How much does employee turnover really cost? • Hacker News Board

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#211

Post by maverick_iceman » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:23 PM UTC

jventura wrote: post #100

jcadam wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last job gave me a ~2% raise the first year and a ~1% the next. I left shortly thereafter. Should have left after the first lousy raise. The previous job gave me back-to-back 1% raises. Left that job after two years as well. Should have left at the one year mark. I've been in my current job a few months. I'll stick around till the first annual raise cycle to see how they treat me. I don't think I'll give this empl…

On my last job I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired. So after 6/7 months, I went to negotiate a raise with one of the owners and the product manager. I said explicitely that I was quite below market rate and would consider only a raise of at least 20%. The result? I was offered 2%-3%, to be discussed on the next annual review (still some months t…

Always leave a paper trail. E.g. after your verbal agreement you should have sent an email to the CTO (and others) summarizing the contents of the agreement.

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#212

Post by citizens » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:24 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #128

_yosefk wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What also amazes me is that the same heterodox crowd critiquing capitalism goes on to say "money doesn't make you happy", citing surveys of millionaires and billionaires who all say they'd be happy with 2x-3x their current net worth! I mean, not necessarily the same people say it, but the same press outlets for sure. But if it doesn't make you happy and you always want more, that desire must motivate you, right? Make…

Talk to some serial entrepreneurs. Many of them are already rich, and don't need to work, but they do it anyway. They're motivated by the challenge, not the money.

Well, are they working for themselves or for someone else? That has to come into play regarding motivation.

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#213

Post by kitwalker12 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC

> When a capable person on your team wants a role bigger than her past experience, do you give her a shot or do you simply hire someone with more experience?

This spoke to me the most as I've seen this happen at multiple places. lack of growth seems to be the most common reasons for employees leaving (apart from stagnating salaries) and that's something a company can easily invest in

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#214

Post by megablast » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

andruby wrote: post #142

Balgair wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how AI will affect those business models? If you can on-board and find employees so quickly that you can sustain the burn-n-churn, then I think an AI would do it better and faster and not be fired either.

The AI will need to learn people skills if it has to do the job of an IT Manager.

Why? So it can be better than an IT Manager?

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#215

Post by jventura » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:35 PM UTC

basseq wrote: post #122

jventura wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my last job I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired. So after 6/7 months, I went to negotiate a raise with one of the owners and the product manager. I said explicitely that I was quite below market rate and would consider only a raise of at least 20%. The result? I was offered 2%-3%, to be discussed on the next annual review (still some months t…

1. Did you verbally agree to the 20% with the CTO as well? Otherwise, it sounds like they honored the verbal agreement and got a raise after 6 months. It was just less than what you decided you wanted later. 2. Your conclusion is spot on. I've never seen this kind of agreement actually work : it's almost always FUD. If they're not willing to put it in an offer letter, it's not real.

The agreement with the CTO was to have a raise after 6 months. There was no previous agreement of a specific number, just a "raise".

After 6/7 months I went to talk to one of the founders about that specific issue, i.e. that I was promised a raise, and that I wasn't expecting anything below 20%. I came to know during the time that I work there that was being paid well below my coworkers (and the market rate in general for my position).

Their response was that I would only get raised on the next company review (still some months to go, but note that I was promised a raise after 6 months), the raise would be around 2%-3% (note that I said to them, quite direct, that I was being underpaid, at least 20%), and the project manager even said that I would be subjected to a performance review before they would give me a raise.

So they failed me at least with 3 things: no raise after 6 months as agreed (still some months to next review), would not raise me enough so I would still be underpaid, and I could even not get raised because I would have to be reviewed first..

Basically, I quit on the next working day, and one or two months later, most of the team got laid off, so there was bigger problems on that specific company..

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#216

Post by megablast » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:35 PM UTC

willhslade wrote: post #199

ajmurmann wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What and from which countries in particular do you think the US can learn?

Germany, Japan, and the UK. Managers not MBAs is a good book that summarizes the problems with the current management culture. Basically, by having a class of people who have never done the grunt work of a particular job, you ruin what the Army calls "Unit Cohesion".

Sure, Japan. Where you work 6 days a week and don't leave before the boss does, at 10pm.

The UK was no different to the US.

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#217

Post by georgeecollins » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

jackaltman wrote: post #180

beachy wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turnover is not always bad by any means. Often a company accumulates (bad hires, acquisition, good apples going stale) people who would be better off gone for everyone's sake. There's good turnover and bad turnover.

Exactly. In this article I was focused on regrettable turnover (when you wish the employee didn't leave), as opposed to non-regrettable turnover, which is very healthy.

In my experience, almost every time someone leaves someone regrets it and someone doesn't. The manager who supervised the person will usually say it is for the best. I have worked with great managers who clean house and terrible managers who drive people away, or treat them as scapegoats. In either case it may be identified as healthy turnover.

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#218

Post by bb611 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

withdavidli wrote: post #87

sputknick wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about what salary that engineer deserved, but what they could command. That engineer might have done $1 million worth of work a year, and deserved a $1 million salary; but he couldn't go to another company and proclaim he was worth $1 million. He could probably go elsewhere and get a slightly above average salary, your company knew that, and that is why they paid him that.

This comment isn't against you, because you are right that a lot of companies calculate this way. It is also undeniably short sighted. Because value in this case is literally in the eye of the beholder. If they were worth at least million and mission critical, market rate was 100k-200k. Pay 400k-500k. Guarantee employee knows they are valued and no other company would match because the person isn't worth as much to t…

Presumably the article in question: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-google-programmer-blew-off-...

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#219

Post by II2II » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:48 PM UTC

shados wrote: post #66

jedrek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been to management seminars where they downplay the importance of money, saying that employees are mostly motivated by other factors. Then I talk to my co-workers, the ones that are quitting, and about half of them leave because they've been working for 2+ years without a raise. I worked at a company where a company decided to introduce a new management program (LEAN) into one department. That 16 person departme…

raise doesn't always mean money. It's counterintuitive, but from my experience, it's more the act of being passed up or not cared about than the actual $$ count that matters. Like, you might still make less money than you would elsewhere, but if your employer at least makes an effort, people are much happier.

I suspect that the key thing is making an employee feel valued or valuable (based upon the employee's motivations) rather than making them happier.

An employee that feels as though they are not valued by the company or feel as though they company does not feel that their contributions are valuable will probably see their job as insecure and will look for better opportunities.

Re: How much does employee turnover really cost?

#220

Post by opportune » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:52 PM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #67

Here is a strange thing I have seen: Turnover is bad for a company overall, but good for H.R. HR teams are more important the more there is a need for recruitment. I have seen them be the part of the company that says "we are a team like a sports team, not a family," implying churn is OK. That is good for their productivity, particularly if their workload is on boarding and "culture" as well as recruiting.

So HR has a vested interest in doing a poor enough job in hiring people that will not stay long (i.e. churn) so that they maintain their need to hire more people? Interesting thought.