Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#31

Post by cbanek » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:22 AM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #28

cbanek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's refreshes and then there's the speed of the vesting schedule. Some places offer a bunch to start, but very little after that, which means people tend to leave once they have vested all their options/RSUs. After the first year, sometimes your vesting schedule will be monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or once a year. As to why they don't allow everyone to be monthly - it's probably because they get to claw back…

> As to why they don't allow everyone to be monthly - it's probably because they get to claw back a fair amount of the equity if people leave. I may be being a little cynical, but if you vest annually or bi-annually you can get a pretty good idea of when your employees are going to leave and use that to plan your crunch periods accordingly. People are rather unlikely to quit the month before the annual vesting date.

I think if companies could actually predict crunch times I'd agree with you, but scheduling is not an easy science.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#32

Post by kobeya » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:23 AM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #23

scdoshi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many (if not most) companies do stock refreshes annually, don't they?

Yes, but after the initial grant has vested entirely your opportunities for growth are limited. Here's an example - say I'm hired with 1000 units of stock over four years. Each year I receive a refresher grant of 250 units of stock, again vesting over four years. Once I reach Year 4, my stock compensation stabilizes, assuming my refreshers remain the same (I'm am obviously grossly simplifying - you could be promoted…

Normally refresher grants are not based on your starting grant, but what you might receive if you were hired for the same position today.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#33

Post by andrewstuart » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:25 AM UTC

danek wrote: post #20

andrewstuart wrote: post #13

This is why its always possible to hire great developers - because some companies and hiring managers think that people should be not just great developers, but willing to jump through ridiculous hoops to work there. If you want to hire people, drop the attitude of "we don't want people who aren't willing to prove how much they want to work here". Instead, give them every reason to want to work for you.

Fwiw, one "advantage" of "wanting to work there" is that counterproductive management practices can survive longer. If I'm your boss and am treating you like trash, and you complain, I can just say "oh it sounds like your commitment to this company isn't very high, shall we discuss your future?" That will work a multitude of times with a gaslit employee who really drank the company kool-aid.

Also, companies can use "level of enthusiasm for working here" as an excuse for their poor recruiting practices.

"OH, the candidate dropped out of our recruiting process? But he was only at interview four after 6 weeks.... well it doesn't matter because clearly he didn't want to work here enough - we want people who really want to work here and are willing to do what it takes to get a job with us."

Even worse: "But he'd only done our coding test after 5 weeks, there's still three interviews to go."

The recruiter usually gets a phone call at this point "Got anyone else, this time someone who actually wants to work here?"

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#34

Post by AVTizzle » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:30 AM UTC

>> "I was visiting with an ex-student who’s now the CFO of a large public tech company."

>> "(By coincidence, the CEO was an intern at one of my startups more than two decades ago.)"

Admittedly, this isn't adding to the discussion at hand. Just one amateur writer picking apart another's writing style, but...

Is it just me, or do those lines serve no purpose except to boost the author's own ego and sense of self-importance?

I feel like they don't serve the reader in taking away the lesson in the least. They really strike me as an attempt to remind the reader of the writer's own value and importance.

Maybe I'm being too cynical...

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#35

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:31 AM UTC

The most important lesson for people in power in big tech companies: FORMAL PROCESS IS THE ENEMY. Don't let the accumulation of gatekeepers and approvers and other capital-P Process let things become 100x harder than they need to be.

Do not confuse difficulty with prudence. Your organization will become slow and ossified by default unless you take specific steps to maintain flexibility. One of these steps is to install a culture of change. Things that are easily undone should not require approval to be done in the first place.

Do not allow long-timers in your organization use "caution" or "good engineering practice" as an excuse to slow everyone else down. Emphasize that the most important part of software development is moving fast. Let new people try new things. Minimize the number of people who can say "no".

Most of all, do not just _believe_ people who talk about best practices and software "quality" and stuff like that. Most of the time, they're just finding fancy-sounding ways of saying "nothing should change unless I say so".

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#36

Post by andrewstuart » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:31 AM UTC

AVTizzle wrote: post #34

>> "I was visiting with an ex-student who’s now the CFO of a large public tech company." >> "(By coincidence, the CEO was an intern at one of my startups more than two decades ago.)" Admittedly, this isn't adding to the discussion at hand. Just one amateur writer picking apart another's writing style, but... Is it just me, or do those lines serve no purpose except to boost the author's own ego and sense of self-impor…

Its Steve Blank - he's just pointing out facts that support the story, it happens that he works with lots of successful people and companies.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#37

Post by khazhoux » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:39 AM UTC

Executives: "You should care about the mission, not the money!"

(as they keep all the money to themselves)

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#38

Post by ryandrake » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

scdoshi wrote: post #12

maxxxxx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why they don't hand out options on a more continuous base the way executives get them. It seems everything is geared towards staying 1-4 years and then jumping ship.

Many (if not most) companies do stock refreshes annually, don't they?

I've never seen it myself. My understanding is that it's pretty rare.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#39

Post by kbos87 » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:44 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #35

The most important lesson for people in power in big tech companies: FORMAL PROCESS IS THE ENEMY. Don't let the accumulation of gatekeepers and approvers and other capital-P Process let things become 100x harder than they need to be. Do not confuse difficulty with prudence. Your organization will become slow and ossified by default unless you take specific steps to maintain flexibility. One of these steps is to insta…

I have a hunch that you've never worked at a growing mid-sized or large company that is clinging to its startup roots and is averse to any sort of process at all.

Being unwilling to adopt a necessary amount of structure and process is just as much of a hindrance once you hit a certain size.

That may be a newer or less common problem, but it's a very real one.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#40

Post by dclowd9901 » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 2:44 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #35

The most important lesson for people in power in big tech companies: FORMAL PROCESS IS THE ENEMY. Don't let the accumulation of gatekeepers and approvers and other capital-P Process let things become 100x harder than they need to be. Do not confuse difficulty with prudence. Your organization will become slow and ossified by default unless you take specific steps to maintain flexibility. One of these steps is to insta…

Risk is the enemy of establishment and profit. You _will not_ convince a powerful train to change direction simply because there's no tracks ahead.