3 ms·

The companies that churn through young workers

11 points by grugagag 4y ago

chrisdirkis 4y ago
I've heard of software shops in Australia that work on this model, too. I'm slightly unsure that it's actually beneficial for companies? Seems like having a bunch of juniors around and giving them more or harder work than they're ready for will usually result in souring client relationships when the work isn't up to scratch. Not sure what can really be done about it, either. Seems like the issues are both hard to detect _and_ hard to regulate against.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  The actual solution is stronger networks and communities for "up and coming" software engineers so they can get advice for some random graybeard who gets coffee with their Comp Architecture class that 'This company is ass, you'll burn out and waste your time/energy. Go work somewhere that doesn't treat you like shit.' Actually having these networks exist on the other hand is much harder
  - chrisdirkis 4y ago
    This is something that both interests me and seems difficult to build. I went to a random university in Australia, where there was a decent softdev club-ish thing with some graduates, and then moved to another city. I'd be happy to interface with that club and give back to that community in general, but that's about a thousand kilometers away now. It would seem weird to me to just go up to the local uni club here and be like "yep, I just want to lend a hand" -- that is, if I could even find said club!
- legerdemain 4y ago
  In my direct experience, this seems to work quite well for two kinds of companies. One is software consulting where the clients are so big that project timelines easily stretch beyond the typical lifespan of a business executive. No one important notices that the project has started dragging before the person who initiated the contract has claimed credit and gotten promoted for it. The second one is cryptocurrency/web3. I overhear from my network that what matters most there is the pedigree of their workforce and the background of the founders. Once funding is secured, it looks like project outcomes start to matter less, and the startup can afford to churn through engineers when they quit due to project dysfunction and unfortunate architecture choices.
legerdemain 4y ago
When I was about to graduate from college, this seemed to be the typical case with so-called "management consulting" firms around Washington, DC. The one that haunted our campus most thoroughly was the gloriously named Corporate Executive Board, which was none of those words, just a regular consulting firm with a stupidly big name. I think they have since changed their name to "it's just an acronym, it doesn't mean anything," and then to something else entirely. Anyway, they would hire droves of new grads, mostly from the tech and science-adjacent majors who didn't find anything better to do. Then they would churn through them. I remember classmates telling stories of being locked in at work during project crunch time, getting yelled at by managers who demanded total commitment. The typical trajectory would be that you would leave after two years, get an MBA, and return to the "industry" in a less menial and humiliating role. That or, I guess, you'd just get another job altogether. A lot of my classmates came back for graduate degrees after trying to make it work with a bachelor's. I've been told that places like Deloitte and Accenture have gradually reformed their "early career" positions in recent years, but I no longer know anyone who works at places like that.

11 points by grugagag 4y ago

I've heard of software shops in Australia that work on this model, too. I'm slightly unsure that it's actually beneficial for companies? Seems like having a bunch of juniors around and giving them more or harder work than they're ready for will usually result in souring client relationships when the work isn't up to scratch. Not sure what can really be done about it, either. Seems like the issues are both hard to detect _and_ hard to regulate against.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
The actual solution is stronger networks and communities for "up and coming" software engineers so they can get advice for some random graybeard who gets coffee with their Comp Architecture class that 'This company is ass, you'll burn out and waste your time/energy. Go work somewhere that doesn't treat you like shit.' Actually having these networks exist on the other hand is much harder
- chrisdirkis 4y ago
  This is something that both interests me and seems difficult to build. I went to a random university in Australia, where there was a decent softdev club-ish thing with some graduates, and then moved to another city. I'd be happy to interface with that club and give back to that community in general, but that's about a thousand kilometers away now. It would seem weird to me to just go up to the local uni club here and be like "yep, I just want to lend a hand" -- that is, if I could even find said club!
legerdemain 4y ago
In my direct experience, this seems to work quite well for two kinds of companies. One is software consulting where the clients are so big that project timelines easily stretch beyond the typical lifespan of a business executive. No one important notices that the project has started dragging before the person who initiated the contract has claimed credit and gotten promoted for it. The second one is cryptocurrency/web3. I overhear from my network that what matters most there is the pedigree of their workforce and the background of the founders. Once funding is secured, it looks like project outcomes start to matter less, and the startup can afford to churn through engineers when they quit due to project dysfunction and unfortunate architecture choices.

legerdemain 4y ago

When I was about to graduate from college, this seemed to be the typical case with so-called "management consulting" firms around Washington, DC. The one that haunted our campus most thoroughly was the gloriously named Corporate Executive Board, which was none of those words, just a regular consulting firm with a stupidly big name. I think they have since changed their name to "it's just an acronym, it doesn't mean anything," and then to something else entirely. Anyway, they would hire droves of new grads, mostly from the tech and science-adjacent majors who didn't find anything better to do. Then they would churn through them. I remember classmates telling stories of being locked in at work during project crunch time, getting yelled at by managers who demanded total commitment. The typical trajectory would be that you would leave after two years, get an MBA, and return to the "industry" in a less menial and humiliating role. That or, I guess, you'd just get another job altogether. A lot of my classmates came back for graduate degrees after trying to make it work with a bachelor's. I've been told that places like Deloitte and Accenture have gradually reformed their "early career" positions in recent years, but I no longer know anyone who works at places like that.