I need to hire a full time developer - Please Advise

[Jackie Paper]

So you want someone to write common Line Of Business workflow Apps probably with an NDA that prohibits the person from writing apps with similar code or functionality again although such apps are common. The specs will be weak so that person will probably have to do a BAs job as well. Over and above that he has to mentor the juniors so once they to his level he won't be needed after which case the juniors will want higher salaries or they will quit leaving everyone the loser.
Sounds like the typical South African software development environment.

Well, I actually wanted this person to run the division, and the juniors would be his team. Plus, if the juniors got up to standard, I would pay them as they deserve. We need a little optimism here, but thanks for the uplifting words Grandmaster.

 

[nfbs]

Well, I actually wanted this person to run the division, and the juniors would be his team. Plus, if the juniors got up to standard, I would pay them as they deserve. We need a little optimism here, but thanks for the uplifting words Grandmaster.

OK so as I understand it you are looking for a person who is a manager, BA, mentor and developer in iOS, Android and Microsoft?

Also you won a contract but you can't contract the work out because you're too busy to do so and just want to serve the role of a salesman for that project?

 

[Jackie Paper]

OK so as I understand it you are looking for a person who is a manager, BA, mentor and developer in iOS, Android and Microsoft?

Also you won a contract but you can't contract the work out because you're too busy to do so and just want to serve the role of a salesman for that project?

didn't come here to fight, "you win". If you think I'm an a-hole don't apply. If you wanna chat, I'm all ears.

 

[Ancalagon]

didn't come here to fight, "you win". If you think I'm an a-hole don't apply. If you wanna chat, I'm all ears.

I dont think you are an a-hole, I just think you are misguided.

You can think you can do things on the cheap and that it will work out. You want to hire someone to do a senior job but accept a junior salary, so you are looking for a junior that you can train up. You think all of these developers that ask for R50k per month overrate themselves badly, they are charging too much, you can get someone who can do the same work but for much cheaper. Right?

Why should you pay R50k per month for someone you dont think is worth? Thats what you are thinking right?

I'm not gonna tell you that you cant do it. What I will say is that unless you are exceptionally lucky, hiring a junior to do a senior's job will not work out well for you. You will get frustrated, want to tear your hair out.

 

[jackblue]

Hi there, if you’re looking to hire someone for the job there are lots of legit sites where you could for programmers. One of the sites I can recommend you is Staff.com. You could also look on other sites like job boards, forums, social media and etc. The best thing to do first is to test them, which also help you assure that the person you’re going to hire has the skills and expertise for the job.

 

[zippy]

So you want someone to write common Line Of Business workflow Apps probably with an NDA that prohibits the person from writing apps with similar code or functionality again although such apps are common. The specs will be weak so that person will probably have to do a BAs job as well. Over and above that he has to mentor the juniors so once they to his level he won't be needed after which case the juniors will want higher salaries or they will quit leaving everyone the loser.
Sounds like the typical South African software development environment.

You will be surprised at how common this is outside of SA

 

[Ancalagon]

You will be surprised at how common this is outside of SA

Plus, to keep expenses down, the business, if it raises salaries at all, will only raise them barely enough to keep people from resigning. Of course, people realize they are being paid less than they are worth, and feel aggrieved that their boss would not pay them more. So they leave for a higher salary.

Then, the boss decides to never train staff up again, because as soon as he does, they leave, and he cant figure out its because he isnt raising their salaries to compensate.

Plus, he stops hiring juniors, because they lack experience and require too much training. But then he doesnt like hiring seniors, because they are difficult to get and cost a lot. He moans about the state of the IT industry, moaning that there are not enough skilled seniors around, when he doesnt want to pay them what they are worth, or train juniors to become seniors.

 

[zippy]

Plus, to keep expenses down, the business, if it raises salaries at all, will only raise them barely enough to keep people from resigning. Of course, people realize they are being paid less than they are worth, and feel aggrieved that their boss would not pay them more. So they leave for a higher salary.

