4 ms·

Not if the person feels demotivated by the fact that the job is not taking advantage of their skills or experience. People want to feel respected and appreciate

Not if the person feels demotivated by the fact that the job is not taking advantage of their skills or experience. People want to feel respected and appreciated for what they bring to the table. Without that, they may lose motivation and thus be less productive than a fresh person with a strong desire to learn and grow.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Sometimes having your mortgage paid and getting to eat trumps self actualization. You pay me, I'll do what the job calls for and we're square. Motivation is a weasel word. I'm either meeting your (hopefully reasonable) performance requirements or I'm not.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  That's right. Isn't the young energetic person who is eager to learn and grow at least as likely to leave after they've learned-and-grown as a person who is more skilled and gets bored. I'm 36 now, with a mortgage, and have stayed in the job I am in now longer than any job I've had before.
  - carlmr 9y ago
    A friend of mine pretty much only hires ex cons (ok, not for programming jobs). Because he says they're the most loyal and hard working employees he can find, and they usually don't ask for more money. You can always use other peoples prejudice to get market rate discounts.
- salqadri 9y ago
  Yea but that is a high risk to take. Imagine you are the manager, and you have been given just one head count. Who would you choose? Would you risk your head count on an over-qualified person?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Having been a hiring manager previously, I will usually take the person with more experience. The odds are lower that they'll leave than someone with less experience needing more time to become senior. There is no substitute for experience. EDIT: To expound on this, as a manager, I will look out for the company, but also for you. If you have limited experience and want to climb the ladder, I will help find you a path internally and if one is unavailable (happens all the time), I will introduce you to opportunities outside the org to get you into higher roles and pay grades. Same deal if you're a senior person with "too much skill" for the role: tell me your goals, and I will help you get there. No one sticks around forever, and its unrealistic to ask people to do so. This is, in my opinion, what a good manager is. Not someone who can code well, not someone who is a technical wizard, but someone who manages away problems outside of the team while helping individual contributors maximize their potential.
    - salqadri 9y ago
      Not quite. If your hiring for a certain level depending on the scope of work, an overly experienced person may not be satisfied with the scope of work. So a good manager would try to find the right level person for the scope of work.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        You're entitled to your opinion. I know lots of overskilled folks who are happy to put in their 40 and leave. You're under the impression (it seems, correct me if I'm wrong) that labor is entirely fungible in an org and you can just shuffle people around to match skills to tasks; rarely is that the case, whether you're a company of 80 or 8000. Managing people is super hard, and technical skill overlap with management skills is almost non-existent.
        salqadri 9y ago
        Well that's why I am saying you want to hire the right level for the role.... It impacts things like promo and peer comparisons etc..
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Which is why you have to have that discussion with them and ask them to consider whether or not their work satisfaction comes from being challenged at work or not. And while they may not be honest with you about that, in general there are many things that interviewing people are often not quite as honest with the interviewer as you might expect. A good example was a guy who said he was ok with commuting from Los Gatos to Redwood City and took the job, and then called up the Thursday before the Monday when he would have started to say he had taken a job for lower pay but was closer to home.
abiox 9y ago
> than a fresh person with a strong desire to learn and grow ...who is also going to leave as soon as they get a nice offer.
- mcguire 9y ago
  ...just like everyone else.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  If they're that good, give them a better offer (a promotion, more equity, a raise) first. There are worse things than finding someone ambitious who can back it up. Most companies spend piles of money trying to identify and recruit that kind of talent.
  - DarronWyke 9y ago
    You're suggesting that someone should buy into a counter-offer. This is terrible advice. Accepting a counter-offer is a sure-fire way to get yourself shortlisted for the next round of layoffs. It also shows how wanting your company is that they can't even meet someone's market rate without them threatening to leave.
    - twblalock 9y ago
      I've taken a counter-offer, and it worked out very well. So have several other people I know. It turns out that sometimes, a manager wants to pay an employee more but is blocked by corporate policy or HR. Threatening to leave clears up some of that blockage. If you are only going to leave because of money, there is little downside to taking a counter-offer. After all, if you were able to get another job now, you should be able to get another one if you happen to be laid off in the future. I've seen advice like yours many times, but I've never seen any evidence that workers who accept counter-offers are more likely to be laid off or fired.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      No. I'm saying we should identify people with potential for advancement. People overqualified for their current position are almost certainly ready for advancement. It's not a counter offer because you've already identified them before they felt a need to shop around.
jasonlotito 9y ago
> People want to feel respected and appreciated for what they bring to the table. Yeah, because if someone wants to be respected or appreciated for what they bring to the table, that's unreasonable. If you (royal you) buy into this thinking, the problem is you, not the employees.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Sometimes having your mortgage paid and getting to eat trumps self actualization. You pay me, I'll do what the job calls for and we're square. Motivation is a weasel word. I'm either meeting your (hopefully reasonable) performance requirements or I'm not.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
That's right. Isn't the young energetic person who is eager to learn and grow at least as likely to leave after they've learned-and-grown as a person who is more skilled and gets bored. I'm 36 now, with a mortgage, and have stayed in the job I am in now longer than any job I've had before.
- carlmr 9y ago
  A friend of mine pretty much only hires ex cons (ok, not for programming jobs). Because he says they're the most loyal and hard working employees he can find, and they usually don't ask for more money. You can always use other peoples prejudice to get market rate discounts.
salqadri 9y ago
Yea but that is a high risk to take. Imagine you are the manager, and you have been given just one head count. Who would you choose? Would you risk your head count on an over-qualified person?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Having been a hiring manager previously, I will usually take the person with more experience. The odds are lower that they'll leave than someone with less experience needing more time to become senior. There is no substitute for experience. EDIT: To expound on this, as a manager, I will look out for the company, but also for you. If you have limited experience and want to climb the ladder, I will help find you a path internally and if one is unavailable (happens all the time), I will introduce you to opportunities outside the org to get you into higher roles and pay grades. Same deal if you're a senior person with "too much skill" for the role: tell me your goals, and I will help you get there. No one sticks around forever, and its unrealistic to ask people to do so. This is, in my opinion, what a good manager is. Not someone who can code well, not someone who is a technical wizard, but someone who manages away problems outside of the team while helping individual contributors maximize their potential.
  - salqadri 9y ago
    Not quite. If your hiring for a certain level depending on the scope of work, an overly experienced person may not be satisfied with the scope of work. So a good manager would try to find the right level person for the scope of work.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      You're entitled to your opinion. I know lots of overskilled folks who are happy to put in their 40 and leave. You're under the impression (it seems, correct me if I'm wrong) that labor is entirely fungible in an org and you can just shuffle people around to match skills to tasks; rarely is that the case, whether you're a company of 80 or 8000. Managing people is super hard, and technical skill overlap with management skills is almost non-existent.
      - salqadri 9y ago
        Well that's why I am saying you want to hire the right level for the role.... It impacts things like promo and peer comparisons etc..

