> in reality some developers are <0 net contribution
Yes, sadly this is honestly true. Especially if you take into account the time spent to manage them, and then cleaning up after them, a person can easily be negative net contribution.
Honestly that's one of the ways I feel I've made a hiring mistake. It's okay to invest more time than it would take me to do a task to teach someone else to do a task, knowing that they can learn and improve, and eventually that investment of time will pay off. Eventually they should be teaching me things too, and doing things without needing any help. But if someone is constantly taking more time, and it doesn't look like that investment is getting paid off, I get nervous.
Then when the team starts slowing down, management will become even more resistant to getting rid of people, because you need to "go faster" which in their minds is simply some matter of headcount.
Yes, sadly this is honestly true. Especially if you take into account the time spent to manage them, and then cleaning up after them, a person can easily be negative net contribution.
Honestly that's one of the ways I feel I've made a hiring mistake. It's okay to invest more time than it would take me to do a task to teach someone else to do a task, knowing that they can learn and improve, and eventually that investment of time will pay off. Eventually they should be teaching me things too, and doing things without needing any help. But if someone is constantly taking more time, and it doesn't look like that investment is getting paid off, I get nervous.
Then when the team starts slowing down, management will become even more resistant to getting rid of people, because you need to "go faster" which in their minds is simply some matter of headcount.