Engineer Turnover Consequences

We (tech people) are replaceable, just that replacing us takes a lot of time, effort and money.I know it feels like nitpicking, but I never felt that any of the developers were actually hard to replace: it takes some money, time spent on recruiting, interviewing, then training, but in the end, the new people catch up in a matter of months and the resources needed to invest in a replacement can be relatively easily estimated.I usually don't see that with very good business and product

Not surprising after they got rid of so many devs, reminds me of another company who did that recently, I wonder how long we will have to wait for that to start having issues.

my bet is that there is some 'technical debt', so the devs leave when said 'business is over your tech details'! :)

There are a few possibilities in that situation:(1) The engineers are not actually all leaving - it may feel like that, but maybe it's cheaper to hire a bunch of junior devs and filter out anyone that doesn't buy the loyalty bullshit and isn't content with 3% annual raises(2) They don't need decent or senior engineers, hiring and managing cheaper juniors is effective enough and cheaper(1) HR/Management are incompetent and the business is doomed to failure

It's pretty clear they're implying that the company did not value seniority or talent and ended up losing atleast one senior person with valuable knowledge-without being able to realize what exactly the person contributed. Never a good sign.Sometimes all it takes is that one key engineer leaving to kick off the domino of "how do we fix this issue/make something with our software stack?" glitches across the org

Engineers leaving, being fired or just being time, can happen to early engineers that made the company great as it changes. Changes like this are usually around growing pains and when power is transferred from engineers to the money/business or growth from small to medium or medium to large.Companies and developers evolve, sometimes they aren't as nice a fit after they do. Companies always run off good processes, but when you start hearing about new or needing changes to 'proc

The first company I worked at had a great team in all departments until we got a new head of technology. Immediately all new projects went to outsource teams, some occasionally good and others bad, so much so that we (existing devs) began to “run out” of work. Eventually they tried to replace all the devs but me, the junior, and use me as the US based engineer for customer calls and maintaining legacy products. I said no and left on good terms with everyone but the new head who didn’t understand

Key talent is incredibly important. If you lose enough senior engineers, it doesn't matter how talented the rest are. You've lost so much institutional knowledge that is either extremely difficult or impossible to regain. And Apple is notoriously under-staffed for a lot of their projects. With the staffing losses to Nuvia, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost enough key talent that it's going to take them a long time to recover and be able to deliver significant performance i

I worked for a startup that basically let 90% of its engineering team quit due to low morale over the course of a year without making any effort to (a) stop the exodus, or (b) replace them. When they exited about 6 months later, it became pretty clear that it was intentional.

And if that senior dev just left for a better job?