2 ms·

Is it more expensive than leaving the position open for months though? I’ve seen multiple companies I’ve applied at and my own employer just sit with empty role

by lovich 4y ago

Is it more expensive than leaving the position open for months though? I’ve seen multiple companies I’ve applied at and my own employer just sit with empty roles which meant the job never got done. I was under the impression from the startup world and my won engineering experience that getting to market with a substandard product was always better than never releasing because you were aiming for perfection.

tehjoker 4y ago
I think at big companies that serve millions, it's more the other way. The brand hit of a substandard product or actual defects could result in recalls or lawsuits. It's the problem of scale: imperfect code works for a few hundred users but you need finely engineered code to work for millions. Same with other products as they will be used in every crazy way you can imagine and some you can't.
- lovich 4y ago
  I get why FAANGs do this, the scale the work at and the salaries they pay make it seem worth the extra scrutiny. I wasn’t clear in my previous question but I don’t work at FAANG tier, I work at startups and enterprises who struggle to break 200 million/yr in revenue and offer 180k max for principal engineer positions. What I’m curious on is why all these bit players are acting like they need FAANG level talent without paying out the salaries, but more importantly, paying the cost of having this complicated an interview process. Every position they leave unfilled is an opportunity cost and every extra step they add to their interview process is another few thousands of dollars they add to the acquisition cost of every engineer. I’m struggling to see what the benefit is for them when they do not operate on the scale that requires meticulous engineering
therealdrag0 4y ago
It is easy to imagine it’s more expensive to hire a baddie vs an empty role. Have you not worked with people who were a drain on the entire team? I rather have deadlines pushed back than a bad hire.
Beltalowda 4y ago
I worked with people that I believe were net-negative contributors: it would literally have been better if they did no "work" at all and never showed up. I've seen good engineers quit because they got tired of dealing with these net-negative contributors, two of which were also assholes (almost did myself). This is of course the extreme; I've worked with three people where this was the case. But in both cases I believe they seriously set back the product and didn't just squander the salary of these people. In less extreme cases, you are "merely" throwing away the salary, but that can be a high cost too for a small company. Hiring people can absolutely come with a certain risk, especially if you're not prepared (or legally able) to fire people, or otherwise don't have good enough management to reign in people.

by lovich 4y ago

tehjoker 4y ago

I think at big companies that serve millions, it's more the other way. The brand hit of a substandard product or actual defects could result in recalls or lawsuits. It's the problem of scale: imperfect code works for a few hundred users but you need finely engineered code to work for millions. Same with other products as they will be used in every crazy way you can imagine and some you can't.

lovich 4y ago
I get why FAANGs do this, the scale the work at and the salaries they pay make it seem worth the extra scrutiny. I wasn’t clear in my previous question but I don’t work at FAANG tier, I work at startups and enterprises who struggle to break 200 million/yr in revenue and offer 180k max for principal engineer positions. What I’m curious on is why all these bit players are acting like they need FAANG level talent without paying out the salaries, but more importantly, paying the cost of having this complicated an interview process. Every position they leave unfilled is an opportunity cost and every extra step they add to their interview process is another few thousands of dollars they add to the acquisition cost of every engineer. I’m struggling to see what the benefit is for them when they do not operate on the scale that requires meticulous engineering

therealdrag0 4y ago

It is easy to imagine it’s more expensive to hire a baddie vs an empty role. Have you not worked with people who were a drain on the entire team? I rather have deadlines pushed back than a bad hire.

Beltalowda 4y ago

I worked with people that I believe were net-negative contributors: it would literally have been better if they did no "work" at all and never showed up. I've seen good engineers quit because they got tired of dealing with these net-negative contributors, two of which were also assholes (almost did myself). This is of course the extreme; I've worked with three people where this was the case. But in both cases I believe they seriously set back the product and didn't just squander the salary of these people. In less extreme cases, you are "merely" throwing away the salary, but that can be a high cost too for a small company. Hiring people can absolutely come with a certain risk, especially if you're not prepared (or legally able) to fire people, or otherwise don't have good enough management to reign in people.