Turnover is all too common in software engineering. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021 report found that the average software engineer turnover is 57.3%. It’s a programmer’s market, and these sought-after folks might jump ship for a higher salary, better work-life balance, different team dynamic or perhaps even for a company with a better ESG footprint. Yet, constant changeups in a development team can stifle progress when there’s pressure to meet new digital demands and rapidly deliver new features.
IT skills shortages can impede innovation across the board. But turnover can be especially problematic in the field of DevOps, as the practice relies on collaboration between teams and a shared sense of operational standards. Here, a gap in shared knowledge can impair ongoing platform maintenance.
I recently met with Nathan Sutter, global VP of engineering at CoderPad, to examine the core reasons behind engineering turnover and look at specific ways to prevent it in DevOps teams. In a nutshell, he advocated for reducing context switching, giving both engineering and product teams a seat at the table and not underestimating your teammates’ flexibility.
Reduce Context Switching
Engineers like having ownership and pride around what they’re creating—take that away, and it can lead to burnout and even an exit from the company. The more you context switch, describes Sutter, the less you focus on building a core project and the less attached you feel to the code or architecture you’re creating. “Engineers like to build cool stuff, ship it, and use it,” he said.
Context switching may occur for a couple of reasons. First, it may just result from poor planning, in which case engineering time is wasted. Secondly, context switching might arise due to legitimate emergencies, such as incident response or necessary bug fixes. Furthermore, enterprises traditionally ship operational concerns to a production team, thus increasing the number of applications a developer oversees and decreasing their role in ongoing maintenance.
Instead, Sutter is a proponent of allowing developers to own everything about an application end-to-end. Essentially, the DevOps or infrastructure team builds the scaffolding and the application teams own the rest, such as writing Terraform configurations, Docker containerization, monitoring and alerts, and on-call assistance. In other words, you operate what you build and own the component throughout its entire lifecycle. This practice has already been embraced by full-cycle developers at Netflix.
Specifically, in DevOps, the on-call cycles can be challenging when you have so many things to own. “When you have 25 apps to look after, something is always going off,” said Sutter. “This is an “exhausting, thankless and horrific way to work.” This imbalance can affect the work-life balance and decrease your time to focus on upgrading core infrastructure.
Don’t Separate Engineering and Product Teams
Another setback that might manifest itself in turnover has to do with inefficiencies caused by siloed teams. For example, suppose a product team spends months outlining a complex software design in a black box. In that case, they will most likely encounter many issues once the schematics are finally sent to engineering teams. Without collaboration between the two groups earlier on, organizations can increase time-to-market for new features and encounter frustration between teams.
Instead, Sutter believes product and engineering teams should counterbalance each other and collaborate more in the product design phase. Whereas product teams can “skate where the puck is going” and identify trends in the market, engineering teams figure out how to technically implement these designs and build a sequence of work that’s scalable for the long-term. Of course, the other side rings true, too—engineers can overplay their hand and plan minute details too far into the future, described Sutter. This underpins a need for ongoing collaboration where both sides have a voice at the table.
Don’t Underestimate Flexibility
Even though software engineers like to have a sense of ownership, we shouldn’t discourage flexibility—people easily become bored working on the same thing for years and years. There’s also the fallacy of sunk cost to keep in mind, which states that we tend to value things more because we’ve put more time and effort into them. Thus, providing flexibility to pivot when it makes sense can increase overall satisfaction and output.
Accordingly, flexible management is also crucial to embrace pivots when they are necessary. For example, if a project is well underway but an engineer identifies a new solution that is more elegant, team leads should be open to recognizing and acting on changes. But to realize this sort of relationship, trust and openness must be bidirectional, said Sutter. If engineers can’t express their ideas or are afraid to tell their boss they’re wrong, these important conversations can’t happen.
A flexible structure is also necessary to attract talent that prefers more modern work-life balance. As big tech companies with multimillion-dollar commercial leases now want workers to return to physical offices, small-to-medium companies now have an unprecedented upper hand to attract and retain talent if they embrace flexible remote-hybrid working options, added Sutter.
What Matters Most?
The majority of developers working on open source projects are open to changing jobs in 2022, according to the EDB Open Source Talent Survey. Job satisfaction is challenging to wrap your head around, and each engineer may be motivated by various reasons.
But having assembled and led many software engineering teams over the years, Sutter recognized an interesting change in the attitudes of what matters most to software engineers in their day-to-day job. Pre-COVID, software engineers were definitely interested in higher compensation, he said. After that, it was building something they’re proud of, team camaraderie, the worth of a brand name and a positive work-life balance. Post-COVID, compensation and other benefits are still just as valid. Yet, hybrid flexibility is often table-stakes—some are even willing to take a pay cut to obtain these benefits. This underscores the high importance of flexibility in managing modern software engineering teams.
Executives and engineering leads have their work cut out for them when it comes to obtaining and retaining top talent. Yet interestingly, many roadblocks are not so much technical problems but people and organizational problems. As we’ve covered, reducing context-switching and placing more ownership on singular products could increase satisfaction. One of the tenets of DevOps is also de-siloing teams to increase collaboration. Reducing toil could also go a long way toward increasing satisfaction. Whatever your chosen strategy, it’s always good to “display openness and understanding to hear people when they’re not happy,” said Sutter.
