All Annotations of Up or Out: Solving the IT Turnover Crisis - The Daily WTF[Preview]

saved by8 people, first byTravis Swicegood on 2008-04-29, last byFiona Banjer on 2008-06-23

• the most talented software developers tend to not stick around at one place for too long
• The least talented folks
• entrench themselves deep within the organization, often building beachheads of bad code that no sane developer would dare go near
• Employees – especially the most talented ones – are not “dating around” and moving from place to place in search of the Perfect Company at which they can grow old and retire at. They’ve already aced the first four rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy and are in search of self-actualization: the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can.
• Indefinite retention is impossible; employees always quit.
• They tend to be grateful they have a job and make fewer demands on management; even if they find the workplace unpleasant, they are the least likely to be able to find a job elsewhere. They tend to entrench themselves, becoming maintenance experts on critical systems, assuming responsibilities that no one else wants so that the organization can’t afford to let them go.
• What was once “fresh new ideas that we can’t implement today” become “the same old boring suggestions that we’re never going to do”
• This leads towards a loss of self actualization which ends up chipping away at motivation.
• Nothing – not even a team of on-site masseuses – can assuage this loss.
• A company with a culture of quitting does not have ex-employees; they have alumni. This is far more than a semantic distinction.
• An alumni relationship is positive; something that people can take pride in; and one that keeps the door open for further opportunities on both ends.
• But perhaps the most important benefit to a culture of quitting is that it effectively flushes out the residue of unskilled employees. When someone hasn’t moved up or out after a few cycles, it becomes painfully evident who the weakest link is. Everyone – even that certain someone – knows that they’ve long outstayed their welcome. If the sheer awkwardness of being “that guy” doesn’t cause him to leave on his own, and he still doesn’t get it after being asked to resign, then certainly no one will miss him when he’s inevitably let go.
• The higher-up the position, the longer the curve. Changes tend to occur much more slowly at the top. For example, a basic “refactoring” of a department’s teams could take well over a year to implement.
• The greater the skill, the shorter the curve. Ambition and skill go hand-in-hand, and ambitious individuals tend to want swift changes, and quickly lose motivation when these don’t happen.
• The larger the company, the shorter the curve. Large teams are generally not receptive to ideas from the new guy, leaving a large part of contribution (i.e. past experience) wasted. Furthermore, promotions are often based on tenure, not skill.
• The smaller the company, the longer the curve. Smaller companies, on the other hand, are more receptive to change, allowing one to contribute past experiences for a long while.
• That said, we still need to bring these changes to our industry. Obviously, we can’t all implement the Cravath System overnight. For many companies – especially those who really don’t need skilled developers –a full-fledged Cravath system will never be a good fit.

• on 2008-04-30 Avdigrimm
  It's time to be realistic about the fact that employees eventually quit.