Comment by InsideOutSanta
3 days ago
This is the root of the issue. For something like Azure, people are nor fungible. You need to retain them for decades, and carefully grow the team, training new members over a long period until they can take on serious responsibilities.
But employees are rewarded for showing quick wins and changing jobs rapidly, and employers are rewarded for getting rid of high earners (i.e. senior, long-term employees).
> For something like Azure, people are nor fungible
What I've learned from a decade in the industry is that talent is never fungible in low-demand areas. It's surprisingly hard to find people that "get it" and produce something worthwhile together.
I would say "systems design" rather than low-demand.
People who can "reduce" a big system to build on a few simple concepts are few and far between. Most people just add more stuff instead.
I think those people are around, they are just not rewarded by this kind of system. They can propose plans and fixes, they just don't get implemented.
1 reply →
When things become too complicated, no one dares to make new systems. And if you don’t make new systems ofc you have to learn system design the other way around — by fixing every bug of existing systems.
Simple ain’t Easy
- Rich Hickey
[dead]
There are often retention problems with lean budgets, and after training staff they often do just leave for a more lucrative position.
Loyalty will often not be rewarded, as most have seen companies purge decade long senior staff a year before going public.
It is very easy to become cynical about the mythology of silicon valley. =3
What is a low-demand area?
A geographic area where there's not abundant opportunity for software developers. Usually everywhere outside the major metro areas. It was primarily meant to discount experiences from SF or Seattle where I'm sure finding talent is easy enough, assuming you are willing to pay.
I thought of this not as geographic but in terms of what’s sexy vs not. Low Demand = not
2 replies →
This is a human problem. We humans praise the doctors that can put the patients with terminal illnesses alive for extended periods, but ignore those who tell us the principles to prevent getting those illnesses in the first place. We throw flowers and money to doctors who treat cancers, but do we do the same to the ones who tell us principles to avoid cancers? No.
The same for MSFT or any other similar problem. Humans only care when the house is on fire — in the modern Capitalism it means the stock goes down 50%, and then they will have the will to make changes.
That’s also why reforms rarely succeeded, and the ones that succeeded usually follows a huge shitstorm when people begged for changes.
> Humans only care when the house is on fire
In corporate context it's because that's, in theory, an effective use of resources:
If 20 teams are constantly "there is a huge risk of fire", a lot of mental energy is wasted figuring out how to stack rank those 20 and how real of a fire risk there is. If instead you wait when there is a real fire, you can get the 15 teams actually fixing that one.
In practice, you've probably noticed that the most politics-playing & winning teams are the teams which are really effective at :
1) faking fires
2) exaggerating minor fires
3) moving fast & breaking things on purpose (or at least as a nice side effect) to create more fires in their area of ownership* , and get rewarded with more visibility & headcount to fix those fires.
* As long as they have firm grip of that area... If they don't, they risk having it re-orged to another team.
>If instead you wait when there is a real fire, you can get the 15 teams actually fixing that one.
In this case, with Microsoft's really amazing revenue stream, a charismatic management team can distort reality for quite some time and convince the right people within the company that there is no fire.
Yeah the more "honest" side at least tried to fix it after the fire. The demagogue ones like to fake fire and move fast.
This is a capitalism problem.
If you treat people well and give them the means to survive without trying to wring every red cent you can out of them, they'll be more likely to stick around and keep providing value.
[dead]