[sjtgraham]

Steve, does it really matter? Even if a super-talented developer only stays with you for say 6-12 months surely they would deliver enough value in that time to not make it a huge concern? Also, let's flip the question on its head, if a company can't hold on to talented, entrepreneurial staff, is it indicative of a problem with the staff or with the company? What's the common denominator here?

What is better? Being fortunate enough to have a super smart person come on board, deliver a large amount of value, and then leave after a short period; or a less talented developer delivering lower quality work, at a lower velocity over a longer period?

I'm not sure talented but flighty people are a problem. Once they're in the door, it's the company's job to make sure their staff are happy and want to stay rather than moan about it.

[Peroni]

6-12 months is plenty of time for a talented dev to have a big impact but I'd much rather hire them on a contract basis than a permanent basis in that circumstance.

Regardless of how adept a company is at retaining their best talent, you will never be able to compete with the appeal of running your own business and being your own boss.

[modoc]

That depends greatly on how deep the domain knowledge at your company is, and the level of investment you make in your employees. If it takes 3 months for a new hire to even start being mostly productive (more than 50% productive and less than 50% drain on mentors' time) and 6+ months before they're really productive (90+/10-%), then the equation is very different. If you invest $10,000/year in employee training and development, you don't really want people leaving after 6-12 months, etc...

yes a company should provide a good atmosphere and have employees who want to stay, but if you're coming in the door with the plan to get paid for 6 months and then quit and try another startup.... then you'd be a net loss for me to hire