4 ms·

Yeah, it seems so insane to me how little companies will give raises or promote from within, this is definitely driving turnover and building animosity against

Yeah, it seems so insane to me how little companies will give raises or promote from within, this is definitely driving turnover and building animosity against managers. I think that's a big factor here. I most upper management doesn't want to have commit to having few veteran devs when they can increase/decrease the labor pool quickly.

TuringNYC 6y ago
From my experience as a manger, many times, companies will easily hire at 30, or even 40% above the current salary, but will offer promotions/raises of just a tenth of that. This is especially stark when different members of a team were hired in different years, and thus got the prevailing market salary for a particular vintage of hires. You can get situations where an identical position is paying a 30% difference, only some of it due to negotiation. The result is the developers "calibrate" themselves, many work less and less until they feel the situation is "fair." Many are working on their next startup, doing gigs, consulting, etc. I find the technology industry to be a total mess as compared to management consulting (where I began my career.) There was some strangeness, but usually everything was in generally consistent bands. In comparison, my friends in big law describe a completely orderly situation.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  When a developer leaves a typical tech company, there's a massive cost involved in hiring a new one. You'd think the company could save a fortune if, instead of spending on recruiting, just half of that cost was spent on simply retaining the existing developer... Yet companies continue to happily let them leave, then spend that fortune hiring someone new. Seems like such a sub-optimal way to go.
  - loopz 6y ago
    You have to look at who does the hiring and who benefits from the churn: The managers themselves. Keeping old timers, they will take charge and be harder to manage. Each newcomer, will be at your mercy, to be formed and taken hostage for many years. Besides, an influx of chaos is good for grabbing more power. As it's really someone else's problem after all: Win win. So such situations are because someone benefits from the situation, even though the organization bleeds. Look at incentive structures and follow the money. Though even if unintentional, it follows from simple cause and effects.

TuringNYC 6y ago

From my experience as a manger, many times, companies will easily hire at 30, or even 40% above the current salary, but will offer promotions/raises of just a tenth of that. This is especially stark when different members of a team were hired in different years, and thus got the prevailing market salary for a particular vintage of hires. You can get situations where an identical position is paying a 30% difference, only some of it due to negotiation. The result is the developers "calibrate" themselves, many work less and less until they feel the situation is "fair." Many are working on their next startup, doing gigs, consulting, etc. I find the technology industry to be a total mess as compared to management consulting (where I began my career.) There was some strangeness, but usually everything was in generally consistent bands. In comparison, my friends in big law describe a completely orderly situation.

ryandrake 6y ago
When a developer leaves a typical tech company, there's a massive cost involved in hiring a new one. You'd think the company could save a fortune if, instead of spending on recruiting, just half of that cost was spent on simply retaining the existing developer... Yet companies continue to happily let them leave, then spend that fortune hiring someone new. Seems like such a sub-optimal way to go.
- loopz 6y ago
  You have to look at who does the hiring and who benefits from the churn: The managers themselves. Keeping old timers, they will take charge and be harder to manage. Each newcomer, will be at your mercy, to be formed and taken hostage for many years. Besides, an influx of chaos is good for grabbing more power. As it's really someone else's problem after all: Win win. So such situations are because someone benefits from the situation, even though the organization bleeds. Look at incentive structures and follow the money. Though even if unintentional, it follows from simple cause and effects.