6 ms·

Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem

34 points by patientfrog 11y ago

borski 11y ago
With all due respect, I think the author has to be careful not to be jaded. While burnout and echo chambers are a real problem in the valley, an engineer who genuinely enjoys short sprints and hackathons, or staying up all night occasionally to prototype something they're excited about is not necessarily a bad hire. Some of my fondest memories are of building something alone, or with colleagues, all night because it was time-sensitive or something we were really passionate about. That does not inherently make me bad at thinking strategically, working "normal" hours, or building long-term successful projects. They are different skill sets, but one person can be great at both. The author seems to imply that's not true, which is a common misconception, IMHO.
- entee 11y ago
  It seems the author is discouraging the practice of staying up all night but not throwing it out entirely. In my reading the article suggests that this shouldn't be the rule but leaves space for times when it may be required, or not so bad. I wonder how the author would respond to having people, say once every few months or so, do an intense overnight hack session. I would guess he'd be fine with it, but suggest keeping a close eye out so that it doesn't become the rule.
  - borski 11y ago
    How am engineer chooses to work shouldn't be up to the author. Some people genuinely do their best work late at night. Just as you shouldn't expect everyone to work into the wee hours, you should also not expect everyone to work not to. Work-life balance is a personal choice, and should be up to the individual engineer. Managers who force their idea of balance on others end up with a different kind of groupthink instead.
- rifung 11y ago
  There's a difference between being willing to stay up all night to finish something and being proud of that kind of thing. I got the impression the author understood the difference.
  - borski 11y ago
    Right; my point is that some people genuinely enjoy it and are proud of when they have moments of inspiration and end up working late nights to complete something. Some people genuinely work best at night, and I get the impression that if an engineer doesn't fit into the author's specific idea of "work life balance" they are considered "young." In my experience, that's not necessarily true; some engineers just genuinely enjoy working late at night, and are often proud of the results. Otherwise, they would presumably stop working late at night.
    - saganus 11y ago
      I read it more as referring to the way the engineer approaches the problem vs what time of day they work. An engineer who starts hacking away a solution and keeps at it 90+ hours a week (or whatever amount) but then because of this burns out and looses interest in 2,3 or 6 months is not as valuable as an engineer who can consistently keep working at something until the product is delivered. The engineer that is burned out probably won't be able to last X years at the company, and since the author is trying to somewhat maximize the time the employee stays the "burn-out approach" engineer is not desired. Kind of like that other article that popped up in HN a few weeks ago that basically said "discipline over motivation", which I read as "it's better to be able to work 2-3 hours a days every day for 5 years, than being able to work 15+ hours a day for 3 weeks". Obviously your opinion might vary as to how useful this strategy is, but I think it has a different meaning than just "an engineer that works at night".
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- j_baker 11y ago
  Some people just like to work like that, and that's ok. What's wrong is when you require people to work like that or when people who work like that get ahead disproportionately.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
ffn 11y ago
The author makes some good points about hiring and working, but what's with this fixation on diversity? If you're a small start up (i.e. 5 or 10 people in his words), your goal should be to build a product and get it to market. And if you happen to be a 30s something white male workaholic who knows a few other 30s something white male workaholics who will work with you to get it out, why shouldn't you just throw diversity out the window and work with what you have to get a project to completion.
- Retric 11y ago
  Diversity is very useful because companies pivot and having a diverse* team allows you to better consider more options. Note: By diversity I don't mean a team of 30 year old workaholic that graduated from Stanford and then worked at Google/MS for a few years that happen to have different skin colors. I mean a diversity of experience, fresh college student, a 60 year old near retiree, and someone that just spent six months backpacking in South America etc. It might seem like having a bind person on your team will slow you down, but plenty of dumb products get created because everyone has the same exact background and can't see just how tiny the market is. PS: The world has ~7 billion people and most of them are not like you.
  - entee 11y ago
    No diversity = blind spots. How many startups aren't serving needs because they're simply not the needs of those founding the company? And how many are missing the bigger picture on the product because they don't have someone on staff who sees things differently? Taking a slightly roundabout example: AFAIK Pinterest was founded by men and the core team is the standard valley profile, however it has primarily a female userbase. In that case the user demographic doesn't match the initial team's demographic. However, one has to wonder whether Pinterest would have happened sooner if there were more women in the startup community, and whether there are other similar opportunities that address a huge need for a demographic not usually represented in the valley. Another example: pigeonly. A really cool company, an idea that springs forth from a different experience in the world.
  - golemotron 11y ago
meatysnapper 11y ago
In a situation where companies underpay, and the only way to get a raise is jump shit, how could you not expect a mercenary culture?
- moosey 11y ago
  I kept scanning this article for talks about money, but there were none. It isn't even about underpaying - it's that changing jobs supplies one of the best sources for engineering pay raises. There are evolutionary flows through the work force that don't require this (moving into leadership positions) but as they mentioned, generally hiring into the top levels comes from a tight circle of people, having gone to the same school, or some other such limitation. So if you didn't go to Stanford, what's your play? I could understand why someone running a company wouldn't want to address this, but paying your engineers solidified salaries while company profits rise, and possibly with limited amounts of share in the company, is a good way to guarantee that they'll have to jump ship at some point, just to keep up with inflation.
  - killface 11y ago
