4 ms·

Employees aren't fish or trees. If you train an employee and treat them well they stay with your company longer. Your training increases the value the provide

Employees aren't fish or trees. If you train an employee and treat them well they stay with your company longer. Your training increases the value the provide to you. Unlike a fish, which is sold and consumed one day and needs to be replaced the next.

vinceguidry 9y ago
> If you train an employee and treat them well they stay with your company longer. That's a huge assumption.
- K0nserv 9y ago
  Seems fairly rational. I recon two of the most common reasons people leave are boredom and unsatisfying career progression. So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work and pay/promote them at a rate that is competitive with their option of switching jobs to achieve that goal.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    > So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work and pay/promote them at a rate that is competitive with their option of switching jobs to achieve that goal. I think similarly. But these are also the two things that require companies to restructure in order to be able to reliably offer them to employees. I went through this two years ago with my last employer. When it came right down to it, I didn't really have a place there. When my job was made redundant, my departure was bittersweet. There was a time when they were open to expanding my role and giving me a direct report. But they decided to move in another direction. It's more than just "treating employees well." A lot more.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I recon two of the most common reasons people leave are boredom and unsatisfying career progression. So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work My current job is very interesting - I’m leading a team building a brand new green field system and building a modern software development shop simultaneously (CI/CD, automated testing, newest version of everything), I have almost complete autonomy in how things are architected and the resources (money, people) to make it happen. But once I get done, I don’t see anything the company can do to keep my job “interesting”. If you were on the iPhone team in 2006 at Apple, what could Apple possibly do to keep you from getting bored?
- talmand 9y ago
  Well, I'm fairly certain that treating them badly doesn't guarantee that employees will stay. I'd rather try the huge assumption.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I don't think so. How many people do you know who feel they are being treated well leave their companies?
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    Happened to me. See my above comment.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      So one instance. Yes, it's not going to be 100% retention. Nothing ever will be, unless you decide to bring back slavery. I asked how often does it happen. I can almost guarantee you that the retention rate of developers who feel they're being treated well is much, much higher than otherwise.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        Let's rehash your argument here. You think that companies that need skilled devs should train up junior devs instead of looking for skilled devs on the job market. Your answer to the retention issue that creates is "treat employees better." You don't understand why that's a bad deal for employers? You want them to take on all of the risk and get none of the reward. Look, I like the current system where you have to build the skills yourself and find some way to get into the job market. I was able to navigate that system and build a career in it. I look at the current code-school infrastructure as basically "easy mode." That's what we need more of. Companies still snap up code school grads like nobody's business. Asking companies to play the role of code schools is just way too much.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        No, I'm saying that if they're not able to find senior devs, that they should train junior devs. And I reject the idea that it creates a retention issue, unless you have no intention to treating those people well. "You don't understand why that's a bad deal for employers?" No, I don't, at least not for employers that respect their employees. It may be a bad deal for employers that don't, but for them, I really don't care. "You want them to take on all of the risk and get none of the reward." As opposed to now, where the employee takes all of the risk and gets no reward? "Look, I like the current system where you have to build the skills yourself and find some way to get into the job market." Yes, people who have been through hazing like the system of hazing and have no desire to stop it for the next class. "Asking companies to play the role of code schools is just way too much." I don't agree. But if that's the case, then they can stop complaining that there aren't enough skilled developers out there if they're not willing to help out.
buryat 9y ago
It's easier to give a higher salary, filter candidates, and then don't invest into training. Training must be done by someone, and that person's time is valuable too, so there're also other things for consideration.

vinceguidry 9y ago

> If you train an employee and treat them well they stay with your company longer. That's a huge assumption.

K0nserv 9y ago
Seems fairly rational. I recon two of the most common reasons people leave are boredom and unsatisfying career progression. So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work and pay/promote them at a rate that is competitive with their option of switching jobs to achieve that goal.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  > So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work and pay/promote them at a rate that is competitive with their option of switching jobs to achieve that goal. I think similarly. But these are also the two things that require companies to restructure in order to be able to reliably offer them to employees. I went through this two years ago with my last employer. When it came right down to it, I didn't really have a place there. When my job was made redundant, my departure was bittersweet. There was a time when they were open to expanding my role and giving me a direct report. But they decided to move in another direction. It's more than just "treating employees well." A lot more.
- scarface74 9y ago
  I recon two of the most common reasons people leave are boredom and unsatisfying career progression. So all you have to do is ensure people have interesting work My current job is very interesting - I’m leading a team building a brand new green field system and building a modern software development shop simultaneously (CI/CD, automated testing, newest version of everything), I have almost complete autonomy in how things are architected and the resources (money, people) to make it happen. But once I get done, I don’t see anything the company can do to keep my job “interesting”. If you were on the iPhone team in 2006 at Apple, what could Apple possibly do to keep you from getting bored?
talmand 9y ago
Well, I'm fairly certain that treating them badly doesn't guarantee that employees will stay. I'd rather try the huge assumption.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I don't think so. How many people do you know who feel they are being treated well leave their companies?
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  Happened to me. See my above comment.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    So one instance. Yes, it's not going to be 100% retention. Nothing ever will be, unless you decide to bring back slavery. I asked how often does it happen. I can almost guarantee you that the retention rate of developers who feel they're being treated well is much, much higher than otherwise.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      Let's rehash your argument here. You think that companies that need skilled devs should train up junior devs instead of looking for skilled devs on the job market. Your answer to the retention issue that creates is "treat employees better." You don't understand why that's a bad deal for employers? You want them to take on all of the risk and get none of the reward. Look, I like the current system where you have to build the skills yourself and find some way to get into the job market. I was able to navigate that system and build a career in it. I look at the current code-school infrastructure as basically "easy mode." That's what we need more of. Companies still snap up code school grads like nobody's business. Asking companies to play the role of code schools is just way too much.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        No, I'm saying that if they're not able to find senior devs, that they should train junior devs. And I reject the idea that it creates a retention issue, unless you have no intention to treating those people well. "You don't understand why that's a bad deal for employers?" No, I don't, at least not for employers that respect their employees. It may be a bad deal for employers that don't, but for them, I really don't care. "You want them to take on all of the risk and get none of the reward." As opposed to now, where the employee takes all of the risk and gets no reward? "Look, I like the current system where you have to build the skills yourself and find some way to get into the job market." Yes, people who have been through hazing like the system of hazing and have no desire to stop it for the next class. "Asking companies to play the role of code schools is just way too much." I don't agree. But if that's the case, then they can stop complaining that there aren't enough skilled developers out there if they're not willing to help out.

buryat 9y ago

It's easier to give a higher salary, filter candidates, and then don't invest into training. Training must be done by someone, and that person's time is valuable too, so there're also other things for consideration.