Re:Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
by closeparen on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @03:47PM
(#28053287)
Remember that the architecture competency in FAANG exists in the context of a 2-3 year average tenure. And this elides a tendency to change teams internally even more frequently than that. It is unlikely that a senior engineer rated "Exceeds" at design and architecture in Silicon Valley has ever learned from or been evaluated on the consequences of their own decisions at more than 4 years out. Median probably one year.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
by kyralis on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:31PM
(#28053777)
An average tenure hides a good number of people with longer tenure than that. I'm personally a counterexample to your point, for instance, and I know quite a number of others on other teams at my company (one of the FAANGs).
Turnover is definitely not uniform and a 12 month architecture lifespan is not, in my experience, either normal or healthy.
Re:Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
by closeparen on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @05:03PM
(#28054192)
My experience is that architectures usually last 2-3 employee tenures, the point is the original architect usually doesn't see the outcome of their work.