3 ms·

> In an industry like tech where self-learning is so normalized, the kind of person who needs to be forced to retrain just isn't the kind of person who actually

> In an industry like tech where self-learning is so normalized, the kind of person who needs to be forced to retrain just isn't the kind of person who actually wants to retrain. I think that's actually a two-way street. Companies expect self-learning and -improvement from employees, but where's that 20% time that used to be the norm in IT? IMHO, the root cause rarely is someone being "set in stone" from the start - it's when the relationship between the individual and the company (or their direct manager) grows cold. In German we call that "Dienst nach Vorschrift". Loyalty is a two way street as well, and most companies aren't loyal to their employees - or they cease to be loyal and supportive towards their employees when the executive suits decide that their bonuses are under threat. > The process of hiring a new employee in aggregate costs at most around $10k on top of salary. Headhunter rates are ~20% (although I've heard of 50% for really senior staff) of the yearly base pay... so you're looking at $20k just in headhunter costs for your usual SWE, and that doesn't count the distributed costs for general hiring, "wasted" hours on interviews and their preparation that don't lead to a hire, or the cost to reacquire knowledge that hasn't been formally documented, or the time until the "new" guy has shown enough capability to be trusted to do stuff on their own (i.e. lost productivity). > VP and above only have visibility on top-line numbers, but the actual business case to hire is made by EMs or Directors. To hire an individual person, yes. But the decision to do entire departments worth of layoffs because the stonk is going on a dive after some exec's pipe dream didn't play out? That's C level. And these fuckers don't get to feel the consequences.

alephnerd 1y ago
> where's that 20% time that used to be the norm in IT That was never the norm outside of Google. And to be brutally honest, if we are offering a TC of $200k-400k, we expect you to execute at that level of performance. If you want to just be a code monkey, why shouldn't I find someone else? > most companies aren't loyal to their employees - or they cease to be loyal and supportive towards their employees There is no reason for employees to be loyal to a company nor companies to be loyal to employees. Do you job or we can find someone else who can - most people overvalue their actual value to an organization. Similarly, as an employee, if you detest an employer, find another job and give your 2 weeks - no more, no less. But to land another job, you will need to self study constantly. > Headhunter rates... Most companies do not use headhunters. > count the distributed costs for general hiring, "wasted" hours on interviews and their preparation that don't lead to a hire, or the cost to reacquire knowledge that hasn't been formally documented, or the time until the "new" guy has shown enough capability to be trusted to do stuff on their own As a business, those legitimately are not as significant a cost as dealing with an underachieving employee on payroll when we are paying $200k-400k TC. Most product lines only generate high 7 figures to low 8 figures in revenue a year, so an underachieving but highly paid employee has a significant drag on the business of a specific product. > To hire an individual person, yes Even creating the AoP to hire N amount of employees is largely proposed by EMs and Directors, and then iterated or negotiated on with VPs and above > To hire an individual person, yes. But the decision to do entire departments worth of layoffs because the stonk is going on a dive after some exec's pipe dream didn't play out? That's C level. And these fuckers don't get to feel the consequences. If a business doesn't work out, there's no reason not to kill an entire product line. Companies can and should take risks, but should also be open to kill product lines if they do not work out. I have also axed execs on boards that I have been a part of if I have seen a persistent issue in performance that is directly attributable to their issues. --------- Tbf, I think you are in Germany or Western Europe, so I cannot speak to how Engineering Management is done there in the software industry versus the US. If I was paying German level TCs, I'd probably be more forgiving.

alephnerd 1y ago

> where's that 20% time that used to be the norm in IT That was never the norm outside of Google. And to be brutally honest, if we are offering a TC of $200k-400k, we expect you to execute at that level of performance. If you want to just be a code monkey, why shouldn't I find someone else? > most companies aren't loyal to their employees - or they cease to be loyal and supportive towards their employees There is no reason for employees to be loyal to a company nor companies to be loyal to employees. Do you job or we can find someone else who can - most people overvalue their actual value to an organization. Similarly, as an employee, if you detest an employer, find another job and give your 2 weeks - no more, no less. But to land another job, you will need to self study constantly. > Headhunter rates... Most companies do not use headhunters. > count the distributed costs for general hiring, "wasted" hours on interviews and their preparation that don't lead to a hire, or the cost to reacquire knowledge that hasn't been formally documented, or the time until the "new" guy has shown enough capability to be trusted to do stuff on their own As a business, those legitimately are not as significant a cost as dealing with an underachieving employee on payroll when we are paying $200k-400k TC. Most product lines only generate high 7 figures to low 8 figures in revenue a year, so an underachieving but highly paid employee has a significant drag on the business of a specific product. > To hire an individual person, yes Even creating the AoP to hire N amount of employees is largely proposed by EMs and Directors, and then iterated or negotiated on with VPs and above > To hire an individual person, yes. But the decision to do entire departments worth of layoffs because the stonk is going on a dive after some exec's pipe dream didn't play out? That's C level. And these fuckers don't get to feel the consequences. If a business doesn't work out, there's no reason not to kill an entire product line. Companies can and should take risks, but should also be open to kill product lines if they do not work out. I have also axed execs on boards that I have been a part of if I have seen a persistent issue in performance that is directly attributable to their issues. --------- Tbf, I think you are in Germany or Western Europe, so I cannot speak to how Engineering Management is done there in the software industry versus the US. If I was paying German level TCs, I'd probably be more forgiving.