http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660@ jdn I think you're down playing it too much by lumping it in with what is considered natural turnover in the industry. I'm talking above and beyond that. There is definitely a whole new level of turn over with skilled workers that care a lot more about their careers than the average. Adam http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment7http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment7Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:30:39 GMT@Adam Not sure you got my point. Of course people leave because their work environments are bad. All the time. My point, though, is that even if the work environment is as good as it could possibly be, people will still leave for all sorts of reasons and good managers have to plan for that. http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment6http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment6Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:11:08 GMTjdn, I just experienced a guy leave because the environment provided was not the best that I could have provided. It's way more real than the chance that they'd have left because they won the lottery. I left another company for that reason too. It's much more real than you paint it. Adam http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment5http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment5Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:34:47 GMT"You know what the most effective way to get good people? Treating them well, appreciating their work and making them happy. If a person like what they are doing, and they like where they are doing it, there would need to be a serious incentive to moving away. A good manager will ensure that they are getting good people, and they will ensure that they will keep them. That is their job. " I don't think I've said anything to suggest I disagree with this. I write off the top of my head a lot in blog posts, but I certainly didn't intend to. Having said all that, you will still leave. Well, maybe not you specifically, but employees leave all the time, even from jobs they are happy with. Maybe you decide to pursue a career in horticulture. Maybe you meet someone and decide to marry them, but they need to move to a different city, and you decide they are more important to you than your job. Maybe you win the lottery. And so on and so on. A good manager always does what they can to make you want to stay, but also always plans on what to do when you break their heart by announcing your departure (often times 6 weeks before the big deployment). I don't see this as really very controversial. http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment4http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment4Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:32:50 GMT"At a greater cost over the life time of the project. If you want to speak in numbers the MBAs will understand, you are going to have far higher TCO because you refuse to make the initial investment. " Read John Matthews' comment to Haacked at Malik's post here: http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik/archive/2007/06/15/tools-for-mort.aspx#3350008 Since he said it better and before I did, all I'll add is that I think he's right. http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment3http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment3Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:19:31 GMTMy team have recently been discussing a similar topic (see url). We are a team of around 7 all of whom are working on the same solutions in an agile project. What we have found is that some of us have gradually been implementing some of these new tools/methods/practices in the new areas of functionality, leaving existing areas of the same solution using 'the old method' this has lead to a level of inconsistency in the solutions and 'code that will cost more to support'. So we've been discussing how we can improve our shared code. Can/Should we adopt better practice? should we upgrade all existing code at the same time (within a solution)? One interesting result of the discussion was that in the past we have decided to adopt a technique that a developer used successfully. So we created a backlog work item to upgrade the rest of the solution. However this work item was never given enough priority compared to 'new functionality'. So during the discussion we acknowledged that a real emphasis needs to be made on prioritising work items that involve improving the best practice in our code and improving consistency. http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment2http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment2Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:46:58 GMT@Ayende I think you are starting to get my point. I'm *not* saying it is the right thing, or the best thing. But, when you engage a client, you have to do the best you can to leave them better than where they were. From my perspective, you *have* to do everthing to make their business processes better than what they were. In a perfect environmnet, you can make them change a lot. Good businesses allow for this. But even a good business can only allow for incremental change. That could be all they are able to do at one moment in time. I can't see why working with them to accomplish this is a bad thing. http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment1http://ayende.com/2571/people-over-code#comment1Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:16:10 GMT