4 ms·

My model for ideal hiring are the Spurs. They consistently hire for talent and potential, provide the proper mentoring and conditions for the potential to fully

by avip 10y ago

My model for ideal hiring are the Spurs. They consistently hire for talent and potential, provide the proper mentoring and conditions for the potential to fully materialise. "As you sow, so shall you reap". But few have the patience to sow nowadays. We rather buy ready-made in the grocery store.

waterside81 10y ago
I like the Spurs (San Antonio) as a better goal to work towards than the oft-cited A's because ultimately, Oakland didn't win the World Series, and lost in that year to the big spending Yankees. Even though the idea of "Moneyball" has merit in many applications, it always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach.
- stupidhn 10y ago
  >It always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach There is too much variance (and too much league parity) in the Playoffs short series format. Moneyball gets you there, where all the gate is gravy.
Rylinks 10y ago
Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. Outside of sports, there is a much bigger risk of your competitors poaching people after they've developed.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. No, most companies prefer not to make multiyear commitments to employees. They could enter into multi-year contracts with employees (and they do, with execs, with fairly expensive buyout provisions), but they don't want to for most non-executive employees.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Presumably that's always a risk regardless of whether you hired someone junior and trained them or whether you hired someone already skilled. As long as you're doing the standard things that help you retain talent (like paying market rate, providing good opportunities, etc.), there should be no reason to worry, right? The only companies that should be worried about "poaching"[1] are the ones, for example, who are not paying market rate, have crappy projects, provide no career advancement opportunities. I've never heard of a talented employee leaving a company for literally no reason. 1: Which by the way, is a pretty offensive term--we're not deer or wild game owned by some feudal lord.
  - Rylinks 10y ago
    >As long as you're doing the standard things that help you retain talent (like paying market rate, providing good opportunities, etc.), there should be no reason to worry, right? Right, that's the point: sports teams benefit from being able to pay below-market rates to players they have developed. If you're doing the standard things to retain talent either way, why not just hire someone skilled? I'm not arguing about the moral case here. It would be great if companies invested in people out of a sense of responsibility. But I don't think "As you sow, so shall you reap" translates from professional basketball.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > sports teams benefit from being able to pay below market rates to players they have developed They also pay to keep players off the payroll of their competitors. There's not strong incentive to develop the players in those cases.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > The only companies that should be worried about "poaching" are the ones, for example, who are not paying market rate.... Well, "only" is implying it's not almost universal. Companies routinely pay market rate for new hires and then base raises and bonuses on KPIs for individuals, teams, or the whole organization. Are there companies that say, "Well, we had a mediocre year, but market rate for devs went up 8%, so I guess that will be the baseline raise for everyone."? If a company does anything less, eventually employees are paid below market rate and they're forced to negotiate a bigger raise (convincing management to ignore KPIs and pay attention to market rates) or find a new job.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  Why would you be worried that your employees will leave after you've helped them grow and develop? If you're hiring employees for potential and fit rather than just going after people with big names on the resume (Stanford, Google, Apple, etc) you're not going to have to pay exorbitantly to get them in the first place. Or at the very least, you'll be able to hire faster and spend less money chasing a very small group of devs. Put another way, you'll spend less money overall if you can identify, hire, and retain undervalued talent. If you build an exceptional workplace (and pay well) most will want to stay. And if you've done that, it'll be far easier to attract talent in the future.
- alwaysdoit 10y ago
  Sure, you can't prevent your employees from leaving, but you can definitely structure the compensation so that they are highly incentivized to stay, which is what many companies do via stock grants with vesting periods.

by avip 10y ago

waterside81 10y ago

I like the Spurs (San Antonio) as a better goal to work towards than the oft-cited A's because ultimately, Oakland didn't win the World Series, and lost in that year to the big spending Yankees. Even though the idea of "Moneyball" has merit in many applications, it always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach.

stupidhn 10y ago
>It always bugged me as a sports fan because Oakland never won any titles with that approach There is too much variance (and too much league parity) in the Playoffs short series format. Moneyball gets you there, where all the gate is gravy.

Rylinks 10y ago

Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. Outside of sports, there is a much bigger risk of your competitors poaching people after they've developed.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. No, most companies prefer not to make multiyear commitments to employees. They could enter into multi-year contracts with employees (and they do, with execs, with fairly expensive buyout provisions), but they don't want to for most non-executive employees.
ryandrake 10y ago
Presumably that's always a risk regardless of whether you hired someone junior and trained them or whether you hired someone already skilled. As long as you're doing the standard things that help you retain talent (like paying market rate, providing good opportunities, etc.), there should be no reason to worry, right? The only companies that should be worried about "poaching"[1] are the ones, for example, who are not paying market rate, have crappy projects, provide no career advancement opportunities. I've never heard of a talented employee leaving a company for literally no reason. 1: Which by the way, is a pretty offensive term--we're not deer or wild game owned by some feudal lord.
- Rylinks 10y ago
  >As long as you're doing the standard things that help you retain talent (like paying market rate, providing good opportunities, etc.), there should be no reason to worry, right? Right, that's the point: sports teams benefit from being able to pay below-market rates to players they have developed. If you're doing the standard things to retain talent either way, why not just hire someone skilled? I'm not arguing about the moral case here. It would be great if companies invested in people out of a sense of responsibility. But I don't think "As you sow, so shall you reap" translates from professional basketball.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > sports teams benefit from being able to pay below market rates to players they have developed They also pay to keep players off the payroll of their competitors. There's not strong incentive to develop the players in those cases.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > The only companies that should be worried about "poaching" are the ones, for example, who are not paying market rate.... Well, "only" is implying it's not almost universal. Companies routinely pay market rate for new hires and then base raises and bonuses on KPIs for individuals, teams, or the whole organization. Are there companies that say, "Well, we had a mediocre year, but market rate for devs went up 8%, so I guess that will be the baseline raise for everyone."? If a company does anything less, eventually employees are paid below market rate and they're forced to negotiate a bigger raise (convincing management to ignore KPIs and pay attention to market rates) or find a new job.
GVIrish 10y ago
Why would you be worried that your employees will leave after you've helped them grow and develop? If you're hiring employees for potential and fit rather than just going after people with big names on the resume (Stanford, Google, Apple, etc) you're not going to have to pay exorbitantly to get them in the first place. Or at the very least, you'll be able to hire faster and spend less money chasing a very small group of devs. Put another way, you'll spend less money overall if you can identify, hire, and retain undervalued talent. If you build an exceptional workplace (and pay well) most will want to stay. And if you've done that, it'll be far easier to attract talent in the future.
alwaysdoit 10y ago
Sure, you can't prevent your employees from leaving, but you can definitely structure the compensation so that they are highly incentivized to stay, which is what many companies do via stock grants with vesting periods.