Loading...
Answers
MenuHas the tech industry figured out their talent debacle yet? Or are they making the same mistakes?
Now that I work for a tech company, I see first hand the mistake that these tech companies make when it comes to talent management. it appears that good "techs" get promoted, but the high performers and high achievers get looked over. Why is this still happening? Is there any company that has figured this out? Who is not suffering from the mistakes of the peter principle in the tech industry?
Answers
What you are experiencing is not unique to tech industry. Most industries have been subject to ineffective human capital management. HR in general has not seen the same focus as marketing and product development because of lack of long term vision. Most recent innovations and emphasize has been in streamlining processes as opposed to increasing long term human capital development and maintenance.
The reason behind those shortcomings are as dynamic as the problem it selves: office politics, incoherent leadership, lack of knowledge / knowledge management procedures, lack of long term planning, etc. There are simply too many possible variations but generally it comes down to lack of leadership within the organization.
All said and done you occasionally hear anecdotal success stories that hint at more scientific ways of managing HR in general and Human Capital Management in specific. But it far too little and too sporadic to call it a “change in progress”.
A quick and good read: http://www.obxerve.com/en/article/talent-mismanagement/
Related Questions
-
If an employee receives another job offer and can't make up their mind, what's the best way to force them to make a decision and stick to it?
It's great that this employee has been transparent about the fact another company wants him. The problem is that this employee is ambivalent about his connection to your Company. Really, under 100 employees at least, this is unacceptable. I would first reflect on why you think he's looking elsewhere. Then, I'd ask him that, admitting that you have failed to create an environment in which he has stayed engaged and motivated on what he's working on. If his answers seem reasonable and you can commit to making the changes necessary, then you won't need an employment contract, he'll stay on his own desire, because you listened to him and improved his situation. If his requests seem unreasonable or you know you won't be able to make those changes, fire him *today.* This situation can contaminate your entire company quickly. Yes, swapping someone out will always be a bit of a setback, but you want *everyone* on your team, feeling motivated and excited by what they're doing. It sounds like you're making your decision out of fear (having to find and hire another engineer) versus what's best for the Company, long term. Happy to talk to you in a call. Problems like this are within the sweet spot of my skills and passion.TW
-
My boss keeps extending the date of my annual review for a possible raise. How can I expedite the process and what preparation do I need?
What are the company's policies regarding the frequency and timing of employee reviews? Start by checking your employee handbook and make sure you completely understand the policies. You then have a decision to make: you can approach your boss to discuss the matter and try to work it out, you can talk to your HR professionals to ask them to address it on your behalf, or you can wait and ask if any adjustment to your compensation can be made retroactively, in light of the delay. Each strategy carries risks. The first two risk impacting your long term relationship with your boss. The last strategy is a financial risk but preserves the relationship. You have to ultimately decide what's most important to you, and what consequences you're willing to live with. Happy to talk with you directly if I can be of more help.WW
-
I'm looking to bring my part time remote developer in house full time. How do I motivate and incentivize him without giving away equity?
You already said it: "He isn't interested in salary as much as equity." If this developer is any bit worth his salt, he is worth the equity. A smaller piece of a bigger pie is far more valuable than a big piece of a small (or worthless) pie. Profit sharing is a red flag to me that just sounds "Cheap," unless you guys are making tons and tons of profit already. I don't know where you're based, but In Silicon Valley, a good developer can easily fetch $300-500k (base + bonus + yearly equity). UC Berkeley's average starting salary for NCGs majoring in EECS or Computer Science is $108k. Salary is something a good developer can easily get; why your startup (possibly unstable) rather than another more established company? If as the other person said, he walks and you're company is crippled, give him equity. Happy to chat more.JT
-
How do I design my organisational structure (staff)?
This depends upon where you are in the start-up continuum. If you are still in search of a viable business model (i.e. the start-up phase) then the "multiple hats" scenario is spot on. In this phase the key is to discover that which is repeatable and scalable. In other words - to put your energy and resources into discovering things like: -Who your market is -What your positioning is -What your offers are -What your pricing model is -Where your market is (aka what channels to use for inbound and outbound marketing) -etc Warning: It would be a mistake to think you already have these things figured out when you haven't. In my experience - mastery of these "basics" are what separates successful businesses from floundering ones. And no offense - but if you are only at $1.1M in gross revenues then it seems to me like you are just beginning to figure these things out. Due to the need for flexibility in this phase (some call this being "agile") you are best served by a team that is willing and able to do what's needed. There will likely not (yet) be any "established" positions. And with (gross?) revenues of only $1.1M it would seem that you wouldn't require a large team anyway. [I suppose this depends upon your current business model - so I apologize for making this assumption.] Once you've discovered a viable business model - then it's time to build systems (since you will only then know all that goes into making the sale). These systems will help you efficiently and effectively scale and repeat. It's at that time you would start creating "positions" (aka jobs) and hiring staff to do what you discovered works. All in all - Much depends on where you are right now in order for me (or anyone else) to provide you with more specific direction. I'd love to talk this through with you if you are still looking for assistance. Best of luck!DB
-
Should I allow external clients to conduct a technical interview of my employees, as we are an outsourcing company?
If it's a client you want to work with and this is part of the client's requirements then yes, you should allow this or politely decline the business. The client has the right to ask for anything and you have the right to approve or decline. I ran an offshore software services company in Costa Rica after being a Division Manager at Cognizant and now I advise and work with 50 software companies in 25 countries and this is a common request that is complied with. This isn't to say you shouldn't make the reasonable argument that it is preferred that interviews are conducted just with team leads who will then vet and manage the rest of the team. Even though you recruited, vetted, hired and trained your employees, the client wants to validate that your standards and definitions of capabilities are in line with theirs. That is a reasonable exercise assuming you want the business and you feel that this investment of time and validation will lead to a long, fruitful relationship.AH
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.