5 ms·

Perhaps... but I think companies like FB also get (total guess) thousands of resumes per day. So, for every engineer that walks away, many more are knocking at

Perhaps... but I think companies like FB also get (total guess) thousands of resumes per day. So, for every engineer that walks away, many more are knocking at the door. So, I think in management's eyes, very very very few people are irreplaceable.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
People who are good, and can successfully signal that in the job hunt process have tons of options. So yes, everyone is replaceable, but it takes time and money to do it. Someone having a weird attitude toward the performance management system may not be a good enough reason to replace them if they get the job done. Hiring a new person may be more of a headache for the manager.
snek_case 5y ago
That's not true at all where I am. Yes, I can post on twitter and get tons of CVs, but most applicants aren't that good. I may only want to interview 40% of the candidates I get, and I would really only want to hire about 1 in 5 people I interview. Interviewing takes time. Then after that, onboarding people on the job takes time too, it can take people several months to become effective on the job. Skilled, effective employees that you get along with are not easy to replace.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  Everything you said about most applicants not being hireable, and the amount of time needed for onboarding, etc. is true. And yet, from where I sit, it's not obvious that managers (at multiple companies) show that they care that much. I think the exception was when I was at a startup, but I think that was due to combination of two reasons: The amazing manager, and the fact replacing a specialist on our team was even harder. Disclaimer: My views are my own.
- onion2k 5y ago
  If you're hiring in tech and 40% of applicants are worthy of an interview then that's amazing. It's closer to 10% in my experience.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  Never underestimate the effectiveness of total denial. You can hire in people who are barely competent to hold a pair of scissors. Sure they'll erode and ultimately destroy whatever technical edifice you've built this far. But by the time your ability, as a manager, to put a positive spin on the most abject of failure comes to an end, you'll have moved on to an even higher paying job at another FAANG, or retired. Look at any failed multi-decade war waged by any unbeatable superpower past or present to see the highest levels of military and civilian command employ these exact same methods to build careers so successful that they'll be immortalized in statues for centuries after their deaths :)
  - sundvor 5y ago
    That might just help explain certain recent events...
random314 5y ago
Absolutely not true. Big Tech is struggling to hire - which is why the offer packages are so fat now.
- ikiris 5y ago
  Big tech is struggling to hire in a situation of its own making, by making the interview process so awful, and not caring about retention.
  - random314 5y ago
    Maybe. But my point is that the fat pay packages are not because big tech has a lot of money. Rather, they are running out of supply for the kind of engineers they would like to hire. It's a demand supply thing. If big tech found it easy to hire, they would pay half of what they do now. Their primary expense is salary for software engineers.
    - jbay808 5y ago
      It's also because big tech has a lot of money. Many other companies can't afford to pay those salaries, and they would if they could.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I wouldn't lay retention entirely at the feet of big tech. Yes, there is changing jobs to get a bigger pay bump than staying but that's been true to greater or lesser degrees in a lot of places for a very long time. But what's also been true for a very long time is that, outside of some of the older larger companies, Silicon Valley has normed job tenures for a lot of people that would seem ludicrously short most other places and would, in fact, possibly make those people unhireable.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

People who are good, and can successfully signal that in the job hunt process have tons of options. So yes, everyone is replaceable, but it takes time and money to do it. Someone having a weird attitude toward the performance management system may not be a good enough reason to replace them if they get the job done. Hiring a new person may be more of a headache for the manager.

snek_case 5y ago

That's not true at all where I am. Yes, I can post on twitter and get tons of CVs, but most applicants aren't that good. I may only want to interview 40% of the candidates I get, and I would really only want to hire about 1 in 5 people I interview. Interviewing takes time. Then after that, onboarding people on the job takes time too, it can take people several months to become effective on the job. Skilled, effective employees that you get along with are not easy to replace.

deadmutex 5y ago
Everything you said about most applicants not being hireable, and the amount of time needed for onboarding, etc. is true. And yet, from where I sit, it's not obvious that managers (at multiple companies) show that they care that much. I think the exception was when I was at a startup, but I think that was due to combination of two reasons: The amazing manager, and the fact replacing a specialist on our team was even harder. Disclaimer: My views are my own.
onion2k 5y ago
If you're hiring in tech and 40% of applicants are worthy of an interview then that's amazing. It's closer to 10% in my experience.
scaramanga 5y ago
Never underestimate the effectiveness of total denial. You can hire in people who are barely competent to hold a pair of scissors. Sure they'll erode and ultimately destroy whatever technical edifice you've built this far. But by the time your ability, as a manager, to put a positive spin on the most abject of failure comes to an end, you'll have moved on to an even higher paying job at another FAANG, or retired. Look at any failed multi-decade war waged by any unbeatable superpower past or present to see the highest levels of military and civilian command employ these exact same methods to build careers so successful that they'll be immortalized in statues for centuries after their deaths :)
- sundvor 5y ago
  That might just help explain certain recent events...

random314 5y ago

Absolutely not true. Big Tech is struggling to hire - which is why the offer packages are so fat now.

ikiris 5y ago
Big tech is struggling to hire in a situation of its own making, by making the interview process so awful, and not caring about retention.
- random314 5y ago
  Maybe. But my point is that the fat pay packages are not because big tech has a lot of money. Rather, they are running out of supply for the kind of engineers they would like to hire. It's a demand supply thing. If big tech found it easy to hire, they would pay half of what they do now. Their primary expense is salary for software engineers.
  - jbay808 5y ago
    It's also because big tech has a lot of money. Many other companies can't afford to pay those salaries, and they would if they could.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I wouldn't lay retention entirely at the feet of big tech. Yes, there is changing jobs to get a bigger pay bump than staying but that's been true to greater or lesser degrees in a lot of places for a very long time. But what's also been true for a very long time is that, outside of some of the older larger companies, Silicon Valley has normed job tenures for a lot of people that would seem ludicrously short most other places and would, in fact, possibly make those people unhireable.