6 ms·

Speaking frankly, I have been through the different roles and levels and I don't see the point of it all. There's really only 3 non-exec roles in a software co

Speaking frankly, I have been through the different roles and levels and I don't see the point of it all. There's really only 3 non-exec roles in a software company, only 2 of them cut code, and one is just a placeholder for the junior devs. Want to know how to keep people? Give them a little pay rise every 6 months and let them own a part of the product instead of having a no-responsibility JIRA burn and churn roster.

aeternum 5y ago
>Give them a little pay rise every 6 months and let them own a part of the product instead of having a no-responsibility JIRA burn and churn roster. This works for most people, but some are hyper-focused on comp and will ask every few weeks about why they're not leveling up and making more.
- z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
  A raise every few weeks, the entitlement..
- RussianCow 5y ago
  Every few weeks?! You almost certainly don't want this person. Even if you provide that, engineers who are this comp-driven will inevitably switch jobs if they get an offer that's remotely better, so you're unlikely to retain them for very long in any case.
blowski 5y ago
Those techniques assume that everybody’s motivations are the same, and that’s not true. Some people don’t want ownership. Others are already satisfied by their pay. My answer to that question would be three parts: 1. Make sure that you agree on what success looks like, at the micro and macro levels. 2. Discuss what that person needs to achieve success for both of you - mentoring, training, tooling, access, time, money, whatever. 3. Frequently make sure they actually have what they need. When people are regularly missing out on what you call success, you’ll probably get rid of them. When they’re missing out on what they call success, they’ll get rid of you by leaving. Don’t assume you’ve understood what they think success looks like until you’ve really discussed it with them individually.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  Wait, if you don’t want either product ownership (ergo responsibility outside of coding) or higher pay, what exactly do you want?
  - boffinism 5y ago
    New challenges? Opportunities to make a positive impact? Mentorship and management experience? Increased autonomy or flexibility?
    - ivanhoe 5y ago
      or more free time, more PTO days, etc.
  - blowski 5y ago
    Good question - ask them. I’ve had exceptional coders who were able and willing to make valuable contributions to the codebase, but needed to spoonfed the requirements. Maybe success in your team is a sense of ownership, in which case that person may not be right for your team - and that’s ok. Just don’t try shoehorning them into something they don’t want to do and expect successful results.
  - dathos 5y ago
    I'm taking my pay raises in yearly extra vacation days for example.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Frequently? Being left alone in peace. A ton of people want a calm, quiet, peaceful workplace with not a lot of pressure.
  - dikei 5y ago
    Some people want to work just enough to make money to support their other hobbies. Earning 3 times the money for twice the amount of responsibility is not worth it for them.
  - 5y ago
golergka 5y ago
> Give them a little pay rise every 6 months Everyone gets the same raise as long as they aren't obviously failing? A lot of people who have a more competitive personality would be completely demotivated by something like that.
- remuskaos 5y ago
  I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. Yes, as long as a person contributes to a company functioning, they should be part of its success. And that means getting a raise simply for keeping things running. I feel the urge to constantly outdo oneself and everybody else tends to burn people out (it has burned out me), and innovation or change just to complete a checkmark on a CV can lead to unnecessary and abandoned projects. Like it happens a lot at Google for example.
  - golergka 5y ago
    > I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong.
    - remuskaos 5y ago
      > I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. I strongly disagree, constant competition and a desire to be the best/most payed in a team dissolves cooperation. Why should I contribute to a team if person A tries to "win teamwork". I'm not saying you do that, and I'm not saying I believe that, because: > People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong. I absolute agree with that statement. Mutual advantage to me is exactly that, even if I know someone else is smarter than me and can produce more quality work than me, the fact that I still contribute to the team success should mean I also get regular raises. Even if I only do the menial work those go-getters deem not worth their time. Getting regular raises for contributing to the everyday work of a company is appreciation, and I gladly continue to the company if I feel valued. But not at the expense of my physical or mental health. If have the feeling I constantly have to outsmart and outdo everyone else just to keep my job and stagnate, my appreciation for the company drops. It's worst when the company instills the feeling that I'm replaceable at a whim if I don't put it 110%. Again, I'm not saying you think that way. I'm saying that cooperation and inter team competition are orthogonal, but in my experience competition can demotivate people who otherwise deliver regular, good work. Not exceptional, and exceptional isn't always needed. Constant good work is more valuable to me that irregular exceptional.

