
Fixing Engineering's Loyalty and Longevity Problem - patientfrog
http://firstround.com/review/fixing-engineerings-loyalty-and-longevity-problem/
======
pnathan
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.

~~~
borski
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.

~~~
floppydisk
I think the logic train the parent is espousing goes like this.

Works on challenges (intrinsic) --> gets new skills + generates increasing
value for the company

Repeat this cycle for many moons and the worker now has a significantly
upgraded skillset that has and continues to produce significant value for the
corp. All that is asked is that the salary grows with respect to the skill set
being utilized and the value being produced for the company.

If you end up in a situation where skill sets and value are increasing
substantially but compensation is stagnating, you end up in a situation where
people will eventually take a look around at the market and realize other
people with similar skillsets who provide similar value are getting offers at
a substantially higher rate (even assume inflation increase of 3-5% for
several years, that adds up). Yes, the work might be challenging and the
worker might enjoy the work intrinsically but extrinsically they're now asking
whether pursuit of the intrinsic challenge is worth it given the disparity in
how they're valued compared to their peers.

Pay isn't necessarily about the tangibles but more about how the company
values you (scorecard). If your salary gets out of line with market by a
substantial amount relative to skills, experience, and value generated, that
indicates the company doesn't necessarily value you as much or isn't willing
to expend the capital necessary to keep their employees satisfied.

The other angle one could take with this argument is that while intangibles
are nice, they cannot offset the increase in price of other things like
housing, and food. Without pay raises over time, the percentage increases in
basic cost of living will eat into the paycheck more and more. Induced
pressure from external sources can undermine intrinsic motivation, especially
if there are dependents, and increase the importance of the paycheck amount.

~~~
pnathan
> Pay isn't necessarily about the tangibles but more about how the company
> values you (scorecard). If your salary gets out of line with market by a
> substantial amount relative to skills, experience, and value generated, that
> indicates the company doesn't necessarily value you as much or isn't willing
> to expend the capital necessary to keep their employees satisfied. The other
> angle one could take with this argument is that while intangibles are nice,
> they cannot offset the increase in price of other things like housing, and
> food. Without pay raises over time, the percentage increases in basic cost
> of living will eat into the paycheck more and more. Induced pressure from
> external sources can undermine intrinsic motivation, especially if there are
> dependents, and increase the importance of the paycheck amount.

Wow, that said it better than I did.

------
ffn
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
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.

~~~
golemotron
Nice theory, but optimizing for the pivot over the running state is not a
great strategy. Even if it was you do not need the kind of diversity you
mention on the team as much as in their network.

The benefit of having a particular life experience and point of view is not
something you need 24/7\. You need it, if at all, at decision points.

~~~
scarmig
The obvious rejoinder is that those decision points make the difference
between a failed startup and a multi-billion dollar company.

As empiricists, though, it's worth asking if there are any real examples of
companies exploiting hidden market opportunities thanks to a diversity of
viewpoints. A lack of examples wouldn't be quite damning--maybe there's just
not enough diversity at all to rise above the noise level--but it'd be a
useful test of how valuable diversity actually can be.

This all stands apart from moral and ideological reasons to try to foster
diversity, which are in my view more compelling but are understandably less
effective when it comes to influencing decision makers.

------
meatysnapper
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
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
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.

~~~
tomjen3
Your manager should make more - because nobody should be a manager of software
devs who is not a software developer himself and should be able to command
more than a young engineer.

You shouldn't get to be an officer unless you were first enlisted.

~~~
killface
That would be nice, huh? I've worked for plenty of places where the dev
manager was a glorified scrum master and PM

------
nick_urban
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
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
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.

------
eabraham
"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.

~~~
tomjen3
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
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
Okay lets change it then: more money is how long you can do without a job and
still have all those things.

------
borski
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.

~~~
j_baker
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.

------
angryrancor
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.

------
gcb0
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.

------
wrsh07
Is it legal to not hire someone because they aren't planning to stick around
for more than eg 2 years?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
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
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.

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