    But then you deal with the wage problem -- managers (especially ones without a tech background) are often of the "my reports make less than me" school of thought. More money = more power = more respect. So when a manager who makes $90k/yr is talking with a 30yo who wants $150k/yr, he might be insulted or put off. And let's not forget that a lot of developers probably should be in the 200-250 range. The only thing to look for in a company, in my eyes, is how well they pay their employees. They can glad-hand all they want about open workspaces and ping-pong tables and catered lunches, but none of that matters. Show us the money.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      One possible approach to this problem is to separate day-to-day management from staff budget/pay negotiations. If you're employing line managers who are worth only $90k a year and have the attitude you describe, someone else needs to be making those staffing decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be employing those line managers, but you need to think carefully about the nature of the role. The traditional all-in-one hierarchy probably isn't appropriate in that situation.
eabraham 11y ago
"Your goal, as a hiring manager, is to find the people who want to invest in their careers, who are aiming for mastery and not just looking to make more money or build a shiny resume." Why are these two concepts mutually exclusive? Experience, money, and mastery are just a few of the side effects of a successful career.
- MadManE 11y ago
  I think the point is that people who are looking exclusively for money or shine will make poor employees. If someone is looking to be a master, the others will naturally follow.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Yeah, that made me see red. Just money? Money is food in my mouth, money is attention from a qualified doctor in a good hospital when I get ill, money is a good place to live in a nice and safe area, with heating that turns on in the winter, money is a car that starts when you turn the key, with a tank full of gas. Money is fucking important.
  - Eridrus 11y ago
    In the context of software engineering in silicon valley, money isn't the difference between being able to afford a car that starts or not, it's mostly about how much money you have sloshing around in a rainy day fund.
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      Okay lets change it then: more money is how long you can do without a job and still have all those things.
pnathan 11y ago
Point one: if you want me to want to stick around, your company has to have challenges I want to work on over time. Point two: do not underpay me. I will tolerate a fuzz around market rate, and I will adapt to market conditions. I will quit as soon as I can if you systematically undervalue me (see point one: my value will go up). Point three: build a company designed for fifty years, to deliver use and value, and you might get people looking to stick around for fifty years.
- killface 11y ago
  All great points. I work with a consulting company, and we have a lot of really great people. They come to us because we pay fair (good hourly rate on w2 (paid overtime) + benefits), we work with a wide variety of companies and industries, and we're not looking to sell out or get acquired.
- clavalle 11y ago
  Don't forget to build a culture of expectations that one can last 50 years in. Constant crisis mode is a sure way to lose good people.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- borski 11y ago
  Are these hard rules for you? Do certain harder (more challenging) challenges make up for lower pay? Are there culture benefits or actual benefits that can make up for lower pay? I ask because I hear things like this all the time, and there seem to be two schools of thought: 1) intangibles matter, 2) tangibles (money) is all that matters. If the latter is true for you (or anyone in a position to be making as much as SV engineers make, excluding those with debts like children's schooling and loans), that makes me really sad. Jumping to the opportunity that will pay more solely because they pay more seems like a shortsighted, materialistic view of life. I'm not saying you see it that way, but there are certainly a not insignificant amount of people who view money as more important than challenges. Thats not wrong, of course, just saddening to me.
wrsh07 11y ago
Is it legal to not hire someone because they aren't planning to stick around for more than eg 2 years?
- clavalle 11y ago
  The fickle are not a protected class in the US, so yes, it is legal.
- GeneralMayhem 11y ago
  It's certainly legal. But short of expecting you to sign a binding 2-year contract, what exactly are they going to do about it? "I believe in this company and want to be here for the long haul" has got to be one of the most commonly told lies in job interviews.
  - patmcc 11y ago
    I don't think it's a lie, it's just a statement with a big IF before it. IF (this company is as great as you say) && (I'll be doing interesting work) && (the culture is good) && (the pay/benefits is fair) THEN I believe in the company and will stick around.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Probably, but who cares? If you want the job just say that you are planning to stick around, then you can always change your plans once a better job turns up.
gcb0 11y ago
the problem is more on the money and product/marketing side than on the engineering side. while working on banks that would hold true. a engineer was worth revenue per month while the system was up. on silicon valey, the engineer is worth a lot as soon as the product is live, but then that means IPO or something and now he is worthless. Remember that most companies in the valley do not even have the concept of revenue... And when the company does have revenue, then the issue shifts from the money to the product side. The engineer is the guy building the factories. and product can use a better or new factory because they have the talent to build it. but there is nothing they want to build, because, well, they have revenue with the old one, so why bother? now, when you see all that, it is easy to understand why the engineer VPs on the top drive them to exhaustion. because they know in the end the short term in a engineer work life is all that matters to his financial/product peers.
nick_urban 11y ago
Companies will never value employees as much as employees value themselves. If programmers can get a promotion and a 20% raise by switching employers, and a 3% raise by staying, why would they stay? I find it funny that startups would expect to attract "missionaries" when most of them lack missions of any substance.
- sanderjd 11y ago
  I've always found this market inefficiency fascinating. It's conventional wisdom (not just in the software industry) that the best way to get a big raise is to switch jobs, but your employer "should" be aware of the market rate for your work, and have the most information about your value and the most incentive to keep you around. I've always wondered if new employers are overvaluing new hires, or whether current employers fail to keep up due to some sort of bureaucratic issue.
  - Eridrus 11y ago
    Alternatively, if new employers were not paying a premium, they would have a harder time attracting talent, so they are willing to pay more to fill the slots they really need to fill. And employees have a switching cost, if you're getting paid 5% below market, that's probably not enough to get you to jump ship by itself.
hrshtr 11y ago
In long run, company culture and employee loyalty wins. But I have yet to find one.
angryrancor 11y ago
My lord, I just don't agree at all with this article. The author parrots his source, who seems to think the entirety of the problem is "engineering culture". It is absolutely not. That assertion - seemingly the crux of the article, if you take the perspective of the primary source - is total nonsense. There are definitely issues in engineering culture, and some good ones are mentioned. But the actual, and most material problem, is in the business culture - not paying employees their actual market value, consistently, and then balking at those employees when adjustments are asked for.

