3 ms·

If Dan is correct that companies often do not keep their best developers happy, what might account for Joel believing the opposite?

by jbapple 10y ago

spiralpolitik 10y ago
While the developer might not be happy per say, the amount of crap that you now have to go through in the interviewing process makes staying the least worse option on the table.
- stillworks 10y ago
  Couldn't agree more... Interviewing of late is filled with randomness. One place I interviewed, the Recruiter told me to expect coding exercise. The call starts, and I am handed out a system design problem ! Never expected a positive outcome since I hadn't prepared. Randomly, I got selected for the next round. This time around I prepared for anything come what may. The call starts, I get asked a coding question. I solve it in about 20 minutes, and the remaining 25 minutes we have a good discussion about the company dev practices. Randomly, this time I am not selected ! Another company I interviewed with last year but didn't make it but kept in touch with the recruiter for re-applying after a 12 month cool-off period. Come the time to re-apply, the good recruiter left and now the current ones keep politely refusing my application. Another interesting one wanted me to record a video of mine explaining what I know about the company and why I would be a good fit and send that video to them ! (this one is a mixed bag, I kinda liked the idea but didn't bother eventually) Another one had me fly out internationaly-all-expenses-paid after three Skype rounds,on the day of flying back I left a courtesy email to the recruiter thanking for the opportunity to interview and asking about possible turn-around time for a feedback. Haven't heard back ! Overall I have begun to get the feeling that at I particularly am a Lemon (or atleast the Potato no one is buying). Was that a long comment ? Or maybe a rant.
  - AtheistOfFail 10y ago
    The biggest issue with this is that some developers tend to get 2-3 offers in a small period. It's totally normal for a developer to start and leave within 3-4 days because a better offer came along so these companies want enough time to see if their new hires are going to duck out before telling you you're not a match (just in case you are a match but the guy who just got hired in your place quit because the new place offer 5k more)
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    No, you're not necessarily a lemon. It is true that the hiring process is a complete random mess. Companies and candidates would probably be better off if we all admitted from the start that it's a random lottery, and that you're being chosen among the hundreds of other candidates essentially at random out of a hat.
hueving 10y ago
The two stances aren't exclusive. Good developers may become unhappy, but they likely have very little difficulty finding a new job so they are on the market for a very short period of time. To follow the used car analogy, good cars do occasionally need to be sold, but when they do they get taken quickly by a friend or through word of mouth recommendations. The cars that sit on the lot for the public to peruse are not great deals.
gorbachev 10y ago
He's built one of the few companies that take valuing developers seriously?
hibikir 10y ago
Joel is a manager, and Dan isn't. Management often believes that they understand hiring, and that their mechanisms for examining performance are good. If Joel believes that one of his employees is fantastic their requests will be heard, and they will be better compensated. Dan instead is seeing developers that he knows are awesome and can't find work because Dan can't hire them. I for one think both are right in some fashion. People that management considers high performers stay long and are very well compensated. People who are not valued that way by management might still stay (if they are not valued in the market), but will jump ship after a few months otherwise. Willingness to stay depends on getting what you want out of a job REGARDLESS OF PROGRAMMER QUALITY! I have worked at places where people with tremendous flaws were considered high performers, making the place shed great developers while keeping bad ones. Other places just look at a specific set of things that might make someone good, and end up with unbalanced talent sets. Imagine you hand tasks to single developers, and value getting them in production as soon as possible. Stability, readability, maintainability will go down the window, and eventually said company will either fail or have to hire a different kind of dev, and force those people to win a culture battle. So ultimately, I think this is all about how difficult it is to evaluate programmers, and how people with one evaluation function look at a world that either shares their evaluation function, or differs significantly from it.
nl 10y ago
Joel wrote during the 1990s and early 2000s of his experience at Microsoft. There wasn't a lot of competition then. Also, Joel was a product manager, not a developer or an engineering manager.

