For some reason they felt it was relevant to cram in a comparison of the founder's amount of time at Uber with an average employee's. Bang up job business insider.
The infographic does not explain the details of the numbers, data sample size, etc.
The Business Insider article assumes that the companies want their employees to stick around, that the alleged high turnover rates are not by design.
Stock options and RSU's, for example, typically vest over a four year period of time. This means that employees who leave before four years do not get the stock options and RSUs that don't vest.
According to a New York Times article on Amazon a few years ago, Amazon had (still has?) a vesting scheme where most of the options/RSUs vest in the final year, rather than evenly over the four year period.
The number and value of options/RSUs offered to employees generally declines as the company's get older and more established. Companies that fail or falter tend not to show up in lists like this. Consequently, the companies have an incentive to get rid of earlier employees before their options/RSUs vest.
There are probably other reasons for a policy of high turnover but the options/RSU vesting is one of the more obvious and easiest to document.
I avg about 2 years per company. I planned on staying in my current situation for 5 yrs but the project has already changed drastically in my 2 yrs here. As a result I'll probably be leaving soon. I assumed the avg Googler would stay longer than my average duration due to the variety of things you could work on in addition to the above avg pay
There are a few problems with the very simplistic statistics in this article:
1) These stats don't account for growth in employee base. If a company is growing their employee base by hiring new employees they could have 0% attrition and the average duration of employment would still be low simply because of all the new employees that just started.
2) Most of these companies have a lot of different roles. For Amazon they obviously have fulfillment center employees working in the warehouses, folks working in the data centers, and folks doing engineering. I suspect these roles have very different attrition rates. The same goes for Apple, Facebook, etc. You could have 0% attrition rate on your core engineering team but still have a low average average employee "age" because there is high turnover in your customer support call center.
Basically the simplistic stats in this article are absolutely worthless and not newsworthy, which unfortunately is pretty par for the course with Business Insider.
9 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 30.9 ms ] threadEDIT: Literally all of the information is coming from the infographic here: https://www.paysa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Disrup...
Facebook: 2.02 years
Google: 1.90 years
Oracle: 1.89 years
Apple: 1.85 years
Amazon: 1.84 years
Twitter: 1.83 years
Microsoft: 1.81 years
Airbnb: 1.64 years
Snap Inc.: 1.62 years
Uber: 1.23 years
https://www.paysa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Disrup...
The infographic does not explain the details of the numbers, data sample size, etc.
The Business Insider article assumes that the companies want their employees to stick around, that the alleged high turnover rates are not by design.
Stock options and RSU's, for example, typically vest over a four year period of time. This means that employees who leave before four years do not get the stock options and RSUs that don't vest.
According to a New York Times article on Amazon a few years ago, Amazon had (still has?) a vesting scheme where most of the options/RSUs vest in the final year, rather than evenly over the four year period.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-...
https://www.quora.com/Amazon-offers-a-RSU-vesting-schedule-o...
The number and value of options/RSUs offered to employees generally declines as the company's get older and more established. Companies that fail or falter tend not to show up in lists like this. Consequently, the companies have an incentive to get rid of earlier employees before their options/RSUs vest.
There are probably other reasons for a policy of high turnover but the options/RSU vesting is one of the more obvious and easiest to document.
1) These stats don't account for growth in employee base. If a company is growing their employee base by hiring new employees they could have 0% attrition and the average duration of employment would still be low simply because of all the new employees that just started.
2) Most of these companies have a lot of different roles. For Amazon they obviously have fulfillment center employees working in the warehouses, folks working in the data centers, and folks doing engineering. I suspect these roles have very different attrition rates. The same goes for Apple, Facebook, etc. You could have 0% attrition rate on your core engineering team but still have a low average average employee "age" because there is high turnover in your customer support call center.
Basically the simplistic stats in this article are absolutely worthless and not newsworthy, which unfortunately is pretty par for the course with Business Insider.