
Never Have the “What Would It Take to Keep You Here?” Conversation - sharkweek
http://moz.com/rand/never-have-the-what-would-it-take-to-keep-you-here-conversation/
======
MattRogish
I think it's first worth having policies that recognize the modern knowledge
worker. Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment,
optional meetings. No company bullshit. Etc. That way folks won't go "maybe a
vacation will help" - because you've already done it.

Of course, that is just removing roadblocks. That's not an active measure. You
should be having weekly one on ones with all direct reports (and so on up and
down the chain). Rarely when a coworker quits is it completely unexpected. At
some point a switch is flipped from "not going to even consider it" to "sure,
I'll talk to recruiters." And then the clock starts ticking. In some ways, the
organization has already lost if it got to that point.

Raises and titles are not the only thing that drives people; I'd probably
argue that's the worst sort of extrinsic motivation. If a bigger title is all
that keeps someone working there, you've already failed. As a manager it's
your job to know what motivates your people and help get them there
accordingly.

~~~
psykotic
> Unlimited vacation, hardware budgets, a results-only work environment,
> optional meetings. No company bullshit.

Aside: I've become convinced unlimited vacation policies are a bad idea at
scale. Everywhere I've seen them applied, they lead to less vacationing for
the people who need it most: the eternally stressed and overworked who feel
like the world will end in their absence or that they will get dinged or plain
fired in their next performance review if they're not always in the office.
You don't need to force people to take a vacation, but the old system of
assigning them a fixed number of yearly days with some sort of limited
rollover strikes a good balance I see no reason to upset. A system based on
firm expectations can still accommodate exceptional events like honeymoons.

~~~
snprbob86
Unlimited vacation policies are a bad idea even on the small scale. Even on
our team of 5, some of us sucked at taking time off. Those of us who didn't
suck at taking time off sucked at not feeling guilty about it!

I'm still thinking about the side effects of a "Paid Paid Vacation" policy.
That is, instead of getting N weeks of paid time off, you get $X per week of
vacation used, up to some limit.

~~~
mustefaj
That's actually a pretty good idea.

------
edw519
When someone says it's about the money, it's never about the money.

So in order to prevent the "I have a better offer" discussion, you have to
innoculate your people ahead of time. Make them immune to better offers by
making them unavailable to those who would make them.

Find out what really motivates each person and engineer the "perfect job
description" for them:

    
    
      - meaningful work
      - quality working conditions
      - proper work/life balance
      - appropriate compensation / benefits
      - a well-defined mutually agreed upon future career path
      - proper recognition
      - congruent culture (work mates)
    

Make it so that people _love_ coming to work. It's not that hard if you really
want to.

Do that and you will never lose them. If you can't (or won't), then they were
never really yours in the first place.

~~~
kami8845
> \- meaningful work

One thing that you didn't mention and that has been very important in the
decision making process of my recent job search would be:

    
    
      - hard work
    

The vast majority of the jobs out there are run-of-the-mill scale this CRUD
thing jobs. Nothing wrong with that but if a company can offer me the
opportunity and trust to work on something that is technically very hard, then
that is a definitive bonus (although it's not possible for all types of
companies to offer that kind of work to engineers)

~~~
gbog
What do you mean by hard? Hard like design an exciting new nonosql datastore?
Or hard like refactoring and fixing an enormous crud codebase with myriad of
hidden dependencies?

~~~
kami8845
As I said above: Hard like technically hard: AI, Machine learning, generally
designing new algorithms, language design, crypto, distributed systems,
computer vision, compilers, and so on and so forth

>exciting new nonosql

also nice try at drawing a false dichotomy between CRUD stuff and "reckless"
NoSQL DBs.

~~~
gbog
the legacy codebase refactoring is likely harder than designing new algorithm
and all.

------
noonespecial
In my experience, companies that find themselves in the “What Would It Take to
Keep You Here?” situation are rarely ever prepared to actually do what it
would take to keep you there. The very next sentence out of their mouths is
usually "but only management is eligible for that level of..."

~~~
m0nty
"OK, but to be honest we just don't have that money available at the moment.
Is there anything _else_ we could do? We don't want to lose you, but we have
to be realistic."

