3 ms·

My (poorly worded?) question was asking whether we should consider the employer's perspective when leaving to join a startup, and how do people most often handl

My (poorly worded?) question was asking whether we should consider the employer's perspective when leaving to join a startup, and how do people most often handle this. In this particular case, there was clearly a failure to see that the developer was getting bored and so nobody expected him to leave. He had a private office, flexible hours, freedom to work on open source projects, and excellent benefits (profit sharing, pensions, etc) -- but I found after he left that bioinformatics development was just not his interest. He jumped to a startup that used the open source code he contributed to. So in this case, management was not taking advantage. Perhaps the other way around. But based on comments so far, employee management relationships seem not so good, in general, for developers.

brudgers 15y ago
It is not necessarily the case that the employee did not consider the employers perspective - after four years with the company it is probable that he had seen other people come and go and developed a sense of how the matter would be handled. Seeing as it is not uncommon for workplaces to be structured such that there is never "a good time" to quit because projects are endless or there is always a backlog or deadlines fall one after the other. For an employee, the clean break often considers management practice and is done in some sense for their benefit even if it is not what they would articulate as their interest. Disinterested short-timers are a drag on moral and long notices can give management false hope that they have time to negotiate to retain the employee (the course of least resistance) rather than finding a replacement. After my initial response I recognized another piece of management's misassessment of the situation. After four years, the "promising young developer" no longer saw him self as "promising" but as professional. It is not an uncommon oversight to keep viewing an employee in terms of their level at the time they were hired and thus not provide them with the level of challenge appropriate to their aspirations - i.e. the leadership of progressively more challenging projects or tasks. Finally, the fact that pension was viewed as a tool to retain a young go getter is probably a fundamental miscalculation for promising developers - young people attracted by pensions wind up in large organizations or government not in dynamic teams with a high beta.
- molbioguy 15y ago
  after four years with the company it is probable that he had seen other people come and go and developed a sense of how the matter would be handled You'd have to know the company, but I can categorically say that this was not the issue. Finally, the fact that pension was viewed as a tool to retain a young go getter is probably a fundamental miscalculation for promising developers - young people attracted by pensions wind up in large organizations or government not in dynamic teams with a high beta. It wasn't the only benefit, but your point is well taken. People wanting to join a startup (and younger people in general) are not interested in long-term stability (unless of course it is their dream job) which this wasn't. But the question is not about why this particular person left, it's about whether good people leaving for startups should even consider the employer when deciding how to leave.

brudgers 15y ago

It is not necessarily the case that the employee did not consider the employers perspective - after four years with the company it is probable that he had seen other people come and go and developed a sense of how the matter would be handled. Seeing as it is not uncommon for workplaces to be structured such that there is never "a good time" to quit because projects are endless or there is always a backlog or deadlines fall one after the other. For an employee, the clean break often considers management practice and is done in some sense for their benefit even if it is not what they would articulate as their interest. Disinterested short-timers are a drag on moral and long notices can give management false hope that they have time to negotiate to retain the employee (the course of least resistance) rather than finding a replacement. After my initial response I recognized another piece of management's misassessment of the situation. After four years, the "promising young developer" no longer saw him self as "promising" but as professional. It is not an uncommon oversight to keep viewing an employee in terms of their level at the time they were hired and thus not provide them with the level of challenge appropriate to their aspirations - i.e. the leadership of progressively more challenging projects or tasks. Finally, the fact that pension was viewed as a tool to retain a young go getter is probably a fundamental miscalculation for promising developers - young people attracted by pensions wind up in large organizations or government not in dynamic teams with a high beta.

molbioguy 15y ago
after four years with the company it is probable that he had seen other people come and go and developed a sense of how the matter would be handled You'd have to know the company, but I can categorically say that this was not the issue. Finally, the fact that pension was viewed as a tool to retain a young go getter is probably a fundamental miscalculation for promising developers - young people attracted by pensions wind up in large organizations or government not in dynamic teams with a high beta. It wasn't the only benefit, but your point is well taken. People wanting to join a startup (and younger people in general) are not interested in long-term stability (unless of course it is their dream job) which this wasn't. But the question is not about why this particular person left, it's about whether good people leaving for startups should even consider the employer when deciding how to leave.