Then, the boss decides to never train staff up again, because as soon as he does, they leave, and he cant figure out its because he isnt raising their salaries to compensate.

Plus, he stops hiring juniors, because they lack experience and require too much training. But then he doesnt like hiring seniors, because they are difficult to get and cost a lot. He moans about the state of the IT industry, moaning that there are not enough skilled seniors around, when he doesnt want to pay them what they are worth, or train juniors to become seniors.

I have been fortunate enough to have never worked for such a place. I sometimes wonder how i manage it. am i lucky or is it something else

They pay what they need to keep you if they want to keep you. There is difference between what an employee thinks they are worth and what the market thinks they worth. Companies pay as little as they can.

If you go work for them when they offer such low rates, then you accepted their offer. May not like it. But if you could have gotten a higher offer elsewhere you would have taken it ?

The fact that someone can't get job that pays higher, probably says a lot more about the individual and/or the job market for that persons skills than it does about who they work for. It's just easier to direct anger/frustration at your boss than yourself or some obscure entity called "job market"

 

[Ancalagon]

I have been fortunate enough to have never worked for such a place. I sometimes wonder how i manage it. am i lucky or is it something else

They pay what they need to keep you if they want to keep you. There is difference between what an employee thinks they are worth and what the market thinks they worth. Companies pay as little as they can.

If you go work for them when they offer such low rates, then you accepted their offer. May not like it. But if you could have gotten a higher offer elsewhere you would have taken it ?

The fact that someone can't get job that pays higher, probably says a lot more about the individual and/or the job market for that persons skills than it does about who they work for. It's just easier to direct anger/frustration at your boss than yourself or some obscure entity called "job market"

No, thats not what I mean.

Company X offers R20 per month. Company Y offers R19 per month. You take Company X's offer.

A year later, you are now more skilled. Company X raises your salary to R21 per month, a 5% increase. If you asked Company Y what they would offer you, it would be something more like R23 to R25 per month. That is what you are worth.

Company X only raised your salary because they knew they had to. You are now getting less than you are worth.

When people move companies and get higher salaries, they are being paid what they are worth, no more no less. When you work for someone for a while, 100% guaranteed you will be underpaid, unless you are proactive in asking for raises.

Most of the time, employees are worth more than their current company thinks they are. Why do you think you hear about employees getting 100% increases when they resign?

 

[semaphore]

My current employer gives around 15% increases, and also bonuses every three months if targets are met.

 

[zippy]

No, thats not what I mean.

Company X offers R20 per month. Company Y offers R19 per month. You take Company X's offer.

A year later, you are now more skilled. Company X raises your salary to R21 per month, a 5% increase. If you asked Company Y what they would offer you, it would be something more like R23 to R25 per month. That is what you are worth.

Company X only raised your salary because they knew they had to. You are now getting less than you are worth.

When people move companies and get higher salaries, they are being paid what they are worth, no more no less. When you work for someone for a while, 100% guaranteed you will be underpaid, unless you are proactive in asking for raises.

Most of the time, employees are worth more than their current company thinks they are. Why do you think you hear about employees getting 100% increases when they resign?

Thats what i said. They pay you what they need to pay you to keep you, if they want to keep you.....

 

[cguy]

They pay what they need to keep you if they want to keep you. There is difference between what an employee thinks they are worth and what the market thinks they worth. Companies pay as little as they can.

When people move companies and get higher salaries, they are being paid what they are worth, no more no less. When you work for someone for a while, 100% guaranteed you will be underpaid, unless you are proactive in asking for raises.

Thats what i said. They pay you what they need to pay you to keep you, if they want to keep you.....

I really think that this depends very much on the company and the role you play in it.

I've worked for companies that try and optimize your salary based on what they "think" market is doing, and give a market related wage -10%, since they think that 10% isn't enough for someone to walk out on them for. Of course, what they don't realize is that sometimes, people will be willing to walk out AND even take a knock on their salary, for a host of other reasons (job sucks, better benefits, better location, better future prospects, etc.). Sometimes, they also get surprised by the fact that the market is willing to offer 50-100% more, and then they just lose the employee outright.

