| "We invest in training people and bringing them up to speed to where they need to be, and boom they're gone"
Straight from the article - they invest NOTHING in retention. It's a separate process altogether.
| "Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says."
So he's changed HR titles from "Software Engineer I" to "Software Engineer II". No change in compensation package, responsibility, or goals. Nothing that has any weight and no light at the end of the tunnel.
| "Where I think these guys would be very energized, they get almost disincentivized. The way our projects work, we bring in a developer to work on a module. These guys own a system from start to finish. To me, that's a great opportunity."
Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them
| "There have been a number of cases where we have had a system that runs into issues, bugs, defects or a major change requirement. We thought it would be a challenge for a developer to own it. But their first reaction is to want to scrap it and start over. There's a whole different mindset."
You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.
| "Secondly, we're working more closely with folks to determine their strengths and desires and align them to the right systems."
If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.
| "Third, as new developers come in, we are teaming them with a business partner to help them understand the impact of their system on the business. "
Guild trip model. After all, you've been working with CustomerX for a year now... don't you like them? don't you want to help them? don't you want them to be happy?
| "We're trying to get them more invested in the strategy. We're trying to engage them in where the company is going. "
So he doesn't want their input. This is perhaps the biggest reason people are leaving.
So he underpays, refuses to change, and doesn't want their input - and he wonders why he can't retain people?
I think that's a very cynical misreading of the article.
| Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them
Owning a project means that you get to drive the direction of it, not that you own the IP. This is very important, it makes people feel in control and that their work is meaningful.
| You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.
Legacy code however is a reality of the software world, and a responsible software developer has to know how to deal with it. I'm sure that Facebook and Google have lots of old, forgotten and important code, but they didn't get to where they are by rewriting things every time they could be a little bit nicer. That said, the company has to make this as painless as possible for people.
| If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.
Determining strengths and weaknesses is part of growing in a company. Most people out of college are smart, but mostly directionless. Very few have experience with distributed systems, UI/UX, concurrency, etc., and part of growing is to give them the opportunity to see what's out there, and try new things. If people feel like they're stagnating, they'll leave. Since I graduated, I've been exposed to things that I didn't even have the slightest clue existed.
The employees are not in control and their input isn't wanted. If the argument centers around making them "feel" a certain way, then that's called delusion.
Throughout the article there's no mention of anything tangible done for retention.
Combine that with the lack of interest in exploring a retention model and I (and seemingly most other contributors here) have little sympathy for someone crying "I can't keep anyone".
Quality people are easy to find, they're out there in droves. Finding a quality company is the difficult part.
Comments
That CIO is selling smoke and mirrors.
| "We invest in training people and bringing them up to speed to where they need to be, and boom they're gone"
Straight from the article - they invest NOTHING in retention. It's a separate process altogether.
| "Even when CIOs promote 20- and 30-somethings, they often don't have loyalty to the organization, Mok says."
So he's changed HR titles from "Software Engineer I" to "Software Engineer II". No change in compensation package, responsibility, or goals. Nothing that has any weight and no light at the end of the tunnel.
| "Where I think these guys would be very energized, they get almost disincentivized. The way our projects work, we bring in a developer to work on a module. These guys own a system from start to finish. To me, that's a great opportunity."
Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them
| "There have been a number of cases where we have had a system that runs into issues, bugs, defects or a major change requirement. We thought it would be a challenge for a developer to own it. But their first reaction is to want to scrap it and start over. There's a whole different mindset."
You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.
| "Secondly, we're working more closely with folks to determine their strengths and desires and align them to the right systems."
If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.
| "Third, as new developers come in, we are teaming them with a business partner to help them understand the impact of their system on the business. "
Guild trip model. After all, you've been working with CustomerX for a year now... don't you like them? don't you want to help them? don't you want them to be happy?
| "We're trying to get them more invested in the strategy. We're trying to engage them in where the company is going. "
So he doesn't want their input. This is perhaps the biggest reason people are leaving.
So he underpays, refuses to change, and doesn't want their input - and he wonders why he can't retain people?
I think that's a very cynical misreading of the article.
| Poster child for delusional. The developer doesn't own it, the company does. He's just trying to guilt trip them
Owning a project means that you get to drive the direction of it, not that you own the IP. This is very important, it makes people feel in control and that their work is meaningful.
| You can't hang a pine tree from your 1972 Gremlin and pass the car off as new.
Legacy code however is a reality of the software world, and a responsible software developer has to know how to deal with it. I'm sure that Facebook and Google have lots of old, forgotten and important code, but they didn't get to where they are by rewriting things every time they could be a little bit nicer. That said, the company has to make this as painless as possible for people.
| If he's doing this with employees he's already too late. This should be done during the interview and assessment process before they get hired. If you just hired someone and you're first thought is "I wonder what to do with them", then duh - they're going to start looking elsewhere.
Determining strengths and weaknesses is part of growing in a company. Most people out of college are smart, but mostly directionless. Very few have experience with distributed systems, UI/UX, concurrency, etc., and part of growing is to give them the opportunity to see what's out there, and try new things. If people feel like they're stagnating, they'll leave. Since I graduated, I've been exposed to things that I didn't even have the slightest clue existed.
The employees are not in control and their input isn't wanted. If the argument centers around making them "feel" a certain way, then that's called delusion.
Throughout the article there's no mention of anything tangible done for retention.
Combine that with the lack of interest in exploring a retention model and I (and seemingly most other contributors here) have little sympathy for someone crying "I can't keep anyone".
Quality people are easy to find, they're out there in droves. Finding a quality company is the difficult part.