34 points by patientfrog 11y ago

With all due respect, I think the author has to be careful not to be jaded. While burnout and echo chambers are a real problem in the valley, an engineer who genuinely enjoys short sprints and hackathons, or staying up all night occasionally to prototype something they're excited about is not necessarily a bad hire. Some of my fondest memories are of building something alone, or with colleagues, all night because it was time-sensitive or something we were really passionate about. That does not inherently make me bad at thinking strategically, working "normal" hours, or building long-term successful projects. They are different skill sets, but one person can be great at both. The author seems to imply that's not true, which is a common misconception, IMHO.

entee 11y ago
It seems the author is discouraging the practice of staying up all night but not throwing it out entirely. In my reading the article suggests that this shouldn't be the rule but leaves space for times when it may be required, or not so bad. I wonder how the author would respond to having people, say once every few months or so, do an intense overnight hack session. I would guess he'd be fine with it, but suggest keeping a close eye out so that it doesn't become the rule.
- borski 11y ago
  How am engineer chooses to work shouldn't be up to the author. Some people genuinely do their best work late at night. Just as you shouldn't expect everyone to work into the wee hours, you should also not expect everyone to work not to. Work-life balance is a personal choice, and should be up to the individual engineer. Managers who force their idea of balance on others end up with a different kind of groupthink instead.
rifung 11y ago
There's a difference between being willing to stay up all night to finish something and being proud of that kind of thing. I got the impression the author understood the difference.
- borski 11y ago
  Right; my point is that some people genuinely enjoy it and are proud of when they have moments of inspiration and end up working late nights to complete something. Some people genuinely work best at night, and I get the impression that if an engineer doesn't fit into the author's specific idea of "work life balance" they are considered "young." In my experience, that's not necessarily true; some engineers just genuinely enjoy working late at night, and are often proud of the results. Otherwise, they would presumably stop working late at night.
  - saganus 11y ago
    I read it more as referring to the way the engineer approaches the problem vs what time of day they work. An engineer who starts hacking away a solution and keeps at it 90+ hours a week (or whatever amount) but then because of this burns out and looses interest in 2,3 or 6 months is not as valuable as an engineer who can consistently keep working at something until the product is delivered. The engineer that is burned out probably won't be able to last X years at the company, and since the author is trying to somewhat maximize the time the employee stays the "burn-out approach" engineer is not desired. Kind of like that other article that popped up in HN a few weeks ago that basically said "discipline over motivation", which I read as "it's better to be able to work 2-3 hours a days every day for 5 years, than being able to work 15+ hours a day for 3 weeks". Obviously your opinion might vary as to how useful this strategy is, but I think it has a different meaning than just "an engineer that works at night".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
j_baker 11y ago
Some people just like to work like that, and that's ok. What's wrong is when you require people to work like that or when people who work like that get ahead disproportionately.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