aeternum 5y ago

>Give them a little pay rise every 6 months and let them own a part of the product instead of having a no-responsibility JIRA burn and churn roster. This works for most people, but some are hyper-focused on comp and will ask every few weeks about why they're not leveling up and making more.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
A raise every few weeks, the entitlement..
RussianCow 5y ago
Every few weeks?! You almost certainly don't want this person. Even if you provide that, engineers who are this comp-driven will inevitably switch jobs if they get an offer that's remotely better, so you're unlikely to retain them for very long in any case.

blowski 5y ago

Those techniques assume that everybody’s motivations are the same, and that’s not true. Some people don’t want ownership. Others are already satisfied by their pay. My answer to that question would be three parts: 1. Make sure that you agree on what success looks like, at the micro and macro levels. 2. Discuss what that person needs to achieve success for both of you - mentoring, training, tooling, access, time, money, whatever. 3. Frequently make sure they actually have what they need. When people are regularly missing out on what you call success, you’ll probably get rid of them. When they’re missing out on what they call success, they’ll get rid of you by leaving. Don’t assume you’ve understood what they think success looks like until you’ve really discussed it with them individually.

ramraj07 5y ago
Wait, if you don’t want either product ownership (ergo responsibility outside of coding) or higher pay, what exactly do you want?
- boffinism 5y ago
  New challenges? Opportunities to make a positive impact? Mentorship and management experience? Increased autonomy or flexibility?
  - ivanhoe 5y ago
    or more free time, more PTO days, etc.
- blowski 5y ago
  Good question - ask them. I’ve had exceptional coders who were able and willing to make valuable contributions to the codebase, but needed to spoonfed the requirements. Maybe success in your team is a sense of ownership, in which case that person may not be right for your team - and that’s ok. Just don’t try shoehorning them into something they don’t want to do and expect successful results.
- dathos 5y ago
  I'm taking my pay raises in yearly extra vacation days for example.
- oblio 5y ago
  Frequently? Being left alone in peace. A ton of people want a calm, quiet, peaceful workplace with not a lot of pressure.
- dikei 5y ago
  Some people want to work just enough to make money to support their other hobbies. Earning 3 times the money for twice the amount of responsibility is not worth it for them.
- 5y ago

golergka 5y ago

> Give them a little pay rise every 6 months Everyone gets the same raise as long as they aren't obviously failing? A lot of people who have a more competitive personality would be completely demotivated by something like that.

remuskaos 5y ago
I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. Yes, as long as a person contributes to a company functioning, they should be part of its success. And that means getting a raise simply for keeping things running. I feel the urge to constantly outdo oneself and everybody else tends to burn people out (it has burned out me), and innovation or change just to complete a checkmark on a CV can lead to unnecessary and abandoned projects. Like it happens a lot at Google for example.
- golergka 5y ago
  > I feel people who need to be above others, in pay and output, can be verz detrimental to a work environment. I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong.
  - remuskaos 5y ago
    > I find this worldview to be very detrimental to teamwork. I strongly disagree, constant competition and a desire to be the best/most payed in a team dissolves cooperation. Why should I contribute to a team if person A tries to "win teamwork". I'm not saying you do that, and I'm not saying I believe that, because: > People are different, we have diverse motivations and personalities, and we have to find ways to use this diversity to our mutual advantage, instead of trying saying that some of those are right and some are wrong. I absolute agree with that statement. Mutual advantage to me is exactly that, even if I know someone else is smarter than me and can produce more quality work than me, the fact that I still contribute to the team success should mean I also get regular raises. Even if I only do the menial work those go-getters deem not worth their time. Getting regular raises for contributing to the everyday work of a company is appreciation, and I gladly continue to the company if I feel valued. But not at the expense of my physical or mental health. If have the feeling I constantly have to outsmart and outdo everyone else just to keep my job and stagnate, my appreciation for the company drops. It's worst when the company instills the feeling that I'm replaceable at a whim if I don't put it 110%. Again, I'm not saying you think that way. I'm saying that cooperation and inter team competition are orthogonal, but in my experience competition can demotivate people who otherwise deliver regular, good work. Not exceptional, and exceptional isn't always needed. Constant good work is more valuable to me that irregular exceptional.