Tag: team building

  • Hours, Effort, Completed Tasks and Measuring Developer Value

    Hours, Effort, Completed Tasks and Measuring Developer Value

    It may be the line of business I am in (consulting), but it seems like finding how to evaluate developers is a common challenge.  There are discussions and even arguments about developer value that impact employees, projects, and even companies.  Although I do not have some divine insight to provide, I do have some food for thought as you consider this obstacle.

    Developer Value Varies Geometrically

    The most significant challenge in finding the correct mix of skills and adequate compensation is that the growth from low to high developers is not a straight line.  The increase in productivity is geometric.  Thus, a senior developer is often more productive than junior developers splitting the same compensation.  That means that pure math is not going to help you compare resources.

    We see this in the way off-shore teams produce when compared to local resources.  Not all off-shore teams are lower skilled than local talent.  However, they often are.  The whole model of off-shore is based on quantity over quality so you can get a team of developers for the price of a local one.  The odds would imply that this will always be a better approach (more is better).  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  Those lower cost resources are not going to bring as much value to the table.  There are a few cases where this will work out better, but those are rare.

    Solving Problems Is The Key

    The thing to focus on when evaluating software developers is that they are problem-solvers more than skilled technicians.  The ability to write more code in less time has no value if the code does not provide needed solutions.  I often use the terms coder and developer to distinguish between these skills.

    Therefore, the real developer value is not in their ability to write code or even understand a language.  The value comes from their ability to analyze and solve problems.  This is why coding tests are rarely useful in evaluating prospects.  On the other hand, interviews and long-form discussions will go further in helping you choose the best candidate for your team.

    Hours or Tasks?

    Now that we have looked at what gives the most developer value, it is time to consider compensation and bonuses.  This gets far more tricky.  Although you can argue on both sides of this (hours spent or tasks completed), it turns out that both are flawed.  Sometimes it takes many hours to slug through a solution,  at other times your best developer can crank out a solution in a tenth of the time of lesser skilled ones.

    I hate to say it, but I find that honesty on both sides is the best answer.  This also requires patience and understanding.  Even the best developers will occasionally lose hours of time on a minor issue or misconfiguration.  If you want to punish them for those “lost” hours, then you need to provide a bonus when they stumble across a solution in far less time than expected.

    Ok, Hours Works Best

    When you balance out the good and bad luck that impacts developers (and dealing with the mistakes of others) then it seems that hourly pay works best.  That assumes these things balance out.  The good news is that it reduces the level of scrutiny needed.  Hours are easy to track.

    When you want to compare developers, you will need to track progress over multiple challenges or projects.  If you have a small number of comparison points, then it is easier to make a mistake.  This is no different from any other form of evaluation.  You need to focus on their overall body of work.  This includes customer reviews and references.

    If you only check a reference or two (or see only one or two reviews) then the odds of making a mistake increase considerably.  Take your time and gather enough information to accurately assign a value to your developers.  It will help you build and retain the best team.

  • Hiring For The Long Term

    Hiring For The Long Term

    The typical hiring process focuses on finding a person to fill a position.  This leads to the position being defined by the current needs of the team or company.  Thus, it usually gets simplified down to a list of desired skills. This occurs even in the modern world of IT.  There are hundreds of skills that are utilized every day.  However, we manage to find ways to reduce a position down to a set of skills.

    Short-Term Matches

    To be clear, this is a good approach when you are looking for a short-term employee or contractor. That is why a short-term match is going to be the candidate with the closest match in skills. When a candidate has a skill match, they should have little to no ramp-up time. Thus, the percentage of time where they are not productive is minimized.

    Long-Term Matches

    When we switch to looking at the best long-term employee match the importance of skills drop off. They do not become irrelevant but they should drop in priority. Instead, the fit for the team should be given more weight. Areas of this fit include items like personality, drive, work habits, etc. This is easily seen in professional sports. American football teams, for example, often will bring in players that they plan on growing into a position. This is done rather than trying to fill a position immediately. They have found that it tends to be too expensive to hire for the position directly. Resulting in cases where even a perfect match for skills may be a bad hire.

    Bad Fits

    This would be a case where the hire does not fit with the organization. The long-term approach should be used in hiring full-time employees. It provides a better approach to building a team, keeps staffing costs down, builds loyalty, and more. This approach fits employees for the job they will have tomorrow as well as the needs for today. Please note, you can always stay tactical and hire consultants or employees that you only care to keep for a short time. However, when you do this too often, the costs can become detrimental.

    The regular loss of intellectual property (IP) due to turnover is also a standard weakness of the tactical approach. This tends to cause a loss of quality as companies rely more on short-term resources than those that have more of a vested interest in the success of the company.

    Strategic Job Descriptions

    One of the first things to focus on with strategic hiring is how job descriptions are done. A focus should be placed on skills that are needed in the long term and not just the short term skill set. The short term skills should be considered “nice to have” as it will help the employee become productive sooner. Since we are looking at a long term investment, the skills that are needed in the long term should end up providing more value to the company. Thus they outweigh a slow start when the employee needs to learn those short term skills. Obviously, the applicant with a match of both short and long term skill sets will be the best.

    When putting together a job description that is more strategic it helps to look at where you see the ideal employee in one, three, five, or more years. What skills will they need to have for that role or position? Do they need to have those skills today? On the other hand, do they need to have a certain set of skills that will help them get to that position/role you envision for them?

    This approach teaches that it quickly becomes less about technical skills and more about soft skills. These include things like: the ability to learn, fit with the current team, ability to help build the team, work ethic. Also, do not forget skills and traits that will make the employee a fit in the company rather than just a fit for the job. The true benefits of a strategic hire may have nothing to do with the position they are hired for. The initial role may simply be a stepping stone to prepare the employee for a position where they will bring greater value to the company.

