from a tight circle of people, having gone to the s…

But then you deal with the wage problem -- managers (especially ones without a tech background) are often of the "my reports make less than me" school of thought. More money = more power = more respect. So when a manager who makes $90k/yr is talking with a 30yo who wants $150k/yr, he might be insulted or put off. And let's not forget that a lot of developers probably should be in the 200-250 range.

The only thing to look for in a company, in my eyes, is how well they pay their employees. They can glad-hand all they want about open workspaces and ping-pong tables and catered lunches, but none of that matters. Show us the money.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#19

Post by killface » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #17

Point one: if you want me to want to stick around, your company has to have challenges I want to work on over time. Point two: do not underpay me. I will tolerate a fuzz around market rate, and I will adapt to market conditions. I will quit as soon as I can if you systematically undervalue me (see point one: my value will go up). Point three: build a company designed for fifty years, to deliver use and value, and you…

All great points. I work with a consulting company, and we have a lot of really great people. They come to us because we pay fair (good hourly rate on w2 (paid overtime) + benefits), we work with a wide variety of companies and industries, and we're not looking to sell out or get acquired.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#20

Post by golemotron » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #5

ffn wrote: post #3

The author makes some good points about hiring and working, but what's with this fixation on diversity? If you're a small start up (i.e. 5 or 10 people in his words), your goal should be to build a product and get it to market. And if you happen to be a 30s something white male workaholic who knows a few other 30s something white male workaholics who will work with you to get it out, why shouldn't you just throw dive…

Diversity is very useful because companies pivot and having a diverse* team allows you to better consider more options. Note: By diversity I don't mean a team of 30 year old workaholic that graduated from Stanford and then worked at Google/MS for a few years that happen to have different skin colors. I mean a diversity of experience, fresh college student, a 60 year old near retiree, and someone that just spent six m…

Nice theory, but optimizing for the pivot over the running state is not a great strategy. Even if it was you do not need the kind of diversity you mention on the team as much as in their network.

The benefit of having a particular life experience and point of view is not something you need 24/7. You need it, if at all, at decision points.