6 ms·

I worked for a company big enough to be in the HN headlines (sorry, have to stay somewhat anonymous) where development virtually stalled for a couple years afte

I worked for a company big enough to be in the HN headlines (sorry, have to stay somewhat anonymous) where development virtually stalled for a couple years after a mass exodus event. The CEO went on a rampage and fired some people on the spot for something they weren’t even responsible for, which destroyed the already fragile morale and created a steady exodus of good talent over a couple of years. It didn’t kill the company for several reasons, but primarily because: 1) The company had enough momentum, revenue, and cash in the bank that they could go on hiring sprees to replace everyone. The new hires had a lot of churn when they realized what was going on, so they just kept hiring until enough replacements stuck around. 2) Many of the employees who didn’t quit saw this as their opportunity to rise through the ranks and fill the voids. They weren’t wrong and it paid off for many of them in the form of rapid promotions and advancement. The CEO became more hands-off as he realized his micromanagement wasn’t helping, so they basically inherited a slightly better situation. After this experience, I don’t really see a developer exodus killing any big company with good momentum and decent cash reserves. As long as a company has cash flow they can spend their way into hiring replacements as long as it takes.

bbstats 4y ago
Extremely similar situation happened to me at a startup.
gumball13 4y ago
that_guy_iain 4y ago
I honestly, can't believe how many companies I've seen that have had the problem with new hires churning really quick. When I lived in the UK, I saw one company that was like that. When I moved to Berlin, it's pretty much been like that at most companies. Various reasons from the tech being crap, the culture being crap, or managers being crap. While the company normally survives for a while, since if you have the cash you can survive for a while no matter what. The company never really reaches it's true value. Most do end up being acquired by a competitor for very little money or going out of business.
- valdiorn 4y ago
  Ah yes, the companies with bimodal tenure distribution; it's either 3 months or 13 years, and nobody with 3 years. You either accept the bullshit and stick around, or you get out of there fast.
_nalply 4y ago
So the good ones left when they realized what was going on and the mediocre ones stayed. I, being Deaf, would have been forced to stay with the mediocre ones because interviewing is difficult for me. I am lucky that I don't need a job now.
- fredrikholm 4y ago
  Don't they accommodate you knowing that you are deaf? Granted, I don't know where you're situated, and from what I hear the hiring process in the US is sketchy, but this sounds like an easy problem to fix, if it's even a problem at all.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    I’m not deaf but have other impairments and most companies literally don’t even know what to do, it’s like an alien just showed up on their doorstep. In my experience most of the time if you’re disabled you’re just quietly looked over.
  - Double_a_92 4y ago
    It's just plain discrimination. If you have to equally skilled people, do you pick the one where you need to make special accomodations? Probably not, even if you are free of prejudices or other malicious thoughts.
- egberts1 4y ago
  As I’ve posted my story below, I also wanted to point out that I was uniquely Deaf, but nonetheless a rockstar programmer then. Interviewing is hard. Notably Google’s digital interviewing where they insist that they call you for an interview. I aced all their backend questions so they kept trying to call me until I insisted that I call them. Then it went silent. Their loss. This approach doesn’t leave us Deafies a whole lotta time to arrange for an American Sign Language interpreter to come and sit with us before the phone rings.
  - _nalply 4y ago
derbOac 4y ago
This is kind of my experience as well — lots of times these management mistakes manifest as opportunity costs, which means there might not be much in the way of visible costs. This means that there's often little consequence to the mismanagement, and the organization can absorb the problematic consequences as long as they have sufficient outside reputation and/or resources to attract a critical mass of new hires that will just flow with that dysfunction, or the poor management goes away for other reasons. The continued success or longevity of an organization doesn't say much about how it's functioning, mostly because it doesn't address how much better it could have been doing or who is not in the organization.
rexreed 4y ago
Sounds like many dysfunctional startups, many of which have impetuous CEOs who have been handed far too much VC money and have far too little management experience. Just take a look at what is / has happened with DataRobot.
swyx 4y ago
i havent actually done this but just pointing out that with 55k HN karma and 7 years of HN comments, you're pseudonymous at best :) maybe if youre far enough from the company i'd give it like 5 years statute of limitations before you can start naming and shaming?
- nashashmi 4y ago
  Zynga?

bbstats 4y ago

Extremely similar situation happened to me at a startup.

gumball13 4y ago

that_guy_iain 4y ago

I honestly, can't believe how many companies I've seen that have had the problem with new hires churning really quick. When I lived in the UK, I saw one company that was like that. When I moved to Berlin, it's pretty much been like that at most companies. Various reasons from the tech being crap, the culture being crap, or managers being crap. While the company normally survives for a while, since if you have the cash you can survive for a while no matter what. The company never really reaches it's true value. Most do end up being acquired by a competitor for very little money or going out of business.

valdiorn 4y ago
Ah yes, the companies with bimodal tenure distribution; it's either 3 months or 13 years, and nobody with 3 years. You either accept the bullshit and stick around, or you get out of there fast.

_nalply 4y ago

So the good ones left when they realized what was going on and the mediocre ones stayed. I, being Deaf, would have been forced to stay with the mediocre ones because interviewing is difficult for me. I am lucky that I don't need a job now.

fredrikholm 4y ago
Don't they accommodate you knowing that you are deaf? Granted, I don't know where you're situated, and from what I hear the hiring process in the US is sketchy, but this sounds like an easy problem to fix, if it's even a problem at all.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I’m not deaf but have other impairments and most companies literally don’t even know what to do, it’s like an alien just showed up on their doorstep. In my experience most of the time if you’re disabled you’re just quietly looked over.
- Double_a_92 4y ago
  It's just plain discrimination. If you have to equally skilled people, do you pick the one where you need to make special accomodations? Probably not, even if you are free of prejudices or other malicious thoughts.
egberts1 4y ago
As I’ve posted my story below, I also wanted to point out that I was uniquely Deaf, but nonetheless a rockstar programmer then. Interviewing is hard. Notably Google’s digital interviewing where they insist that they call you for an interview. I aced all their backend questions so they kept trying to call me until I insisted that I call them. Then it went silent. Their loss. This approach doesn’t leave us Deafies a whole lotta time to arrange for an American Sign Language interpreter to come and sit with us before the phone rings.
- _nalply 4y ago

derbOac 4y ago

This is kind of my experience as well — lots of times these management mistakes manifest as opportunity costs, which means there might not be much in the way of visible costs. This means that there's often little consequence to the mismanagement, and the organization can absorb the problematic consequences as long as they have sufficient outside reputation and/or resources to attract a critical mass of new hires that will just flow with that dysfunction, or the poor management goes away for other reasons. The continued success or longevity of an organization doesn't say much about how it's functioning, mostly because it doesn't address how much better it could have been doing or who is not in the organization.

rexreed 4y ago

Sounds like many dysfunctional startups, many of which have impetuous CEOs who have been handed far too much VC money and have far too little management experience. Just take a look at what is / has happened with DataRobot.

swyx 4y ago

i havent actually done this but just pointing out that with 55k HN karma and 7 years of HN comments, you're pseudonymous at best :) maybe if youre far enough from the company i'd give it like 5 years statute of limitations before you can start naming and shaming?

nashashmi 4y ago
Zynga?