3 ms·

I always got the impression (not backed by any verifiable numbers, mind you) that many tech companies cooled to training employees because of poaching and the r

by wyclif 9y ago

I always got the impression (not backed by any verifiable numbers, mind you) that many tech companies cooled to training employees because of poaching and the relative frequency of changing jobs. If you devote company resources to training an employee, only to have that employee end up working for your competition, you just helped erode your business. Now, I think that's a short-sighted viewpoint, but it's one I've heard expressed before by CTOs.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
They could work around that. Commitment contracts or the tuition help is forfeit. They have smart people to figure this out. They just don't want to. My theory is because Capitalism has gotten way more cutthroat in current times.
pfranz 9y ago
I really don't think it's just a tech company thing, though. But, talking about tech companies, or at least my experience which is tech, but not SV, is that I see certain people turnover frequently, but a bulk of the people stick around. There's an aversion to firing people (I think my word use is a bit cold) and the company is also not investing in the employees. Those people who I usually see stick around are dependable, but not always ambitious or following new things. I feel like this can lead to over-investment is old tech and continue struggling with solved problems. That over-investment in old tech can make recruiting hard, too. (I'm talking about continuing to use SVN, Cent5, or Python 2.6 when a DCVS, like git, would be incredibly helpful to your workflow--not using last year's javascript hotness instead of this year's javascript hotness). On the flip side, there was an article the other day where it showed people who moved around generally got paid way more than people who stuck around. I've been seeing this for years.
gozur88 9y ago
Yeah, that's pretty much it, and it's not just tech companies. Prior to about 1990 or so, if you spent less than about five years at a company before moving on it was considered a black mark on your resume. If it was a regular pattern you were only going to get hired if your prospective employer couldn't find someone else. So companies had some confidence they would get a return on their training investment. They couldn't force you to stay, but they knew you realized it was in your best interest to stick around for awhile. That all changed. These days, particularly in tech, it's pretty normal for people to move on after 18 months or so. While it might make sense for the industry to train people, for an individual company it's stupid to put effort into an employee's career development only to have him move on to a competitor.

by wyclif 9y ago

nickthemagicman 9y ago

They could work around that. Commitment contracts or the tuition help is forfeit. They have smart people to figure this out. They just don't want to. My theory is because Capitalism has gotten way more cutthroat in current times.

pfranz 9y ago

I really don't think it's just a tech company thing, though. But, talking about tech companies, or at least my experience which is tech, but not SV, is that I see certain people turnover frequently, but a bulk of the people stick around. There's an aversion to firing people (I think my word use is a bit cold) and the company is also not investing in the employees. Those people who I usually see stick around are dependable, but not always ambitious or following new things. I feel like this can lead to over-investment is old tech and continue struggling with solved problems. That over-investment in old tech can make recruiting hard, too. (I'm talking about continuing to use SVN, Cent5, or Python 2.6 when a DCVS, like git, would be incredibly helpful to your workflow--not using last year's javascript hotness instead of this year's javascript hotness). On the flip side, there was an article the other day where it showed people who moved around generally got paid way more than people who stuck around. I've been seeing this for years.

gozur88 9y ago

Yeah, that's pretty much it, and it's not just tech companies. Prior to about 1990 or so, if you spent less than about five years at a company before moving on it was considered a black mark on your resume. If it was a regular pattern you were only going to get hired if your prospective employer couldn't find someone else. So companies had some confidence they would get a return on their training investment. They couldn't force you to stay, but they knew you realized it was in your best interest to stick around for awhile. That all changed. These days, particularly in tech, it's pretty normal for people to move on after 18 months or so. While it might make sense for the industry to train people, for an individual company it's stupid to put effort into an employee's career development only to have him move on to a competitor.