It's sort of hilarious how little effort most companies spend on retention considering how much effort they spend on recruitingpic.twitter.com/5fD1VAHyYw
Signing bonuses are another example of this -- many seem designed to incentivize people to jump ship once they expire
-
-
I recently got a 12% raise; pretty good for my company, but still not enough to offset signing
. I can stay and 
or leave and 
-
Not strictly true since we have retention
and will match offers, but forcing employees to interview to avoid seems bad in the long run -
In fact, it seems bad in the short run, too. I don't know anyone who took the retention
(although I know people who know people who did). - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is especially crazy. Theory probably is that yearly stock grants end up being worth more, but I don't think that's actually true
-
Yeah. If you have 1:2:3 signing:stock:salary and get a 10% raise, you still need 45% stock appreciation.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
they feel, as an organization, entitled to retention
-
which is bullshit
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe the burn-out is part of the design to make room for new people? :-)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's similar when you get none or very few RSUs (as part of retention) if the stock has done well since you're initial grant.
-
you're punished for taking a chance on the stock and doing well.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.