Also, beware of companies that offer +20+%, but have factored in that this is a one time expense, and they will slow your salary growth over the next few years to compensate for this jump. I nearly took the bait for such a company once - they told me that I would be the most highly paid engineer on the team. My first thought, was wow - they're going to throw that one at me every raise cycle from here to eternity (well, until it's not longer true ). A friend of mine actually took the job and confirmed my fears.

I've also worked for companies that will try to make critical employees completely unaffordable to the rest of the market. Not surprisingly, I'm still there.

 

[Ancalagon]

Thats what i said. They pay you what they need to pay you to keep you, if they want to keep you.....

No, not quite. I refer to this:

If you go work for them when they offer such low rates, then you accepted their offer. May not like it. But if you could have gotten a higher offer elsewhere you would have taken it ?

The fact that someone can't get job that pays higher, probably says a lot more about the individual and/or the job market for that persons skills than it does about who they work for. It's just easier to direct anger/frustration at your boss than yourself or some obscure entity called "job market"

Its not that you accept a low offer, you accept a normal offer. The problem is that the offer does not increase like it should.

Then, the developer gets a job that pays more, because he is worth more. Companies never, ever pay you what you are worth, never.

I really think that this depends very much on the company and the role you play in it.

I've worked for companies that try and optimize your salary based on what they "think" market is doing, and give a market related wage -10%, since they think that 10% isn't enough for someone to walk out on them for. Of course, what they don't realize is that sometimes, people will be willing to walk out AND even take a knock on their salary, for a host of other reasons (job sucks, better benefits, better location, better future prospects, etc.). Sometimes, they also get surprised by the fact that the market is willing to offer 50-100% more, and then they just lose the employee outright.

Also, beware of companies that offer +20+%, but have factored in that this is a one time expense, and they will slow your salary growth over the next few years to compensate for this jump. I nearly took the bait for such a company once - they told me that I would be the most highly paid engineer on the team. My first thought, was wow - they're going to throw that one at me every raise cycle from here to eternity (well, until it's not longer true ). A friend of mine actually took the job and confirmed my fears.

I've also worked for companies that will try to make critical employees completely unaffordable to the rest of the market. Not surprisingly, I'm still there.

Yeah, not all companies are the same, but the majority do not raise your salary as much as they should, and get "surprised" when you leave. Or that you are worth more.

 

[cguy]

Companies never, ever pay you what you are worth, never.

Not meaning to constantly play devils advocate, but I don't think this is always true, and I don't think that counter examples exist only in the far ends of the distribution either. The people who tend to complain about pay tend to be either the incompetent ones, who either just have no idea how weak their abilities actually are, or the top guys, who legitimately are underpaid. In my opinion the former are paid a lot more than they are worth - even if the market disagrees and hires one of them (just because they can be good or convincing in an interview, doesn't meant that that is what they are worth), shortly after that the new employer realizes their mistake, and either fires the person or effectively tries to get their money back by freezing raises (thus causing more complaints about underpayment). That person can then leave again, but will likely land up with one of those "10 years experience at 10 companies" type CVs, that most good hiring managers would steer clear of.

In contrast, the good employees may find themselves underpaid at a bad company, but they have far more mobility (i.e., options) as far as changing jobs is concerned, and can therefore usually find a company that does pay them what they are worth and keeps up with it, after which they stop complaining.

To cut a long story short, I can see why there is this impression of companies trying to exploit employees exists (i.e., sometimes it's legit, but even when it's not - the people complaining are very vocal), but the idea that it is even close to ubiquitous, is just not true. It sounds like you either need to find a better employer or try to objectively reassess your skill set relative to your peers.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not meaning to constantly play devils advocate, but I don't think this is always true, and I don't think that counter examples exist only in the far ends of the distribution either. The people who tend to complain about pay tend to be either the incompetent ones, who either just have no idea how weak their abilities actually are, or the top guys, who legitimately are underpaid. In my opinion the former are paid a lot more than they are worth - even if the market disagrees and hires one of them (just because they can be good or convincing in an interview, doesn't meant that that is what they are worth), shortly after that the new employer realizes their mistake, and either fires the person or effectively tries to get their money back by freezing raises (thus causing more complaints about underpayment). That person can then leave again, but will likely land up with one of those "10 years experience at 10 companies" type CVs, that most good hiring managers would steer clear of.

