3 ms·

Apple being the least tenured certainly breaks the notion that companies with better public images do better at retaining employees.

datadrivenangel 3y ago
Yeah, it was strange seeing Apple have shorter average retention than Amazon. Maybe Apple is just much much better about keeping employees from publicly complaining.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
j_b_f 3y ago
I’m not sure about the methodology here… Apple has a huge retail workforce that almost certainly plays a role. ETA: Sort of analogous to Amazon’s warehouse workforce. I couldn’t find it in the source, but I assume they’re only counting people who _have_ left these companies? Otherwise growing companies with a higher percentage of newer employees would be heavily penalized.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Even discounting the warehouse staff, my general impression is that Amazon is one of the harder FAANGs to work at. People I know who went there mostly didn't last terribly long. The few that did stay all got out of the AWS org very quickly.. Re: Apple, I have a similar but less extreme impression of their engineering org.. but don't know anyone there/from there. Notice for example MSFT doesn't show up as a high churn shop.
- financypants 3y ago
  Yeah, “growing”, but they’re kind of filtering by growth because they looked at top 100 by market cap
toddmorey 3y ago
Yes but something fishy about methodology. Wells Fargo & Comcast on the list for high retention?
- justin66 3y ago
  Anyone with their self-respect left Wells Fargo years ago. Same for Comcast? Looking at this list I had the same thought a couple of times: maybe "long time employees don't want to leave" is not necessarily the sign of a wholesome company where everyone is happy and content.
- eatonphil 3y ago
  Maybe old school companies attract old school employees who exhibit old school retention perhaps? Whereas the hottest companies attract employees who are more career and development focused who are more likely to switch every few years? Just guesses though.
  - financypants 3y ago
    Yeah I think high retention is pretty nuanced. I anecdotally know/worked with many blue collar workers who continue to complain about their jobs, have opportunities to swap, and don’t take them.
zitterbewegung 3y ago
I think it’s actually indicative that people get a lot of talent on their resume that they can get poached or move into other roles in the industry.
steveBK123 3y ago
I think it's generally the opposite, and the rankings kind of validate my general model of companies. There's a continuum of "good/bad" to customers & "good/bad" to employees, and companies are rarely good to both. Some of the most popular consumer facing brands are terrible places to work. One cynical reason may be that they know there is an unlimited supply of bushy tailed workers ready to replace you once they exhaust your will to live. Another less cynical reason might be that to create the best products requires the hardest work, most competition, and generally it burns people out. It's worth going into the interview process understanding the risk/reward profile. Some companies are high stress & turnover, but at least pay you for the hazard. Others not so much.
zffr 3y ago
Anecdotally, very few people left during my tenure there. I stayed for over 5yrs myself, and I met several people who had been there for 10+ years. Maybe the short short average tenure time is because of the retail employees.

datadrivenangel 3y ago

Yeah, it was strange seeing Apple have shorter average retention than Amazon. Maybe Apple is just much much better about keeping employees from publicly complaining.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

j_b_f 3y ago

I’m not sure about the methodology here… Apple has a huge retail workforce that almost certainly plays a role. ETA: Sort of analogous to Amazon’s warehouse workforce. I couldn’t find it in the source, but I assume they’re only counting people who _have_ left these companies? Otherwise growing companies with a higher percentage of newer employees would be heavily penalized.

steveBK123 3y ago
Even discounting the warehouse staff, my general impression is that Amazon is one of the harder FAANGs to work at. People I know who went there mostly didn't last terribly long. The few that did stay all got out of the AWS org very quickly.. Re: Apple, I have a similar but less extreme impression of their engineering org.. but don't know anyone there/from there. Notice for example MSFT doesn't show up as a high churn shop.
financypants 3y ago
Yeah, “growing”, but they’re kind of filtering by growth because they looked at top 100 by market cap

toddmorey 3y ago

Yes but something fishy about methodology. Wells Fargo & Comcast on the list for high retention?

justin66 3y ago
Anyone with their self-respect left Wells Fargo years ago. Same for Comcast? Looking at this list I had the same thought a couple of times: maybe "long time employees don't want to leave" is not necessarily the sign of a wholesome company where everyone is happy and content.
eatonphil 3y ago
Maybe old school companies attract old school employees who exhibit old school retention perhaps? Whereas the hottest companies attract employees who are more career and development focused who are more likely to switch every few years? Just guesses though.
- financypants 3y ago
  Yeah I think high retention is pretty nuanced. I anecdotally know/worked with many blue collar workers who continue to complain about their jobs, have opportunities to swap, and don’t take them.

zitterbewegung 3y ago

I think it’s actually indicative that people get a lot of talent on their resume that they can get poached or move into other roles in the industry.

steveBK123 3y ago

I think it's generally the opposite, and the rankings kind of validate my general model of companies. There's a continuum of "good/bad" to customers & "good/bad" to employees, and companies are rarely good to both. Some of the most popular consumer facing brands are terrible places to work. One cynical reason may be that they know there is an unlimited supply of bushy tailed workers ready to replace you once they exhaust your will to live. Another less cynical reason might be that to create the best products requires the hardest work, most competition, and generally it burns people out. It's worth going into the interview process understanding the risk/reward profile. Some companies are high stress & turnover, but at least pay you for the hazard. Others not so much.

zffr 3y ago

Anecdotally, very few people left during my tenure there. I stayed for over 5yrs myself, and I met several people who had been there for 10+ years. Maybe the short short average tenure time is because of the retail employees.