------
mzarate06
_As a CEO, many of the scariest days I've faced have been those when a
critical member of our team told us they were leaving the company. Your heart
sinks..._

I'm always happy to hear that a company values their employees, and takes a
proactive approach to keep them happy. I'm also surprised how little some
companies do on that same front, and only scramble to analyze pay, work
conditions, etc. _after_ an employee has announced they're leaving. By then
it's too late.

One case that sticks out for me was a few years back when a brilliant lead dev
I know left the company he was working for. I knew the company's work
conditions weren't favorable, he didn't have a job title worthy of what he was
doing day to day, and after hearing the salary he was being paid (about half a
typical market-rate salary at the time), my only question was why he hadn't
left earlier.

So I think a lot of companies encourage their employees to leave without even
knowing it. Or even worse, they know they're shortchanging them on some level
and gamble on fear or ignorance in hopes that said employees feel they're
getting a fair deal. I believe this to be the case with the example I cited
above, and am glad the lead dev has since found a company with much better
work conditions across the board.

~~~
just2n
I was in a pretty similar situation recently. After more firewood was thrown
on the fire, I decided to start looking, and at that point I had already
decided not to accept any counter-offer. Not only was I being shortchanged on
salary (significantly), but also in benefits, perks, and working conditions.
I'm really happy I found an awesome startup in SF that still after a month
feels like an ideal workplace for me.

When I was looking, I was disconcerted when I found companies with no personal
growth prospects or that flat out said they wouldn't pay what I was asking
(fair) because they didn't want to pay two engineers with the same title too
differently. I asked if they would offer bonuses to compensate or if they'd
consider paying the other guy the same salary, because he seemed smart enough.
No to both, and I felt that alone indicated that management there didn't value
engineering talent.

I really hope this treatment of talented workers isn't too pervasive in the
industry. Pay people what they're worth. Strive to offer the best working
conditions, benefits, and perks. Take the values of your employees into
consideration. It really doesn't seem like it's too much to ask for. And
personally, I'm all for complete transparency within my company, even to the
point of salary information. I think it would resolve more issues than it
would cause.

~~~
mzarate06
_I asked if they would offer bonuses to compensate or if they'd consider
paying the other guy the same salary, because he seemed smart enough. No to
both, and I felt that alone indicated that management there didn't value
engineering talent._

That's awesome that you vouched for the other guy. And I wonder what technical
experience management or upper-level execs had at that company. I find that
when there's very little to none at those levels in the company, they'll tend
to be similar to what you described. Ultimately they view engineers as a
commodity resource and try to get by with the "cheapest" deal they can.

I've found many of the same companies also suffer from high turnover, and turn
a blind eye to the long term drag that imposes on their software. For
companies that profit in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year
(e.g. the company I mentioned previously), I think it's silly they resort to
offering market, or below market, wages to save a few bucks (relatively
speaking) vs. striving to have happier employees, and retaining them for a
longer period of time.

------
dangero
It seems that in this post a title change was given without a raise. I don't
necessarily think that doing that is such a good idea. I know the post says
that they were already being compensated fairly. Here's why I think promotions
without pay are a bad idea: It gives the employee more incentive to leave, and
very little to stay. Superiors tend to give titles pretty easily because it's
"free", but I think it may actually cost the company more in the long run.
It's a gambler's play.

~~~
randfish
That's an incorrect assumption. We gave raises to both Adam & Jamie
commensurate with their new titles/roles.

~~~
dangero
Rand, in the email included in the post you wrote, "They're compensated
fairly, IMO, but both deserve the titles they've been aiming for."

That's what led me to that conclusion.

------
rhizome
I think there's much more evidence that there is a management mandate to
squeeze as much as possible out of salaried employees than there is about
counter-offered employees having their head on a block under management
efforts to replace the perceived-disloyal. The proactivity being championed in
the post and comments does not have industry support and any manager who
suggests giving raises or benefits ahead of time likely has the Sword of
Damocles hanging over _them_ afterwards.

~~~
corresation
I don't think this post, or most best-practice type articles, is trying to
describe how things generally work, or even trying to push it as mainstream
knowledge. Instead it's someone who has gained enlightenment trying to get
through to people with open minds.

On this general topic, not only should you ensure that you don't lose your
best people externally, more importantly you shouldn't lose your best people
internally -- that they turn into not-your-best-people because they know
they're underappreciated but don't have the willpower to leave, but instead
try to passively setup a situation where they're asked to go.

