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

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#41

Post by tomjen3 »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #39
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 p…

Who in the world would sign such a contract? The only employee would be one that couldn't get a better deal elsewhere and the only employer would be one you wouldn't want to work for.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#42

Post by fredkbloggs »

killface wrote: post #18
moosey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One possible approach to this problem is to separate day-to-day management from staff budget/pay negotiations. If you're employing line managers who are worth only $90k a year and have the attitude you describe, someone else needs to be making those staffing decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be employing those line managers, but you need to think carefully about the nature of the role. The traditional all-in-one hierarchy probably isn't appropriate in that situation.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#43

Post by groby_b »

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…

And let's not forget point four: If you want me to stick around, getting more responsibilities (usually via promotion) should be easier to achieve within than without.

I know more than a few engineers who work at larger companies who have climbed up the ladder by switching outside and back.

And no, they've not acquired magical properties in a short stint elsewhere, outside of the "working elsewhere" property.

You can't complain about missing loyalty if you enforce it as a career path.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#45

Post by tomjen3 »

killface wrote: post #18
moosey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your manager should make more - because nobody should be a manager of software devs who is not a software developer himself and should be able to command more than a young engineer.

You shouldn't get to be an officer unless you were first enlisted.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#46

Post by saganus »

borski wrote: post #22
rifung wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between being willing to stay up all night to finish something and being proud of that kind of thing. I got the impression the author understood the difference.

Right; my point is that some people genuinely enjoy it and are proud of when they have moments of inspiration and end up working late nights to complete something. Some people genuinely work best at night, and I get the impression that if an engineer doesn't fit into the author's specific idea of "work life balance" they are considered "young." In my experience, that's not necessarily true; some engineers just genuin…

I read it more as referring to the way the engineer approaches the problem vs what time of day they work.

An engineer who starts hacking away a solution and keeps at it 90+ hours a week (or whatever amount) but then because of this burns out and looses interest in 2,3 or 6 months is not as valuable as an engineer who can consistently keep working at something until the product is delivered. The engineer that is burned out probably won't be able to last X years at the company, and since the author is trying to somewhat maximize the time the employee stays the "burn-out approach" engineer is not desired.

Kind of like that other article that popped up in HN a few weeks ago that basically said "discipline over motivation", which I read as "it's better to be able to work 2-3 hours a days every day for 5 years, than being able to work 15+ hours a day for 3 weeks".

Obviously your opinion might vary as to how useful this strategy is, but I think it has a different meaning than just "an engineer that works at night".

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#47

Post by tptacek »

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…

This article is partly about the longevity of startup dev teams.

Here is a simple true fact:

If your hiring pipeline isn't diverse (in a bunch of different ways, but in particular in the ways that represent "the opposite of the approach you just spelled out for building up a team"), then it may be fast and effective, but it is also brittle.

Every team loses people, no matter how carefully designed they are. Companies with huge traction and close-knit management teams where everyone likes each other lose cofounders. People leave, for all sorts of reasons.

On brittle teams, when one person leaves, a whole bunch of people follow.

You want to build a team that is resilient to one or two people leaving every once in awhile. Diversity --- not in the "Benetton ad" sense, but in a more fundamental sense --- is an extremely good mitigating strategy.

You may not care about team resiliency and longevity; "throw it out the window" to get to release and all of that. I think that's a bad plan (getting to a reasonable successful first release only to have your team implode is not a really good use of your very limited window of time to build companies in, is what I think), but that's neither here nor there.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#48

Post by tomjen3 »

j_baker wrote: post #10
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…

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.

You are building a business, not trying to save the world.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#49

Post by [deleted] »

scarmig wrote: post #35
golemotron wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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--b…

[deleted]

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#50

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN