Hacker News Reader

Comment by softwaredoug | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the team should be resilient first and foremost: when high performing members leave voluntarily, it can readily accept and incorporate new members, while maintain a certain work output and high morale.

Such a team has a reasonably amount of voluntary turnover. Too little turnover and too high turnover create different problems. Either teams stuck in their ways, overly rigid in roles, and overly dependent on certain heroic members, the org is terrified to lose. Teams with too much turnover lose valuable experience before it can be passed on.

In my mind good teams are teaching and learning machines: members adopt new/different ideas, different roles, new members, by being given safe space to fail and be curious.

View on HN

I don't think artificial turnover is the solution. Teams need good documentation and design or else onboarding/offboarding will be painful and a huge distraction. If you've got good documentation and design methodology, then there is no need to churn the team artificially. Keep documentation up to date, design well, and redesign areas that are tech debt or not done well. That's easier said than done though. There is no magic bullet.

> I don't think artificial turnover is the solution.

I didn’t see this being suggested in the parent post.

I actually think there’s optimum voluntary and non artificial turnover where people naturally move to other opportunities. And conversely a calcification where people get stuck in a comfort zone.

I don’t think people should be forced to leave. Instead I paradoxically think people should be hired more interested in growth and this more likely to leave / move around the company / try different roles.

Who defines calcification and comfort zone? Be careful you don't confuse a mature stack with subject matter experts who can execute effectively as "outdated calcification". I would be wary of someone who wants to hop around a lot. Are they adding tangible value to every team or disrupting things before bailing to the next team?

The entire second paragraph is about finding optimum turnover to keep the team fresh and dynamic. I think it's impossible to control organic voluntary turnover, as you don't control people's lives/desires. The alternative would be artificial turnover, moving people in and out of teams as needed to meet this goal. I think people joining and leaving is disruptive regardless of it being organic or artificial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com