1. Let's evaluate to see whether the new developer is good enough, so we can fire fast if our expectations are not met.
2. Let's figure out how to help this developer achieve his/her maximum potential for adding value to the organization. If for some reason the developer is unwilling or unable to develop to a level that makes a positive contribution, then we consider separating.
I find the second approach much healthier for the employee and the organization.
And lastly, reaffirm that you've done 1 to 3 and communicate clearly that those are the expectations before you fire the person for being pretty much dead weight.
You can't figure out how a lot of people will work until they actually start a job.
The notion has less been lost and more been re-evaluated in a new context.
They started it, employees would be fools to not leave when the wind is blowing in that direction.
Lots of employers seem to be OK with the churn of young developers. Pay the below market rates until they develop enough skills and confidence to demand something better, replace those people with new grads and retain the people willing to work for below average salary.
The trick is to make companies where money isn't the only motivation for working there, because those kinds of companies will always lose in the talent wars anyway.
If the market rate for an engineer is (making up numbers) 35% higher than it was in 2010, each engineer better be making at least 1.35 times what they were five years ago. Probably more, considering they're likely better at what they do than they were five years ago.
Wrong. I've done it because it's the easiest way to actually get paid what you're worth.
Its crazy, as on some systems that I have worked on it has taken me 6 months to get fully up to speed (not that I wasn't productive before then, just a lot slower). Rather than pay 10% more, they will let employees leave and pick up the tab for a new person learning the system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNke_4WOWAU
https://speakerdeck.com/pycon2015/kate-heddleston-how-our-en...
edit: found it (I think) http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/21/8270585/twitter-gender-dis...
The meat of the essay comes down to this quote:
Business and life are built upon successful mediocrity; and victory comes to companies, not through the employment of brilliant men, but through knowing how to get the most out of ordinary folks.
Your grandfather-in-law is the perfect example of something I wish we'd see more of today.
1: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_I_Never_Hire_Brilliant_...
On the topic of on-boarding -- super important to get right! The idea of making your people the best they can be is lost, I think, on our generation. My grandfather-in-law was a mechanical engineer at Chrysler back in the day when they had a special school they ran to train their new recruits. When he started he had no idea of how cars worked but they picked him up from school and gave him the training he needed to become an important figure in their company.
Focusing on hiring the best because hiring someone mediocre will damage your business is negative thinking that can kill your on-boarding, and thus your culture and business. I've worked at places with terrible on-boarding and it was a fight just to get some direction and support for your work. Getting the attention of management was something you wanted to avoid which led to people becoming complacent about their work and its quality.
Great article. On-boarding is important to get right.