The Reality of “Code Challenge” Culture Outcomes Among Large & Small Organizations

Key definitions for this article:

“Code Challenge” Culture: This culture is more of a “do as we say, we’ll grow you as we see fit, and you may then continue with us if you perform accordingly” type of environment. It starts with a more defined, strict adherence to an academic achievement type environment that enforces one do things a certain way and follow a certain path, and to ensure you too will do those things a code challenge is used to gate keep a particular job role. There are obviously good and bad results to this culture, and this article is going to get deep into those cultures.

Wholistic Culture: This culture is more open to getting a larger picture idea of a candidate in the interview pipeline. With more of an intent around having the individual develop the organization and for the individual to learn. The possibility of bringing knowledge that can help one improve the organization is readily accepted as is an individual that might not pass a rigorous academic code challenge to shift arrays, or move bits, or trickle values around a binary tree! There are however, good and bad outcomes to this type of culture.

Caveats: In both cultures there are numerous additional criteria that changes them. In this article I’ll write about them in a general sense, and then when detailing something specific, I’ll state that caveat with a call out.

The Big Organizations & Smaller Niche Organizations

I’m going to use three big companies and three small companies here that have varying degrees of “Code Challenge” Culture. In that, I’ll dive deeper into the problems that arise from a strict “Code Challenge” Culture vs. a Wholistic Culture.

The Big Organizations

• No Zama – This is technology company that has e-commerce, hosting, and related services and products they offer. Let’s say its revenue is about $500 billion and across all these offerings they’ve got several thousand teams working on building and supporting all of these things. This company leans heavily into the “Code Challenge” Culture.
• JoonBugle – This is a technology company that offers hosting and service mechanisms to find things across the internet. This company has a couple hundred billion in revenue and has even more teams supporting and building out these offerings. It also leans heavily into “Code Challenge” Culture, but a little less than No Zama and a good bit more than “LargeStone”.
• LargeStone – This is a software company that builds a wide range of software solutions, some open source but a bulk of revenue comes from enterprise software and respective hosting of enterprise software. We’ll give this company a $210 billion in revenue, and it also has thousands of teams too, and uses “Code Challenge” Culture but not real heavily. As it has matured over time it has used more and more of a wholistic approach for new candidates.

Smaller Niche Organizations

• Developer Consulting of Igor Gatekeeper – This organization has a few hundred employees and relies on a heavily academic and performance based “Code Challenge” Culture. Along with other gate keeping mechanisms it uses, this agency is oriented very specifically toward consultants that produce at X pace consistently.
• Atty Comms – This is a communications organization that doesn’t particularly offer software development but does have a multitude of teams working on their respective communications products and services.
• Starzy – This is a software company of about 50+ developers that primarily earns income, like many companies, from enterprise subscriptions and contracts, but is actively involved in open source and the community at large. They have a wholistic culture and do little in the way of official academic code challenges.

With all those companies described, it is time to get deep into their current outcomes and state of affairs when it comes to “Code Challenge” Culture vs. Wholistic Culture. For each of these I’ll give a % of each culture and discuss their current situational report (SITREP) and what their outcomes have been.

The Big Orgs Culture and Outcomes

No Zama – This company, now that it’s a bit older and has moved into multiple geographical markets continues to hire based on a strict academic “Code Challenge” type of model along with other strict criteria, without emphasizing for wholistic fit and uninterested in improving its own culture to ensure longevity of candidates once employees. For this type of culture this outcome – numerous hires with a goal of keeping the top performers and removing the theoretical lower performing – is the point. However, it perpetuates that top performers end up being missed and often leave from the toxicity of it and the lower performing are often positioned to fail because of the inflexibility of the culture.

In the end the outcome looks like this; a pipeline that has nowhere near the top talent, but instead gets a rough middle demographic of candidates, that are often there for the sole purpose of collecting lucrative salaries and bonuses. Then after a few years leaving to something with a better, healthier, more humane culture.

The outcome, is not particularly ideal. So much so, that the leadership often opines that their pipeline is limited in the markets they have a large footprint, seemingly clueless to having shot themselves in the foot.

JoonBugle – This company, unlike the first tends to have a moderately healthier culture and more humane work life balance for its employees, but still adheres to a strict academic “Code Challenge” type of culture which leads to an interesting gap of folks who regularly – and this is seen even in products as their released – are short sighted on what the overall market looks like or how a product would fit into it.

