I don't know how much junior dev is paid in your place. I don't even know how much junior dev is paid in my place :)
But I do know that a single developer can bring a HUGE havoc in a team (doesn't have to be a junior dev though). So the lowest level is not "adding zero value", but removal of value.
In my personal opinion on average a junior dev who just joined the team is a net negative in value creation. Someone else in the team need to bring the new team member up to speed. I think you are an outlier because you have created value since the beginning.
Once acclimatized, a new team member can be a positive contributor, or can be a negative contributor too. The thing is, the employer didn't know this when the new employee and the employer agreed on the starting salary.
A non junior dev has reputation that helps convince employers.
Ruby on Rails developer - Maker of ✨ things on the Internet. O(🐌^n) kind of guy. Alumni @lewagonparis (batch 145). Builds wooden furniture on his balcony.
But I do know that a single developer can bring a HUGE havoc in a team (doesn't have to be a junior dev though)
Love that distinction.
In my personal opinion on average a junior dev who just joined the team is a net negative in value creation. Someone else in the team needs to bring the new team member up to speed.
In my experience working in tech (as a non-dev and a dev), bringing people up to speed, no matter their tech level, takes time. Asking people to hit the ground running is just another fallacy we like to tell ourselves. So, anyone joining a team will be a net negative at the beginning.
I think you are an outlier.
This, I don't know because I can't quantify other people's work. But from my discussions with other junior devs, I'm not that sure about it anymore. I was, by no means, an exceptional student in my coding bootcamp. I was slightly above average.
The thing is, the employer didn't know this
That's true. As a former employer myself, I've been on this side and know that feeling.
A non-junior dev has a reputation that helps convince employers.
And this is exactly what my point is: maybe you're a junior dev with superb skills, maybe you're just average. Let the work you produce be the yardstick by which your value is assessed after a few months. But don't let a potentially unexact fallacy blights your prospects from the get-go.
And this is exactly what my point is: maybe you're a junior dev with superb skills, maybe you're just average. Let the work you produce be the yardstick by which your value is assessed after a few months. But don't let a potentially unexact fallacy blights your prospects from the get-go.
Yes, it is important to have an evaluation (or more than one) at specified date after the start of employment. In my current company there is an evaluation 6 months after employment, where a decision have to be made, continue or stop. And if it is decided to continue, whether there is salary adjustment.
And I agree with you, the assessor should not have bias against junior devs.
One other thing can be a problem: the adjustment after evaluation period does not match the performance/evidence. Maybe because of bias or something else.
In case the junior dev is highly performant but the adjustment is too minor, the employer is shooting themselves in the foot :) It is not easy to get a good dev, and if this one good dev doesn't feel appreciated, then this dev may leave to the competitor. This is not good for the survival of the employer's company. Do this often and the company will go bankrupt.
As for the junior dev, if getting disappointing adjustment, maybe the employer didn't see the amount of value generated? The junior dev need to improve communication skill or looking for better opportunity.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't know how much junior dev is paid in your place. I don't even know how much junior dev is paid in my place :)
But I do know that a single developer can bring a HUGE havoc in a team (doesn't have to be a junior dev though). So the lowest level is not "adding zero value", but removal of value.
In my personal opinion on average a junior dev who just joined the team is a net negative in value creation. Someone else in the team need to bring the new team member up to speed. I think you are an outlier because you have created value since the beginning.
Once acclimatized, a new team member can be a positive contributor, or can be a negative contributor too. The thing is, the employer didn't know this when the new employee and the employer agreed on the starting salary.
A non junior dev has reputation that helps convince employers.
Love that distinction.
In my experience working in tech (as a non-dev and a dev), bringing people up to speed, no matter their tech level, takes time. Asking people to hit the ground running is just another fallacy we like to tell ourselves. So, anyone joining a team will be a net negative at the beginning.
This, I don't know because I can't quantify other people's work. But from my discussions with other junior devs, I'm not that sure about it anymore. I was, by no means, an exceptional student in my coding bootcamp. I was slightly above average.
That's true. As a former employer myself, I've been on this side and know that feeling.
And this is exactly what my point is: maybe you're a junior dev with superb skills, maybe you're just average. Let the work you produce be the yardstick by which your value is assessed after a few months. But don't let a potentially unexact fallacy blights your prospects from the get-go.
What do you think about all this @endy_tj ?
Yes, it is important to have an evaluation (or more than one) at specified date after the start of employment. In my current company there is an evaluation 6 months after employment, where a decision have to be made, continue or stop. And if it is decided to continue, whether there is salary adjustment.
And I agree with you, the assessor should not have bias against junior devs.
One other thing can be a problem: the adjustment after evaluation period does not match the performance/evidence. Maybe because of bias or something else.
In case the junior dev is highly performant but the adjustment is too minor, the employer is shooting themselves in the foot :) It is not easy to get a good dev, and if this one good dev doesn't feel appreciated, then this dev may leave to the competitor. This is not good for the survival of the employer's company. Do this often and the company will go bankrupt.
As for the junior dev, if getting disappointing adjustment, maybe the employer didn't see the amount of value generated? The junior dev need to improve communication skill or looking for better opportunity.