In contrast, the good employees may find themselves underpaid at a bad company, but they have far more mobility (i.e., options) as far as changing jobs is concerned, and can therefore usually find a company that does pay them what they are worth and keeps up with it, after which they stop complaining.

To cut a long story short, I can see why there is this impression of companies trying to exploit employees exists (i.e., sometimes it's legit, but even when it's not - the people complaining are very vocal), but the idea that it is even close to ubiquitous, is just not true. It sounds like you either need to find a better employer or try to objectively reassess your skill set relative to your peers.

Um no.

I'm both a business owner and an employee, and as a business owner, I know that I need to reduce overhead wherever possible. You get into the habit of asking for discounts, you want to save money all the time. When I say employers do not pay their employees what they are worth, its because I can perfectly understand why, as a business owner, you would do such a thing.

I would personally not want to do that, if I ever had staff, precisely because I know the value of good staff.

I have seen such things happen time and time again - how many threads have we seen here about guys who have literally got 50% increases when moving? Come on, dont tell me its that easy to bullsh*t your way through a development interview. Every one I have ever had, has involved in depth technical questions. 1-3 hour exams and follow up questions are the norm, as are take-home assignments. How many times do you think an employee passes all that, and turns out to be rubbish? If a company does not bother to check up on the fact that you can do X, as you say you can, whose fault is that?

Yes, some companies do pay their employees fairly. But in my experience, this is less a function of the employee's skill and more a function of the employer-employee relationship. In most cases, employees are too timid to speak up about raises, and employers are happy to reap the benefits. To be an employer, you need to have a certain mindset. Its only natural that so many of them do that.

Thanks for the completely uncalled for insult. You have absolutely no idea of my skills or experience, and yet you choose to insinuate that I am less skilled than my peers and thus less deserving a good salary. Go to hell. I know what I am capable of - the employer that recently hired me agreed, which is why my salary was 30% higher than my previous salary.

 

[cguy]

Um no.

I'm both a business owner and an employee, and as a business owner, I know that I need to reduce overhead wherever possible. You get into the habit of asking for discounts, you want to save money all the time. When I say employers do not pay their employees what they are worth, its because I can perfectly understand why, as a business owner, you would do such a thing.

I would personally not want to do that, if I ever had staff, precisely because I know the value of good staff.

So you're saying you don't underpay your employees? You just stated that companies never ever pay their employees what they're worth.

I have seen such things happen time and time again - how many threads have we seen here about guys who have literally got 50% increases when moving? Come on, dont tell me its that easy to bullsh*t your way through a development interview. Every one I have ever had, has involved in depth technical questions. 1-3 hour exams and follow up questions are the norm, as are take-home assignments. How many times do you think an employee passes all that, and turns out to be rubbish? If a company does not bother to check up on the fact that you can do X, as you say you can, whose fault is that?

How many threads are there posted by people who have experienced absolutely no crime the whole day? People who are content, don't post about it. "Number of forum posts" is about as selection biased as it gets.

As for how technical interviews can wrong - let me count the ways. Most common 1) The company/hiring team has crap interview skills. 2) they candidate is technically good, and passes all the interviews, but on the job, their personality quirks, make them absolutely impossible to work with - thus making them technically competent, but an incompetent employee. 3) the company is hiring for a skill set they don't yet possess, and end up hiring someone with all the right keywords, yet isn't actually very good

Yes, some companies do pay their employees fairly. But in my experience, this is less a function of the employee's skill and more a function of the employer-employee relationship. In most cases, employees are too timid to speak up about raises, and employers are happy to reap the benefits. To be an employer, you need to have a certain mindset. Its only natural that so many of them do that.