~~~
rhizome
Sure, "shouldn't," but in my experience the second case is far, far more
prevalent, using Machiavelli and Sun Tzu as management techniques, keeping
good people on board as well as a lower burn rate than they would if their
board allowed them to proactively secure their staff..

------
coopdog
That's one thing I've learned from Hacker News, that the ability to identify
the right people to hire and promote is the lifeblood of an organisation. It
seems like such a crime that big companies would delegate these to central
departments who barely know how the teams are going or even what they do

~~~
dillona
> It seems like such a crime that big companies would delegate these to
> central departments who barely know how the teams are going or even what
> they do

It is, but its also an opportunity for smaller business to more effectively
compete

------
lhnz
I don't think you should expect employers to make pre-emptive strikes. This is
a geek rationalisation for passive behaviour. As a talented employee, you
should speak to your employer and tell them that you believe you're worth more
to them than they're currently valuing you (do not threaten them with leaving
though). If they don't understand the significance of you stating this to
them, then leave and it will become apparent to them. (But it is better to
give them the information before doing so.)

For profitability, it's more important to keep the cost of employees down,
than it is to helpfully negotiate value-creators into better positions. (If
you were to do so, then how do you defend it to your investors? You can't
prove they were about to leave...)

If you are worried about single points of failure leaving, then request that
another employee be hired and mentored into understanding of the SPOF. Even
better create intrinsic motivations so you can have more confidence this won't
happen. Ask employees if they're doing work they love, create a fun company
culture, etc.

I kind of see this whole article as feel-good for the non-ownership class.

~~~
michaelochurch
_I don't think you should expect employers to make pre-emptive strikes. This
is a geek rationalisation for passive behaviour. As a talented employee, you
should speak to your employer and tell them that you believe you're worth more
to them than they're currently valuing you (do not threaten them with leaving
though). If they don't understand the significance of you stating this to
them, then leave and it will become apparent to them._

One thing that many engineers fail to recognize is that their managers are
often more overworked than they are. They take being "ignored" personally,
when reality is that their managers have a million plates spinning at once.

This is why it's considered distasteful to ask for a transfer or better
project at 6 months. To the employee, that's a long time. To the manager, that
person just came on board. If the manager has 12 reports, then the effective
tenure (absolute tenure, divided by number of reports) is 0.5 months.

Which supports my long-standing contention that open allocation is superior.
Expecting managers to control the division of labor in addition to the other
work they have is just too much.

------
redguava
I like the idea of regularly evaluating what you would do to keep someone, and
then just doing it. Perhaps make it a six monthly thing.

I think I came across this idea in a Netflix culture slide deck first and it
stuck with me.

~~~
dokem
This seems like it could be double sided. What happens when you realize
someone hasn't held up to their last evaluation?

~~~
greghinch
Then you start a conversation about what's going on. The point here isn't
about offering extra compensation to keep people. It's about keeping an open
dialog so they know you appreciate their work (and conversely if there's a
problem, you talk about it early instead of letting it fester).

------
TinyBig
The email featured in the article bothers me. First line: "If either were to
come to us with a competing offer, we'd work with all our might to keep them".
Then, almost in the same breath "They're fairly compensated, IMO." Cognitive
dissonance, anyone?

~~~
randfish
It was my belief that at the time, they were fairly compensated for the roles
they held at the VP level. When we moved them up to officer titles and roles,
we did increase compensation as well. Our standard policy is that we always
pay above the 50th percentile and below the 90th percentile based on available
salary data. We've got a really nice set from a wide survey of VC investors
based on portfolio company size, stage, etc. and combine that with info from
Salary.com and Payscale, too.

~~~
jaggederest
> Our standard policy is that we always pay above the 50th percentile and
> below the 90th percentile based on available salary data.

That's such a confusing standard. It means that a majority of your employees
could get a nice raise by changing companies, no?

~~~
johnbellone
Glad I'm not the only one that was thinking that.

Is that a public policy?

------
xmanifesto
As an early employee of a startup, what keeps me here are my stock options.
REAL ownership of a company.

I didn't join the company to get a vacation or a title bump. I joined because
I believe in the vision, the people and the hope that some day my stock will
be worth something.

If you can create a meritocracy where employees understand that the company's
success translates to their own personal success, then they're much less
likely to leave.

