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

Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

firstround.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#31

Post by j_baker »

wyager wrote: post #24
j_baker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because building a diverse workforce that gives everyone opportunities regardless of culture/ethnicity/sex/gender/sexuality is the right thing to do? I mean, having a culture of shipping is great and all, but it shouldn't trump ethical and moral concerns.

"It's ok if our company fails in an entirely preventable way as long as we failed while meeting some arbitrary standard of not hiring people according to the actual demographics of our hiring base."

"It's ok to build an unjust work environment just as long as it fits with my religion of 'shipping above all else'."

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#32

Post by borski »

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…

Are these hard rules for you? Do certain harder (more challenging) challenges make up for lower pay? Are there culture benefits or actual benefits that can make up for lower pay?

I ask because I hear things like this all the time, and there seem to be two schools of thought: 1) intangibles matter, 2) tangibles (money) is all that matters.

If the latter is true for you (or anyone in a position to be making as much as SV engineers make, excluding those with debts like children's schooling and loans), that makes me really sad. Jumping to the opportunity that will pay more solely because they pay more seems like a shortsighted, materialistic view of life.

I'm not saying you see it that way, but there are certainly a not insignificant amount of people who view money as more important than challenges. Thats not wrong, of course, just saddening to me.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#33

Post by GeneralMayhem »

wrsh07 wrote: post #21

Is it legal to not hire someone because they aren't planning to stick around for more than eg 2 years?

It's certainly legal. But short of expecting you to sign a binding 2-year contract, what exactly are they going to do about it? "I believe in this company and want to be here for the long haul" has got to be one of the most commonly told lies in job interviews.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#34

Post by MadManE »

eabraham wrote: post #14

"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.

I think the point is that people who are looking exclusively for money or shine will make poor employees. If someone is looking to be a master, the others will naturally follow.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#35

Post by scarmig »

golemotron wrote: post #20
Retric wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The obvious rejoinder is that those decision points make the difference between a failed startup and a multi-billion dollar company.

As empiricists, though, it's worth asking if there are any real examples of companies exploiting hidden market opportunities thanks to a diversity of viewpoints. A lack of examples wouldn't be quite damning--maybe there's just not enough diversity at all to rise above the noise level--but it'd be a useful test of how valuable diversity actually can be.

This all stands apart from moral and ideological reasons to try to foster diversity, which are in my view more compelling but are understandably less effective when it comes to influencing decision makers.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#36

Post by testingonprod »

borski wrote: post #32
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…

Are these hard rules for you? Do certain harder (more challenging) challenges make up for lower pay? Are there culture benefits or actual benefits that can make up for lower pay? I ask because I hear things like this all the time, and there seem to be two schools of thought: 1) intangibles matter, 2) tangibles (money) is all that matters. If the latter is true for you (or anyone in a position to be making as much as…

I think you're misinterpreting what he said. He simply stated "Do not underpay me".

No one deserves to be underpaid. It's not an outrageous demand, in fact, he is just demanding baseline respect.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#37

Post by kelukelugames »

rifung wrote: post #15
kelukelugames wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I value diversity. A lot.

But I dislike the studies that suggest diversity improves financial performance, because I find the conclusions are too politically convenient. Most of the ones I read suggest a sketchy correlation at best. Yet people talk as if it's as conclusive as global warming.

Yes, the diversity of founders can be the reason for a startup's success. There are also many examples where it wasn't needed: Apple, Microsoft, Samsung.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#38

Post by gcb0 »

the problem is more on the money and product/marketing side than on the engineering side.

while working on banks that would hold true. a engineer was worth revenue per month while the system was up.

on silicon valey, the engineer is worth a lot as soon as the product is live, but then that means IPO or something and now he is worthless. Remember that most companies in the valley do not even have the concept of revenue...

And when the company does have revenue, then the issue shifts from the money to the product side. The engineer is the guy building the factories. and product can use a better or new factory because they have the talent to build it. but there is nothing they want to build, because, well, they have revenue with the old one, so why bother?

now, when you see all that, it is easy to understand why the engineer VPs on the top drive them to exhaustion. because they know in the end the short term in a engineer work life is all that matters to his financial/product peers.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#39

Post by fredkbloggs »

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…

In line with these points but more nuts and bolts: if you want people who won't leave within at least N years, give them N-year guaranteed contracts that can be terminated only for cause/good reason (these are terms with specific legal meaning). Since I will have agreed in advance to the pay rate for each year, you can't undervalue me unless I'm complicit, and you can't lay me off just because your company is doing poorly. At the same time, I can't pick up and leave "right when I become most valuable". If both sides want greater security than an at-will termless contract offers, the solution is in the contract, not the interview.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#40

Post by nick_urban »

Companies will never value employees as much as employees value themselves.

If programmers can get a promotion and a 20% raise by switching employers, and a 3% raise by staying, why would they stay?

I find it funny that startups would expect to attract "missionaries" when most of them lack missions of any substance.

Post reply on HN