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

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#51

Post by groby_b » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

Managers should rarely have sole power over the people hired on their team, for exactly that reason. It's easy to fall into "empire building" mode, and you want checks and balances for that.

Salary envy is just a minor side problem of that approach. One of the bigger issue is that bad managers surround themselves with yes people, compounding any possible damage.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#52

Post by angryrancor » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

My lord, I just don't agree at all with this article. The author parrots his source, who seems to think the entirety of the problem is "engineering culture".

It is absolutely not. That assertion - seemingly the crux of the article, if you take the perspective of the primary source - is total nonsense. There are definitely issues in engineering culture, and some good ones are mentioned. But the actual, and most material problem, is in the business culture - not paying employees their actual market value, consistently, and then balking at those employees when adjustments are asked for.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#53

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#54

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

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.

Yeah, that made me see red. Just money? Money is food in my mouth, money is attention from a qualified doctor in a good hospital when I get ill, money is a good place to live in a nice and safe area, with heating that turns on in the winter, money is a car that starts when you turn the key, with a tank full of gas. Money is fucking important.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#55

Post by x0x0 » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

killface wrote: post #13

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 backgro…

It is a kid's club. Within the last two years: I discovered my cto, who used to supervise hundreds at google, and therefore absolutely positively had sexual harassment training, was sending candidate engineers a code test that ended up printing a naked woman in ascii art. The answer to the code test was the number between her legs. I realized this when a prospective female engineer emailed basically asking WTF?

Another workplace had 2 female engineers, out of 8 or so. A candidate commented we had, "a lot of secretaries" and was stunned when I pointed out that 2 of the secretaries were engineering peers.

An engineering peer spent lunch speculating about whether the ceo was fucking his secretary until I stopped being subtle and flatly told him to fucking shut up.

I have more stories, but let's stop there for now. Or quietly ask female peers -- most of them will have similar stories.

Further -- like any other industry, the startup / tech world has received enormous dividends from America. From massive investments in early tech, to R&D subsidies, to R&D tax breaks, to the education of the vast majority of the employees at the companies. Demanding diversity is part of fulfilling their social compact with America, and most of the whining is the companies attempting to duck it.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#56

Post by tomjen3 » Tue, May 19, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

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?

Probably, but who cares? If you want the job just say that you are planning to stick around, then you can always change your plans once a better job turns up.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#57

Post by sanderjd » Tue, May 19, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

nick_urban wrote: post #40

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.

I've always found this market inefficiency fascinating. It's conventional wisdom (not just in the software industry) that the best way to get a big raise is to switch jobs, but your employer "should" be aware of the market rate for your work, and have the most information about your value and the most incentive to keep you around. I've always wondered if new employers are overvaluing new hires, or whether current employers fail to keep up due to some sort of bureaucratic issue.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#58

Post by patmcc » Tue, May 19, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #33

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.

I don't think it's a lie, it's just a statement with a big IF before it.

IF (this company is as great as you say) && (I'll be doing interesting work) && (the culture is good) && (the pay/benefits is fair)

THEN I believe in the company and will stick around.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#59

Post by sanderjd » Tue, May 19, 2015, 6:05 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #41

fredkbloggs wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me, that's sort of the point – you can understand why it's hard to keep employees for N years by thinking about what the terms of an N-year contract would have to look like, and whether anyone would sign it.

Re: Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

#60

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 19, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

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]