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Which is why you have to have that discussion with them and ask them to consider whether or not their work satisfaction comes from being challenged at work or not. And while they may not be honest with you about that, in general there are many things that interviewing people are often not quite as honest with the interviewer as you might expect. A good example was a guy who said he was ok with commuting from Los Gatos to Redwood City and took the job, and then called up the Thursday before the Monday when he would have started to say he had taken a job for lower pay but was closer to home.

abiox 9y ago

> than a fresh person with a strong desire to learn and grow ...who is also going to leave as soon as they get a nice offer.

mcguire 9y ago
...just like everyone else.
humanrebar 9y ago
If they're that good, give them a better offer (a promotion, more equity, a raise) first. There are worse things than finding someone ambitious who can back it up. Most companies spend piles of money trying to identify and recruit that kind of talent.
- DarronWyke 9y ago
  You're suggesting that someone should buy into a counter-offer. This is terrible advice. Accepting a counter-offer is a sure-fire way to get yourself shortlisted for the next round of layoffs. It also shows how wanting your company is that they can't even meet someone's market rate without them threatening to leave.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    I've taken a counter-offer, and it worked out very well. So have several other people I know. It turns out that sometimes, a manager wants to pay an employee more but is blocked by corporate policy or HR. Threatening to leave clears up some of that blockage. If you are only going to leave because of money, there is little downside to taking a counter-offer. After all, if you were able to get another job now, you should be able to get another one if you happen to be laid off in the future. I've seen advice like yours many times, but I've never seen any evidence that workers who accept counter-offers are more likely to be laid off or fired.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    No. I'm saying we should identify people with potential for advancement. People overqualified for their current position are almost certainly ready for advancement. It's not a counter offer because you've already identified them before they felt a need to shop around.

jasonlotito 9y ago

> People want to feel respected and appreciated for what they bring to the table. Yeah, because if someone wants to be respected or appreciated for what they bring to the table, that's unreasonable. If you (royal you) buy into this thinking, the problem is you, not the employees.