~~~
bconway
If you aren't one of the founders, you aren't going to make anything. Sorry.
We've all been there.

~~~
xmanifesto
Just like how Adam D'angelo didn't make anything from Facebook?

~~~
bconway
I wish you the best of luck. And I hope your employer is the next Facebook, I
really do.

I'm just saying, many of us have been in that position and learned a valuable
lesson. Don't be surprised.

------
nolok
As always, it comes down to "if you want your employee to stay, give him a
raise (salary, title, perks, ...) according to his skill BEFORE he tries to
leave with a competing offer".

There was a post on hacker news a few days ago where everyone was saying that
in their experience, non-minimal pay raises always came with changing job, not
with normal raises within their current position. Same for me, pay raises
always meant changing job, with my employer realizing "oh wait, we were paying
you as X but you're actually worth Y, now that you noticed let us offer you an
appropriate salary". No thanks.

That's why when google started giving huge pay raises to a lot of people a
couple years ago to keep them I actually thought it was a good idea, and more
people should do that; if your employees are good, giving them a raise is
usually a lot cheaper and easier than finding someone of the same skill and
experience.

~~~
johnward
It really seems like that is the only way to make significant progress (as far
as salary) in your career. You either jump ship or get a competing offer so
your current company can match. If I came in with a competing offer that paid
me 15-20% more and the company can match, then why didn't they just give me a
raise in the first place? It probably would have stopped me from even being
interested in other positions.

------
codegeek
Companies need to focus more on _"What we should be doing to ensure our best
employees are happy and not looking to move"_ rather than the _"Oh you are
leaving. What can we do for you ? btw, we cannot do this this and this. other
than all this, sure we can do blah"_

------
mustefaj
That mock monologue is actually really spot on. I just recently left our
bootstrapped startup and had a pre-emotive conversation shortly before doing
so. It played out just like that.

I shared this link on HN already but since its so relavent here it is again. I
wrote about why I still left. But didn't write about the conversation I had.
And you hit it on the head. <http://mustefa.com/looking-back-at-my-ux-career-
in-2012/>

------
yesimahuman
I'm legitimately curious for my own early-stage CEO sake: why did you have to
ask the board just to promote them?

EDIT: nvm, on re-read, I see you were just asking for feedback. I wasn't sure
if you needed permission from your board to promote to CMO, etc.

~~~
randfish
I think technically, I may not have needed board permission to make the move,
but certainly any time you're promoting to officer level, you should be
informing your board/investors.

~~~
yesimahuman
Thanks Rand, makes sense!

------
tnuc
Years ago: My boss found out I wanted to leave.

Got double the pay and free rent on my apartment.

~~~
3825
Did you leave anyway? Are you still staying now out of loyalty even though it
is likely you are worth more than what the company pays you (and probably
haven't put out your feelers)?

~~~
tnuc
I left a year later.

Going from leading a team to dealing with career politicians wasn't my idea of
fun.

~~~
awakeasleep
Here is the big kicker you won't read catchy blog posts about.

All the recognition, perks, and compensation in the world don't make it worth
working with 'career politicians' or employees who don't pull their weight in
management positions.

I don't think there is an easy fix, once a company reaches a certain size
these problems become unavoidable. A hiring slip-up occurs, and it isn't fixed
because of some conflict with other perks. An incompetent manager takes
advantage of a results oriented work environment. A shitty hire lands on a
team with a remote supervisor. Or some combination of both causes a rift that
doesn't close, and good workers associated with the team have to bail. Boom,
your organization has a bedsore that won't heal.

------
mustefaj
I read some of the comments about employee passiveness. Sometimes it's tough
for an employee to put themselves on the spot like that. What if the
conversation doesn't go the 'right' way?

------
NenAcOpdaf3
The answer may be more equity than you're willing to give to "just a
developer". Awards and titles are cheap by comparison.

------
squozzer
A fine sentiment. And considering the pressures of an average business,
probably not observed very often.

------
treskot
What if he/she is a real gem and you know it!