    The Interview

    In the hundreds of interviews I have done of technical candidates, I cannot think of a single one where the answer to a technical question did much to sway me on choosing them. You do need to use technical questions to properly vet candidates. However, when you have a pool of candidates that all pass the technical test, what is the next step? How do you differentiate among them to find the best candidate? If you are looking at a short term fit, then the answer is “who cares?” You just pick one and make an offer. They won’t be around long enough for you to notice anything beyond what they were tested on. A strategic hire is different. You can find the best technical skill set in an employee that ends up being poisonous to the company and does serious harm.

    The strategic interview needs to get the candidate talking. Ask them about their likes and dislikes, habits, goals, and anything else that can help you learn about them beyond their technical skills. You should be able to learn how they work and how they will fit (or not) into your team and/or group. Take a close look at the personality of your group and ask leading questions to see if the candidate will be a fit for that group personality and style.

    Environmental Conflicts

    For example, your office may tend to be very loud and full of conversations. If the candidate prefers a quiet and/or solitary sort of work environment, then they may not be effective, or may quickly become unhappy. Your team might often discuss ideas and avoids anyone feeling like they have personal ownership of a problem or solution. Bringing in someone that is happiest when they have some sort of ownership could cause friendly discussions to suddenly take on a personal aspect that stifles conversations.

    Strategic Questions

    I have found a great source of strategic questions come from those that are “too busy” to interview candidates. These are often high-level managers or executives that want to keep a finger on the pulse of their teams and hires. Unfortunately, they don’t have the time to get into the details of a position when evaluating a candidate. They may even start by saying they have no idea about the technical aspects of the job/role, but they want to get a measure of the type of person the candidate is.

    The questions will usually be open-ended. This is because the interviewer is looking for a style or direction in the response. How the answer is delivered helps point to whether the candidate is a good fit or not. When in doubt, ask one of these senior execs or even the CEO, if you can get their time, about how they see the company and its employees. Where do they see the company going and what sort of people are going to be needed to make that journey? What is the makeup of the “ideal” employee?

    The Bottom Line

    These are just a few thoughts, but hopefully, it has sparked some ideas for you. Your team should be viewed as a long-term investment in time and resources. Therefore, hire with the big picture in mind. It will save you a lot of time and the headaches caused by turnover.

  • Building a Team For The Long Term – Keeping Core Staff

    Building a Team For The Long Term – Keeping Core Staff

    There are so many factors that go into a successful development team that it can seem like an impossible task.  The technology and requirements seem to change daily, and there are always options for staff to move to another job.  All that being said, there is a considerable value in keeping core staff in the team and creating long-term stability.  This is not a goal that will just magically be accomplished.  It takes some planning and effort as well as communication with the team.

    A Career Path

    One of the traits that all good developers share is a passion for advancing their career.  It is important to recognize that career advancement is not just a title or higher pay.  Both of those are important, if not critical.  However, there is far more to a successful career path.

    It may seem obvious, but the best among IT staff tend to the technical.  They may advance to where they do not write code every day, but that does not mean they will not be technologists.  There are managerial, mentor, and architect roles that can be very technical in day-to-day tasks.  Thus, the career path you offer should be a steady growth towards scaling the skills of your best staff, not a choppy series of steps.

    This approach does make titles sort of “fuzzy” in their application.  That can be a challenge, but it does allow for a natural progression of skills, experience, and responsibilities.  For example, There should be a lead role that is not a senior developer nor a manager.  This provides a path into testing (and refining) management and leadership skills from a developer.  The staff can progress without a trial by fire approach where they are thrown into a role 100% and without much support.

    Perpetual Mentoring Everywhere

    A good team starts at the top and carries through to the bottom a culture of nurture or mentoring.  Every role must include a mentorship or teaching aspect.  Thus, the team will have an internal drive to improve itself by improving every member.  When you have this sort of environment you have one that is not only positive for the team, it also attracts the best from elsewhere.

    The thing about an environment that fosters growth is that it is not easy to find.  When a “guru” or “superstar” developer hears about a job that exists in this environment, they are immediately attracted to it.  Of course, that creates a snowball effect where the team that builds itself draws those that desire to develop the team.  Before you know it, you have an organization like Google or Amazon where everyone is knocking on your door to be a part of your story.

    Money Talks

    For better or worse, money is an important part of keeping core staff.  You can be an incredible organization that does not pay very well.  However, that will soon fade as the best on your team are lured away by better compensation.  On the other hand, developers often like to stay where they are and avoid the “headaches” involved in moving to a new job.

    This is where momentum works to your advantage.  You do not have to be the best deal in town.  A compensation plan and approach that shows your respect for the team members will offset that deficiency.  Likewise, stay competitive in how you compensate staff and include some bonuses that factor in the savings associated with a stable team.  I love the idea of retention bonuses that payout based on staying with the company for another year.  This sort of plan can do wonders in keeping staff around for a while.  Better yet, it often stops them from looking for another job based on cold calls.  Yes, they will still leave a negative situation.  They just will not be as likely to consider out-of-the-blue offers throughout the year as they will be steadily focused on the next bonus day.

    In the same way, there should be regular reviews and raises.  It is difficult to wait until a team member complains about their situation before acting.  They may have already decided to leave no matter what your response whereas being proactive can win back a member before they are lost for good.

    Value Them

    The bottom line in all of this is to value your team members. Show them the respect you have for them as people and workers on a regular basis.  Make it evident that they are appreciated and that you desire them to grow as individuals, not just as a team.  This goal can be achieved without spending much more money.  However, it cannot be reached without being intentional about bringing forth the best from every member.