3 ms·

I’m on year 15 with most colleagues in the 5-15 range, some approaching 20. I wouldn’t say someone can’t contribute at all initially, but I’d say the first year

I’m on year 15 with most colleagues in the 5-15 range, some approaching 20. I wouldn’t say someone can’t contribute at all initially, but I’d say the first year I expect any new hire to be almost net negative (in the sense that while their output is good, it’s often with a lot of support that takes time from more senior colleagues). If I was suspecting someone wouldn’t stay say 3 years, I’d definitely not hire them at all.

JamesianP 4y ago
> I’m on year 15 with most colleagues in the 5-15 range, some approaching 20. That doesn't counter their theory though, since people (presumably) won't tend to stay at jobs that aren't worth staying at. Sooner or later everyone finds their way to a job worth staying at and becomes another example of survivorship bias. The biggest factor is presumably the company itself, some are much more successful and generous as a result while others struggle more and share the pain. But also within a company, there can be a counter-effect where making some jobs better causes more crappy jobs, for example if you're constantly pushing the less fun and career-dead-ending stuff onto the new guy while the senior people with all the political sway take the fun, cutting-edge, etc new tasks.
Ancalagon 4y ago
the last two roles ive been in honestly expect real contributions beginning about the 6th week, and tbh I thought that was late. where are you finding places where you can be net negative for an entire year?
- GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
  anything infrastructure
- atq2119 4y ago
  A year sounds extreme for being net negative, but I have a somewhat similar experience in a mixed hardware/software company. There's so much domain-specific knowledge that takes most people a long time to ramp up in. You haven't truly arrived unless you've ramped up and seen a full product cycle. That takes years, because hardware is slow to iterate.

JamesianP 4y ago

> I’m on year 15 with most colleagues in the 5-15 range, some approaching 20. That doesn't counter their theory though, since people (presumably) won't tend to stay at jobs that aren't worth staying at. Sooner or later everyone finds their way to a job worth staying at and becomes another example of survivorship bias. The biggest factor is presumably the company itself, some are much more successful and generous as a result while others struggle more and share the pain. But also within a company, there can be a counter-effect where making some jobs better causes more crappy jobs, for example if you're constantly pushing the less fun and career-dead-ending stuff onto the new guy while the senior people with all the political sway take the fun, cutting-edge, etc new tasks.

Ancalagon 4y ago

the last two roles ive been in honestly expect real contributions beginning about the 6th week, and tbh I thought that was late. where are you finding places where you can be net negative for an entire year?

GoOnThenDoTell 4y ago
anything infrastructure
atq2119 4y ago
A year sounds extreme for being net negative, but I have a somewhat similar experience in a mixed hardware/software company. There's so much domain-specific knowledge that takes most people a long time to ramp up in. You haven't truly arrived unless you've ramped up and seen a full product cycle. That takes years, because hardware is slow to iterate.