There is a big difference between "some" and "never, ever pay you what you're worth, never" - you are contradicting yourself, even giving you the benefit that you allowed for some epsilon of doubt in your original statement. The "mindset" of several employers that I've known has been "pay them what they're worth, otherwise they will leave and hurt the company" - that is natural. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn't.

Thanks for the completely uncalled for insult. You have absolutely no idea of my skills or experience, and yet you choose to insinuate that I am less skilled than my peers and thus less deserving a good salary. Go to hell. I know what I am capable of - the employer that recently hired me agreed, which is why my salary was 30% higher than my previous salary.

What insult? I do have absolutely no idea of your skills and experience, which is why I said that it is either your skills or your employer. I.e., the problem is with your or your employer. I don't know which, and never claimed that I did.

 

[Ancalagon]

So you're saying you don't underpay your employees? You just stated that companies never ever pay their employees what they're worth.

I dont have any. Yes, I was a being a little hyperbolic when I said that no company will ever pay an employee what they are worth.

But the point remains - the point if being in business is to make money, and to make money, you ensure that your income exceeds your expenses, which means, keeping a tight rein on your expenses, including salary expenses. Different companies will draw the line in different places in the sand - they realize that they need to save money, but also need to keep employees worth keeping. However, in my experience, most employers have the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" attitude. They dont raise an employees salary to what the employee is worth, unless the employee specifically asks for such. Why? Because you dont spend money unless you need to. If the employee does not ask, and most will not, then you save yourself the money, since the employee still works for you.

It is however, a fine line to tread. What I have observed is that a lot of employers try to play hardball regarding salaries, and also, a lot of employees leave without actually asking for that raise they so deserve.

How many threads are there posted by people who have experienced absolutely no crime the whole day? People who are content, don't post about it. "Number of forum posts" is about as selection biased as it gets.

99% of the time, when someone moves, they get a higher salary, in a lot of cases, significantly higher. If the market was perfect, and employees were always paid exactly what they deserved, then this would not happen. Now, I hear you saying, but the new employer sweetens the deal by offering more than the employee is worth, knowing that they can freeze increases later. However, I would say that the employer puts himself in a difficult spot - if you use money as the carrot, and you dont keep the increases coming, you know the employee will leave. So although that sometimes happens, I think most of the time, the higher salary is due to the fact that the employee is just worth that much more.

As for how technical interviews can wrong - let me count the ways. Most common 1) The company/hiring team has crap interview skills. 2) they candidate is technically good, and passes all the interviews, but on the job, their personality quirks, make them absolutely impossible to work with - thus making them technically competent, but an incompetent employee. 3) the company is hiring for a skill set they don't yet possess, and end up hiring someone with all the right keywords, yet isn't actually very good

This is the employers problem, not the employees, and I see bad hires happen much more often in non technical fields than in technical fields. I think in technical fields, its a lot easier to weed out bad apples. Even if I dont know anything about Objective C, I could still assess a candidate's approach to development, with regards to problem solving, forward thinking, and standards with regards to later maintenance of the project.

There is a big difference between "some" and "never, ever pay you what you're worth, never" - you are contradicting yourself, even giving you the benefit that you allowed for some epsilon of doubt in your original statement. The "mindset" of several employers that I've known has been "pay them what they're worth, otherwise they will leave and hurt the company" - that is natural. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn't.

As above, I was slightly hyperbolic, but most employers will still want to minimize costs, where possible.

Besides, a lot of them get it wrong. Why do you think you hear about toxic companies so often? Companies where the turnover rate of employees is far too high? Companies where an entire office full of people resigns within months of each other? You think management is full of worldly wise people who want to balance business ethics with profits. It is not - it is full of a mix of people, from really awesome to really terrible. Somehow, the really awesome ones are a lot more rare.

What insult? I do have absolutely no idea of your skills and experience, which is why I said that it is either your skills or your employer. I.e., the problem is with your or your employer. I don't know which, and never claimed that I did.