Because of an increased work balance their retention is marketably higher, while finding work for lower performers to be productive at and keeping high performers retained through bonuses and more choice work. This seems to work, and overall the “Code Challenge” combined with some wholistic hiring practices seems to have done this company well, however without also being massive and having lucrative salaries and bonuses, the probability of having a very limited pipeline of hires would be a significant issue.

Even as it stands, the SITREP for this company remains that the pipelines are slow, costly, and have a mixed outcome result. Lots of candidates, often very competent candidates, go into pipeline and few are hired and fewer tend to remain past six months to a year.

LargeStone – Over the years this company has backed away from the heavy handedness of academically strict “Code Challenge” Culture and focsed more and more on wholistic cultural fit with the additional flexbility of teams organizing more, and having more options to organize as they need, around their respective team and individuals. The result of this is some of the best retention in the industry and – over time as this shift has occurred – a growing retention.

The Smaller Niche Orgs Culture and Outcomes

Developer Consulting of Igor Gatekeeper – Developer Consulting of Igor Gatekeeper embodies a deeply entrenched “Code Challenge” Culture. With a few hundred employees, the organization focuses on consultants who produce at a consistent, high pace, maintaining a rigid, academic, and performance-based hiring process. Candidates are expected to excel in code challenges that emphasize specific technical skills and problem-solving abilities, often rooted in academic principles. This strict approach aims to ensure that new hires can immediately contribute at a high level. While this culture can result in a team of highly skilled technical experts, it also risks alienating potentially valuable employees who might not perform well in high-pressure testing environments but could excel in a more supportive, collaborative atmosphere.

The work however also matches this assembly line style “Do X, only X, and be done” type of work. It’s very much command and control dictate vs. dynamic thinking, something that if lots of Xs need completed as quickly as possible works real well, but for a company working on hard problems that aren’t well defined the need to innovate, invent, or otherwise create solutions and sometimes even find the problems themselves – this is a horrible way to hire and work. The simple reason is, X task often doesn’t exist outside of very well defined problems.

Atty Comms – Atty Comms, a communications organization with a diverse range of products and services, does not heavily focus on software development. This company leans more towards a wholistic culture, seeking candidates who bring a broad set of skills and experiences. Their interview process is designed to understand the candidate’s overall potential and fit within the company rather than just their ability to solve specific technical challenges. This approach allows Atty Comms to hire individuals who contribute to the company’s growth through innovative ideas and diverse perspectives. The flexibility of this culture can attract a wide range of talent, fostering an environment where employees feel valued for their unique contributions, leading to potentially higher retention and job satisfaction.

This is a type of company that can, under the right circumstances, have absolutely stellar high performing development teams. However, in this particular company the leadership is extremely scatterbrained and rarely utilizes or sets up their development teams for success. Often shifting their goals and projects in a way that seems random and haphazard. A prime example of how wholistic hiring is great, and can build great teams, but if leadership doesn’t back it up or doesn’t provide – ya know, leadership – things sort of fall apart anyway. Opportunities not seized!

Starzy – This is software company with around 50 developers, thrives on a wholistic culture and has minimal reliance on formal academic code challenges. This company values community involvement and open-source contributions, seeking candidates who are passionate about their work and can bring fresh insights to the team. Their hiring process is flexible and open-minded, aiming to identify individuals who are not only technically competent but also align with the company’s values and collaborative spirit. This inclusive approach helps Starzy build a diverse team with varied strengths, promoting innovation and a strong sense of community within the organization. As a result, employees at Starzy often feel more engaged and committed to their work, leading to better overall performance and job satisfaction.

In an exception to the norm, Starzy also retaining their employees for dramatically longer than most companies in the industry, even so much as some have worked for and retired – i.e. actually retired, not just having *left* – from the company.

