4 ms·
If it's really 90% of the people who are left behind, it's probably not good for the company really. People in existing teams will be very fatigued from gettin
by vlehto 9y ago
If it's really 90% of the people who are left behind, it's probably not good for the company really.
People in existing teams will be very fatigued from getting to know new people and then trying to forget them. This is well documented in the military. After a while veterans don't want to get to know the fresh reinforcements that arrive into their unit, as the new guys will probably die quickly simply because they are inexperienced and thrown to battlefield. As a result, any investment in social relationship with them is wasted. And as a result, the whole unit will get grumpy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fnthawar2 9y agoInteresting points. We never found smart effective folks who did not want to get to know newer smart and effective folks.
- vlehto 9y agoI'd guess there is something like 50% cutoff point. Less than 50% of hires stay: "oh geez, more meat to the grinder." More than 50% of hires stay: "A new guy came, do you play ping pong?" But my cut off point might be way off. And there might be some elasticity between those where people are more iffy about the whole deal. I'd suggest testing this. Stack slightly not so promising new hires to one team and more promising in other. Let's hope there is different retain rate. Now you can measure the performance changes of both teams and see the net effect.