If Dan is correct that companies often do not keep their best developers happy, what might account for Joel believing the opposite?

by jbapple 10y ago

If Dan is correct that companies often do not keep their best developers happy, what might account for Joel believing the opposite?

spiralpolitik 10y ago

While the developer might not be happy per say, the amount of crap that you now have to go through in the interviewing process makes staying the least worse option on the table.

stillworks 10y ago
Couldn't agree more... Interviewing of late is filled with randomness. One place I interviewed, the Recruiter told me to expect coding exercise. The call starts, and I am handed out a system design problem ! Never expected a positive outcome since I hadn't prepared. Randomly, I got selected for the next round. This time around I prepared for anything come what may. The call starts, I get asked a coding question. I solve it in about 20 minutes, and the remaining 25 minutes we have a good discussion about the company dev practices. Randomly, this time I am not selected ! Another company I interviewed with last year but didn't make it but kept in touch with the recruiter for re-applying after a 12 month cool-off period. Come the time to re-apply, the good recruiter left and now the current ones keep politely refusing my application. Another interesting one wanted me to record a video of mine explaining what I know about the company and why I would be a good fit and send that video to them ! (this one is a mixed bag, I kinda liked the idea but didn't bother eventually) Another one had me fly out internationaly-all-expenses-paid after three Skype rounds,on the day of flying back I left a courtesy email to the recruiter thanking for the opportunity to interview and asking about possible turn-around time for a feedback. Haven't heard back ! Overall I have begun to get the feeling that at I particularly am a Lemon (or atleast the Potato no one is buying). Was that a long comment ? Or maybe a rant.
- AtheistOfFail 10y ago
  The biggest issue with this is that some developers tend to get 2-3 offers in a small period. It's totally normal for a developer to start and leave within 3-4 days because a better offer came along so these companies want enough time to see if their new hires are going to duck out before telling you you're not a match (just in case you are a match but the guy who just got hired in your place quit because the new place offer 5k more)
- ryandrake 10y ago
  No, you're not necessarily a lemon. It is true that the hiring process is a complete random mess. Companies and candidates would probably be better off if we all admitted from the start that it's a random lottery, and that you're being chosen among the hundreds of other candidates essentially at random out of a hat.

hueving 10y ago

The two stances aren't exclusive. Good developers may become unhappy, but they likely have very little difficulty finding a new job so they are on the market for a very short period of time. To follow the used car analogy, good cars do occasionally need to be sold, but when they do they get taken quickly by a friend or through word of mouth recommendations. The cars that sit on the lot for the public to peruse are not great deals.

gorbachev 10y ago

He's built one of the few companies that take valuing developers seriously?

hibikir 10y ago

Joel is a manager, and Dan isn't. Management often believes that they understand hiring, and that their mechanisms for examining performance are good. If Joel believes that one of his employees is fantastic their requests will be heard, and they will be better compensated. Dan instead is seeing developers that he knows are awesome and can't find work because Dan can't hire them. I for one think both are right in some fashion. People that management considers high performers stay long and are very well compensated. People who are not valued that way by management might still stay (if they are not valued in the market), but will jump ship after a few months otherwise. Willingness to stay depends on getting what you want out of a job REGARDLESS OF PROGRAMMER QUALITY! I have worked at places where people with tremendous flaws were considered high performers, making the place shed great developers while keeping bad ones. Other places just look at a specific set of things that might make someone good, and end up with unbalanced talent sets. Imagine you hand tasks to single developers, and value getting them in production as soon as possible. Stability, readability, maintainability will go down the window, and eventually said company will either fail or have to hire a different kind of dev, and force those people to win a culture battle. So ultimately, I think this is all about how difficult it is to evaluate programmers, and how people with one evaluation function look at a world that either shares their evaluation function, or differs significantly from it.

nl 10y ago

Joel wrote during the 1990s and early 2000s of his experience at Microsoft. There wasn't a lot of competition then. Also, Joel was a product manager, not a developer or an engineering manager.