Company Culture Outcome Ratings

No Zama

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Effective in hiring due to its strong brand and substantial resources, but struggles in maintaining top talent due to the rigid hiring process.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • Initial effectiveness is high within the first 1-3 months.
  • Effectiveness decreases by 6-12 months, with a significant percentage of new hires leaving due to the inflexible and high-pressure environment.
  • Retention rate is low, with only about 50-60% of hires remaining after 12 months. To note, this retention is pretty low even with the “large corp” or FAANG/MAAAN style bonus pay style which is often tens of thousands, or more, extra on top of base pay over the year. Even with rather large pay packages many people do not prefer these conditions, and being the software industry choose to not stay.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs down. Known for its demanding hiring process and high turnover, leading to a reputation for a stressful work environment. So much so that management has presumed the only way to fill the ranks is to hire via H1-B and other manipulate processes that people join via a naive expectation. Shady, to say the least.

JoonBugle

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Moderately effective in hiring, leveraging its brand and relatively better work-life balance, but still faces challenges due to a stringent hiring process.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • Candidates show good effectiveness within the first 1-6 months.
  • Mixed effectiveness by 12 months, with around 70% retention.
  • Some hires leave due to the high expectations and pressure, but the work-life balance helps retain a fair number of employees. But also, one can’t deny the “large corp” or FAANG/MAAAN style bonus pay style which is often tens of thousands, or more, extra on top of base pay over the year.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs up/down. Mixed reputation. While the company is respected for its better work-life balance compared to No Zama, the stringent hiring process and internal pressures are still points of concern.

LargeStone

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Highly effective in hiring due to a balanced approach combining technical assessments and wholistic fit, and its mature, reputable brand.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • High effectiveness within the first 1-6 months, as new hires integrate well into teams.
  • Retention is strong, with around 90-95% of hires staying beyond 12 months.
  • The shift towards a more wholistic culture has significantly improved long-term effectiveness and employee satisfaction.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs up. Known for its balanced and supportive hiring process, leading to high retention and job satisfaction. The company is well-regarded as a positive place to work. It’s important to note a company, through a large concerted effort can change their street rep, as this company ~5-10 years ago could barely hire in their geographic area and was bleeding employees (their terminology at the time) faster than they were hiring new candidates.

Developer Consulting of Igor Gatekeeper

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Struggles to hire effectively in many geographic markets due to its rigid and highly specific hiring criteria. Which does lead to a significant number of *remote* candidates that can be wherever.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • Initial performance is high within the first 1-3 months due to the stringent code challenges.
  • Effectiveness tends to drop by 6 months, with a significant percentage of new hires leaving or underperforming due to the high-pressure environment.
  • By 12 months, retention is low, with around 65-70% of hires having left the company.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs down. The company is known for its demanding and inflexible hiring process, leading to high turnover and a stressful work environment.

Atty Comms

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Able to hire effectively in various markets due to its flexible and inclusive hiring practices.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • New hires are generally effective within the first 1-6 months, with their broad skill sets contributing to diverse projects.
  • However, effectiveness and retention start to wane by 12 months due to inconsistent leadership and shifting project goals.
  • Approximately 60% of hires remain after 12 months, but many are dissatisfied.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs up/down. Mixed reputation. While the hiring process is seen as fair and inclusive, internal management issues affect overall employee satisfaction and retention.

Starzy

• Current Hiring Ability:
  • Highly effective at hiring in their niche markets due to their strong community involvement and reputation for inclusivity.
• Hiring for Candidate Effectiveness:
  • Candidates are highly effective within the first 1-6 months, integrating well due to the supportive and collaborative culture.
  • Retention is exceptional, with around 80-90% of new hires staying beyond 12 months.
  • Many employees remain long-term, some even retiring from the company.
• Street Reputation:
  • Thumbs up. The company is highly recommended due to its supportive culture, strong community involvement, and high employee satisfaction and retention.

Cultural Scenarios Summarized

Through examining these organizations, it’s evident that the culture and leadership within a company significantly impact hiring effectiveness and employee retention. While a “Code Challenge” Culture may ensure technical proficiency, it can lead to high turnover and dissatisfaction. Conversely, a wholistic approach fosters a more inclusive and supportive environment, though it requires strong leadership to maintain consistency and direction. Ultimately, the key to a high-performing team often lies in removing barriers and empowering employees through thoughtful leadership. More detailed insights and recommendations will be shared in the upcoming articles. Stay tuned, and let’s continue the conversation!

More on that, more on all these topics in the near future. I’m always interested in your thoughts dear reader, so comment, subscribe, and let’s get a conversation going!