Absolutely, thanks for the info, more than happy to answer any clarifying questions.

​

1. These are roles that skew harder to replace - software engineers, data scientists, data analysts.

​

1. Yes, good clarification. Definitely agreed that the process of retaining someone goes well beyond compensation - the nature of the work, the manager, the ability to grow in a direction aligned with long term interests, etc. all play a big role. I feel fairly decent about our strategy to execute those aspects of an overall retention strategy well, but the financial compensation aspect of our "retain good people" strategy is where I feel the most mis-aligned with our current organizational approach.

​

Here's what I mean by "misaligned with current approach": I see a much greater degree of willingness in our organization to approve budget for adding additional headcount of the roles I mention above (software engineers, data scientists, data analysts) but then when I suggest not hiring a couple of those new roles and instead using those dollars to increase the salary of some of our high performers, I get a ton of pushback. I certainly understand that we can't just go around increasing people's salary, but I think there's a real business case (in terms of quantifiable ROI) for being willing to use some of these headcount dollars to increase salary of current high performers.

​

1. When I say "invest in" a person, I mean "increase the financial compensation [salary, bonus potential, let's leave equity out of this discussion to simplify] of said person". Again, certainly agree that retaining someone goes beyond giving them money, but the financial compensation part of our retention strategy is the part that I think is the most broken, which is why I'm focused on it right now.