Why some of the best developers keep quitting

Post by morgante » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:47 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #150

limelight wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a project is "important" then it should have business value. For some developers (including me), working on projects with significant business value is the definition of glamorous. Since there's significant business value, then you should be rewarding people for delivering that value (with bonuses and raises). If the task does not have significant business value, it's probably not actually important. A lot of main…

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I want to work on what's most important for the business and our users. Having engineers pick whatever they find fun to work on sounds broken, but I'm also interested in if and how that can be made to work.

Post by nilkn » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

shandor wrote: post #121

nilkn wrote: post #100

A few other reasons (all that I've seen in some form in the real world): * Insufficient raises. This is by far the most common reason, but it's been discussed in this thread well already so there's no need for me to dive into details here. * Over-rewarding of managers and under-rewarding of developers. Very rarely are the management tracks and technical tracks actually equivalent. For instance, managers are granted e…

> Almost nobody wants to work on the exact same thing for more than a few years unless it's genuinely super interesting That's a really, really tough problem actually. Businesses naturally want people to work on things that they are already very good at, to keep productivity high. This is especially important in software consulting houses that churn out apps and whatnot without their own products, because their whole…

Post by lmm » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

thehardsphere wrote: post #151

lmm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, it's mainstream economics that a lot of internal corporate decisions are made for the welfare of employees/managers rather than shareholders.

Sure, that's an example of principal/agent problems. Those happen all the time and are very real. But to claim that, there would be a vast conspiracy tobtake all of that money on a wide enough scale to make everyone in the USA overpaid is where the thing breaks down.

Post by user5994461 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

tensor wrote: post #117

throwaway5752 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd consider a string of < 1 year positions a red flag when hiring. I think there's an element of courtesy and maturity in staying 2 years unless there are reasonable circumstances why it's not possible. As a hiring manager I want to make sure that my time and effort recruiting are not wasted. Same for training and development of subject matter expertise. Obviously I need to reciprocate in compensation/learning oppor…

We automatically exclude anyone who has a string of positions they've kept for only a year or less. If someone can't show that they stay at least two years then it's not worth it to us to bother bringing them up to speed on our code base. As you say, there can be exceptions, but it's generally a big red flag and a sign that someone is overpaid and arrogant to boot.

Post by paul6987 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 7:47 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #138

paul6987 wrote: post #112

I quit mine 120k job because Im not dealing with any disrespect and or unfairness! For 3 months I tried to work out a situation with a co-worker but it was a constant fight with this jerk. Tried to get managements help, but no help or concern was provided. There's too much opportunity to deal with any B.S. no matter the money you are paying me...ok id deal with some if it paid $250k and the govt took zero.

Same for me. Much better in the long term. You only live once. Avoid psychopaths and bad managers like the plague.