Then why make this personal and talk about me? I am not talking about myself in this case, I am talking about general cases, things I have seen and heard. Your line of thinking was, this guy is bitching about the way employers treat employees, ergo, he must be personally experiencing this right now.

Whatever.

 

[cguy]

99% of the time, when someone moves, they get a higher salary, in a lot of cases, significantly higher. If the market was perfect, and employees were always paid exactly what they deserved, then this would not happen.

If the market was perfect, most of that 99% wouldn't be leaving in the first place. There's that selection bias again.

This is the employers problem, not the employees, and I see bad hires happen much more often in non technical fields than in technical fields. I think in technical fields, its a lot easier to weed out bad apples. Even if I dont know anything about Objective C, I could still assess a candidate's approach to development, with regards to problem solving, forward thinking, and standards with regards to later maintenance of the project.

A bad hire is everybody's problem, and whoever caused it (and I agree - that it is usually the employers fault for not screening sufficiently), is irrelevant - that bad hire will still be pushed out one way or another, and will be making noises about his or her evil employer.

I was slightly hyperbolic

It was more than slight, which is where all the misunderstanding came in. Hyperbole stops when there is a qualitative difference between what you say, and what you mean.

Besides, a lot of them get it wrong. Why do you think you hear about toxic companies so often? Companies where the turnover rate of employees is far too high? Companies where an entire office full of people resigns within months of each other? You think management is full of worldly wise people who want to balance business ethics with profits. It is not - it is full of a mix of people, from really awesome to really terrible. Somehow, the really awesome ones are a lot more rare.

This is that quality vs. quantity thing again - I agree with all of this. Sure there are toxic companies, and bad managers, but they're not all toxic, not even close to all. I would even say that "most" is arguable.

Then why make this personal and talk about me? I am not talking about myself in this case, I am talking about general cases, things I have seen and heard. Your line of thinking was, this guy is bitching about the way employers treat employees, ergo, he must be personally experiencing this right now.
Whatever.

Thanks for telling me what my line of thinking is. Here's the non-fiction version: You say that you are an employee, and you say that all companies underpay their employees. I don't see how this can't affect you (Ancalagon) personally. Throw into the mix that you are posting about said companies on myBB, I don't see why you would think that anyone would take away that you are somehow excluded from your own, very explicit all encompassing generalization. That said, when I was saying "you" I was actually referring to "you, the reader" not necessarily "you, Ancalagon", and regardless of which you thought I was referring to, there was no insult or judgment intended, and I don't really see how one can be inferred from my side-neutral post.

 

[zippy]

I really think that this depends very much on the company and the role you play in it.

I've worked for companies that try and optimize your salary based on what they "think" market is doing, and give a market related wage -10%, since they think that 10% isn't enough for someone to walk out on them for. Of course, what they don't realize is that sometimes, people will be willing to walk out AND even take a knock on their salary, for a host of other reasons (job sucks, better benefits, better location, better future prospects, etc.). Sometimes, they also get surprised by the fact that the market is willing to offer 50-100% more, and then they just lose the employee outright.

Also, beware of companies that offer +20+%, but have factored in that this is a one time expense, and they will slow your salary growth over the next few years to compensate for this jump. I nearly took the bait for such a company once - they told me that I would be the most highly paid engineer on the team. My first thought, was wow - they're going to throw that one at me every raise cycle from here to eternity (well, until it's not longer true ). A friend of mine actually took the job and confirmed my fears.

I've also worked for companies that will try to make critical employees completely unaffordable to the rest of the market. Not surprisingly, I'm still there.

People actually believe it when someone says "you will always get a 20% increase" ? Lol.

I would run away from a company that says that. Which is probably why the 3 places I have ever worked(not counting jobs while i was full time at uni. Then it would be 4 ) at haven't been horrible stories.

Edit: thinking about it now, only 2 of those jobs I got where from agencies and both times I took the first job that I interviewed for.