ffn 11y ago

The author makes some good points about hiring and working, but what's with this fixation on diversity? If you're a small start up (i.e. 5 or 10 people in his words), your goal should be to build a product and get it to market. And if you happen to be a 30s something white male workaholic who knows a few other 30s something white male workaholics who will work with you to get it out, why shouldn't you just throw diversity out the window and work with what you have to get a project to completion.

Retric 11y ago
Diversity is very useful because companies pivot and having a diverse* team allows you to better consider more options. Note: By diversity I don't mean a team of 30 year old workaholic that graduated from Stanford and then worked at Google/MS for a few years that happen to have different skin colors. I mean a diversity of experience, fresh college student, a 60 year old near retiree, and someone that just spent six months backpacking in South America etc. It might seem like having a bind person on your team will slow you down, but plenty of dumb products get created because everyone has the same exact background and can't see just how tiny the market is. PS: The world has ~7 billion people and most of them are not like you.
- entee 11y ago
  No diversity = blind spots. How many startups aren't serving needs because they're simply not the needs of those founding the company? And how many are missing the bigger picture on the product because they don't have someone on staff who sees things differently? Taking a slightly roundabout example: AFAIK Pinterest was founded by men and the core team is the standard valley profile, however it has primarily a female userbase. In that case the user demographic doesn't match the initial team's demographic. However, one has to wonder whether Pinterest would have happened sooner if there were more women in the startup community, and whether there are other similar opportunities that address a huge need for a demographic not usually represented in the valley. Another example: pigeonly. A really cool company, an idea that springs forth from a different experience in the world.
- golemotron 11y ago

meatysnapper 11y ago

In a situation where companies underpay, and the only way to get a raise is jump shit, how could you not expect a mercenary culture?

moosey 11y ago
I kept scanning this article for talks about money, but there were none. It isn't even about underpaying - it's that changing jobs supplies one of the best sources for engineering pay raises. There are evolutionary flows through the work force that don't require this (moving into leadership positions) but as they mentioned, generally hiring into the top levels comes from a tight circle of people, having gone to the same school, or some other such limitation. So if you didn't go to Stanford, what's your play? I could understand why someone running a company wouldn't want to address this, but paying your engineers solidified salaries while company profits rise, and possibly with limited amounts of share in the company, is a good way to guarantee that they'll have to jump ship at some point, just to keep up with inflation.
- killface 11y ago
  But then you deal with the wage problem -- managers (especially ones without a tech background) are often of the "my reports make less than me" school of thought. More money = more power = more respect. So when a manager who makes $90k/yr is talking with a 30yo who wants $150k/yr, he might be insulted or put off. And let's not forget that a lot of developers probably should be in the 200-250 range. The only thing to look for in a company, in my eyes, is how well they pay their employees. They can glad-hand all they want about open workspaces and ping-pong tables and catered lunches, but none of that matters. Show us the money.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    One possible approach to this problem is to separate day-to-day management from staff budget/pay negotiations. If you're employing line managers who are worth only $90k a year and have the attitude you describe, someone else needs to be making those staffing decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be employing those line managers, but you need to think carefully about the nature of the role. The traditional all-in-one hierarchy probably isn't appropriate in that situation.

eabraham 11y ago

"Your goal, as a hiring manager, is to find the people who want to invest in their careers, who are aiming for mastery and not just looking to make more money or build a shiny resume." Why are these two concepts mutually exclusive? Experience, money, and mastery are just a few of the side effects of a successful career.

