|
|
|
|
|
by shagie
1750 days ago
|
|
Spending five times as long to hire a senior who doesn't leave in a year or two is then a much better situation. A junior dev hire involves sifting through many resumes, and then interviews, onboarding, and then three to six months of lower productivity for the mentor. All of that represents losses against the current status quo. The current status quo is predictable. This completely discounts the "accept and renege" that also is common with juniors looking for a job which can reset the job search back to square one even when you do find a good candidate. Taking six months or a year to hire a senior has fewer resumes to sort and fewer interviews to conduct. When the person is hired, they've got a much shorter onboarding and has the necessary skills to be able to become familiar with the codebase without causing a hit to the productivity of the rest of the team (or other seniors). In this situation, hiring a senior is likely a much better outcome with fewer seen and unforeseen negatives and an eventual positive. |
|
yes - assuming the senior also doesn't leave.