4 ms·

To be fair, most large enterprises use 'industry-standard' metrics like these because it's all they have. "Pulse check" survey companies aggregate data across

by sbarre 5y ago

To be fair, most large enterprises use 'industry-standard' metrics like these because it's all they have. "Pulse check" survey companies aggregate data across whole industries or verticals and then provide their customers with comparison numbers so they can get a sense, across their industry, on how they are doing, without revealing specific numbers for a given company. There are many factors - shit working conditions and bad pay being only some of them - that affect churn, and if you think the people in charge of this stuff, HR and people management, are smart enough to really parse those factors - let alone come up with their own useful metrics - you are giving them too much credit. It's not that they're not interested, it's that they have no idea how to figure it out. They would love to know, but have no idea where to even start. So they say "we're doing comparable to the rest of the industry" because that's all they know. They're not fudging anything, they literally have no other insights to give. This is of course not ok, but this is a very textbook case of "don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence".

pdimitar 5y ago
> It's not that they're not interested, it's that they have no idea how to figure it out. They would love to know, but have no idea where to even start. Maybe. I would think the human factor is also involved here, namely that it's hard to admit you're doing terrible (in this case: losing a lot of good talent) so people kind of get into an echo chamber where they and their club pat themselves on the back for how well they're doing "despite adversity". It's quite pathetic really but that's Homo Sapiens for ya. I've been guilty of the same in the past. To finally understand how wrong did you get various factors is honestly like traveling to another dimension. Most people can't and will not ever do it. > This is of course not ok, but this is a very textbook case of "don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence". 90% of the time I am inclined to agree but not sure about this case. There's a lot of money at stake in the gaming industry and I'd be inclined to think the higher-ups at least are quite aware of what they're doing. They simply surround themselves with deluded people that will allow them to coast on deflecting blame for as long as possible. And finally, I could just be paranoid and I am not claiming anything for a fact, it's just how I am viewing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- sbarre 5y ago
  > I would think the human factor is also involved here, namely that it's hard to admit you're doing terrible (in this case: losing a lot of good talent) so people kind of get into an echo chamber where they and their club pat themselves on the back for how well they're doing "despite adversity". 100% I agree with this for sure.
pm90 5y ago
I understand most of the point you're making. > It's not that they're not interested, it's that they have no idea how to figure it out. They would love to know, but have no idea where to even start. I don't think they would love to know, though. Its not like employees won't give them feedback (anonymous, if its a toxic environment). Exit surveys are another tool to learn why some of your most senior engineers are leaving. I would bet that they aren't doing this, or at least not in a serious way. From the article: > Said another now-former Ubisoft worker who was disappointed by directives from the company's Paris HQ: "There's something about management and creative scraping by with the bare minimum that really turned me away." I mean, if the industry standard metrics are not showing a deviation, it should tell them that those metrics aren't really reliable. What it seems like as an outsider (and as someone who's hear similar things from leaders where I worked) is plain apathy and a lack of desire to work with the engineering organization; the latter seems like its being hollowed out.
- sbarre 5y ago
  > I don't think they would love to know, though. Its not like employees won't give them feedback (anonymous, if its a toxic environment). Exit surveys are another tool to learn why some of your most senior engineers are leaving. I would bet that they aren't doing this, or at least not in a serious way. Sorry maybe I worded it wrong, I am sure they would love to know, but that doesn't mean they would do better with that information. I just meant that like any other business, having as accurate information as possible is of course desirable.

by sbarre 5y ago

pdimitar 5y ago

> It's not that they're not interested, it's that they have no idea how to figure it out. They would love to know, but have no idea where to even start. Maybe. I would think the human factor is also involved here, namely that it's hard to admit you're doing terrible (in this case: losing a lot of good talent) so people kind of get into an echo chamber where they and their club pat themselves on the back for how well they're doing "despite adversity". It's quite pathetic really but that's Homo Sapiens for ya. I've been guilty of the same in the past. To finally understand how wrong did you get various factors is honestly like traveling to another dimension. Most people can't and will not ever do it. > This is of course not ok, but this is a very textbook case of "don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence". 90% of the time I am inclined to agree but not sure about this case. There's a lot of money at stake in the gaming industry and I'd be inclined to think the higher-ups at least are quite aware of what they're doing. They simply surround themselves with deluded people that will allow them to coast on deflecting blame for as long as possible. And finally, I could just be paranoid and I am not claiming anything for a fact, it's just how I am viewing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

sbarre 5y ago
> I would think the human factor is also involved here, namely that it's hard to admit you're doing terrible (in this case: losing a lot of good talent) so people kind of get into an echo chamber where they and their club pat themselves on the back for how well they're doing "despite adversity". 100% I agree with this for sure.

pm90 5y ago

I understand most of the point you're making. > It's not that they're not interested, it's that they have no idea how to figure it out. They would love to know, but have no idea where to even start. I don't think they would love to know, though. Its not like employees won't give them feedback (anonymous, if its a toxic environment). Exit surveys are another tool to learn why some of your most senior engineers are leaving. I would bet that they aren't doing this, or at least not in a serious way. From the article: > Said another now-former Ubisoft worker who was disappointed by directives from the company's Paris HQ: "There's something about management and creative scraping by with the bare minimum that really turned me away." I mean, if the industry standard metrics are not showing a deviation, it should tell them that those metrics aren't really reliable. What it seems like as an outsider (and as someone who's hear similar things from leaders where I worked) is plain apathy and a lack of desire to work with the engineering organization; the latter seems like its being hollowed out.

sbarre 5y ago
> I don't think they would love to know, though. Its not like employees won't give them feedback (anonymous, if its a toxic environment). Exit surveys are another tool to learn why some of your most senior engineers are leaving. I would bet that they aren't doing this, or at least not in a serious way. Sorry maybe I worded it wrong, I am sure they would love to know, but that doesn't mean they would do better with that information. I just meant that like any other business, having as accurate information as possible is of course desirable.