MadManE 11y ago
I think the point is that people who are looking exclusively for money or shine will make poor employees. If someone is looking to be a master, the others will naturally follow.
tomjen3 11y ago
Yeah, that made me see red. Just money? Money is food in my mouth, money is attention from a qualified doctor in a good hospital when I get ill, money is a good place to live in a nice and safe area, with heating that turns on in the winter, money is a car that starts when you turn the key, with a tank full of gas. Money is fucking important.
- Eridrus 11y ago
  In the context of software engineering in silicon valley, money isn't the difference between being able to afford a car that starts or not, it's mostly about how much money you have sloshing around in a rainy day fund.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    Okay lets change it then: more money is how long you can do without a job and still have all those things.

pnathan 11y ago

Point one: if you want me to want to stick around, your company has to have challenges I want to work on over time. Point two: do not underpay me. I will tolerate a fuzz around market rate, and I will adapt to market conditions. I will quit as soon as I can if you systematically undervalue me (see point one: my value will go up). Point three: build a company designed for fifty years, to deliver use and value, and you might get people looking to stick around for fifty years.

killface 11y ago
All great points. I work with a consulting company, and we have a lot of really great people. They come to us because we pay fair (good hourly rate on w2 (paid overtime) + benefits), we work with a wide variety of companies and industries, and we're not looking to sell out or get acquired.
clavalle 11y ago
Don't forget to build a culture of expectations that one can last 50 years in. Constant crisis mode is a sure way to lose good people.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
borski 11y ago
Are these hard rules for you? Do certain harder (more challenging) challenges make up for lower pay? Are there culture benefits or actual benefits that can make up for lower pay? I ask because I hear things like this all the time, and there seem to be two schools of thought: 1) intangibles matter, 2) tangibles (money) is all that matters. If the latter is true for you (or anyone in a position to be making as much as SV engineers make, excluding those with debts like children's schooling and loans), that makes me really sad. Jumping to the opportunity that will pay more solely because they pay more seems like a shortsighted, materialistic view of life. I'm not saying you see it that way, but there are certainly a not insignificant amount of people who view money as more important than challenges. Thats not wrong, of course, just saddening to me.

wrsh07 11y ago

Is it legal to not hire someone because they aren't planning to stick around for more than eg 2 years?

clavalle 11y ago
The fickle are not a protected class in the US, so yes, it is legal.
GeneralMayhem 11y ago
It's certainly legal. But short of expecting you to sign a binding 2-year contract, what exactly are they going to do about it? "I believe in this company and want to be here for the long haul" has got to be one of the most commonly told lies in job interviews.
- patmcc 11y ago
  I don't think it's a lie, it's just a statement with a big IF before it. IF (this company is as great as you say) && (I'll be doing interesting work) && (the culture is good) && (the pay/benefits is fair) THEN I believe in the company and will stick around.
tomjen3 11y ago
Probably, but who cares? If you want the job just say that you are planning to stick around, then you can always change your plans once a better job turns up.

gcb0 11y ago

the problem is more on the money and product/marketing side than on the engineering side. while working on banks that would hold true. a engineer was worth revenue per month while the system was up. on silicon valey, the engineer is worth a lot as soon as the product is live, but then that means IPO or something and now he is worthless. Remember that most companies in the valley do not even have the concept of revenue... And when the company does have revenue, then the issue shifts from the money to the product side. The engineer is the guy building the factories. and product can use a better or new factory because they have the talent to build it. but there is nothing they want to build, because, well, they have revenue with the old one, so why bother? now, when you see all that, it is easy to understand why the engineer VPs on the top drive them to exhaustion. because they know in the end the short term in a engineer work life is all that matters to his financial/product peers.

nick_urban 11y ago

Companies will never value employees as much as employees value themselves. If programmers can get a promotion and a 20% raise by switching employers, and a 3% raise by staying, why would they stay? I find it funny that startups would expect to attract "missionaries" when most of them lack missions of any substance.

sanderjd 11y ago
I've always found this market inefficiency fascinating. It's conventional wisdom (not just in the software industry) that the best way to get a big raise is to switch jobs, but your employer "should" be aware of the market rate for your work, and have the most information about your value and the most incentive to keep you around. I've always wondered if new employers are overvaluing new hires, or whether current employers fail to keep up due to some sort of bureaucratic issue.
- Eridrus 11y ago
  Alternatively, if new employers were not paying a premium, they would have a harder time attracting talent, so they are willing to pay more to fill the slots they really need to fill. And employees have a switching cost, if you're getting paid 5% below market, that's probably not enough to get you to jump ship by itself.

hrshtr 11y ago

In long run, company culture and employee loyalty wins. But I have yet to find one.

angryrancor 11y ago

My lord, I just don't agree at all with this article. The author parrots his source, who seems to think the entirety of the problem is "engineering culture". It is absolutely not. That assertion - seemingly the crux of the article, if you take the perspective of the primary source - is total nonsense. There are definitely issues in engineering culture, and some good ones are mentioned. But the actual, and most material problem, is in the business culture - not paying employees their actual market value, consistently, and then balking at those employees when adjustments are asked for.