Interesting that you get different responses in person and on the questionnaire. Not surprising, but interesting. Which do you trust? Perhaps salary is used as a tactful way to avoid more cutting criticisms.

I think this basically means "our shares are worth enough now for us to feel comfortable leaving for a place where the shares have the potential to become worth much more than I could make in salary here in 5 years or more."

What have you already done to address the low wages and career paths?

Assign them to create the next Next Big Thing?

Just want to state that exit questionnaires are not very accurate. If you call the people after they have found a new job your answers will be much more revealing.

I think you answered your own question: "We were a hot startup and, long story short, we reached to be a slow-growth (mature?) company" -- you need to be looking for a different set of "good" people. There are lots of good employees that want to work at a nice stable company, but that's not the same set of people that excel at working at fast paced companies where results trump process and procedure. A big company by it's very nature needs more "process", and not everyone works well in that environment.

First thing, if you're number one in your industry then who is it that's offering your start-up-era staff more money to leave than you can afford to offer them to stay, or a better future career, or whatever it is? Your competition? Completely different industries that just use the same skills? The answer might tell you something about how long you can expect to stay number 1, considering that you can no longer retain the kind of people who made you successful. What do their new employers think they know about these people's value, that you think they're wrong about?

As a software developer this is exactly what drives me: joelonsoftware.com/articles/FieldGuidetoDevelopers.html his point of "more money means something else is wrong" is what I have experienced.

@SatelliteSD I really disagree with this. "They don’t care about money, actually, unless you’re screwing up on the other things." He fixes his own statement later down and admits they do care about money if they aren't making enough. But that means they do care. If this company is underpaying their programmers, that will matter, and not just for "justice" but because they want decent money so they can live decent lives. Even if they are paying "standard" that will matter to any programmer who thinks they are above average, which is only 49ish% in reality but probably 90ish% in our minds.

@Andrew Sure money is important up to some point, but programmers usually earn pretty good money to begin with. I mean I still care whether I make 120k plus stock or 150k plus some more stock, but at some point other things become just more relevant (30k more per year but working in a cubicle farm? I'd shoot myself first). Joels point is that as long as you pay competitively, paying more won't earn you much goodwill.

@JohnThomas, I really think your two questions could be tied together. Factions create issue throughout the organization, even if the groups rarely interact on a regular basis. Good people will leave because of the organization's culture that has been allowed to exist.

@Voo You might be surprised how many programmers don't make pretty good money though. Remember that when you look at "average" salaries in the field, 49ish% of people are making less than that. 30k more a year in my current position would be HUGE. Heck, 10k a year more would be.

Sorry for average I meant median. For instance according to this US News website, 10% of programmers made around 43k in 2013. The median for programmers was only 76k, so 49.999...% were making less than that. Offer them a 30k raise and yes, that will matter... a lot. Don't tell me money won't matter to these people. Not everyone is a 6 figure programmer. And hell even 6 figure employees tend to live right up to their means, so money still matters to them. The Porsche won't pay for itself. money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/computer-programmer/salary

@AndrewWhatever I do want to point out, that for the current question "more money" could just be an expression for "unhappy" at the job. Joel sums it up with "Well, if it’s going to have to suck to go to work, at least I should be getting paid well." If you get a new job, that makes you equally (un)happy, money does matter a lot. On the other hand, if you are very happy, a potentially new job has to offer a lot more money to compensate or has to make you equally happy (what could hardly be known beforehand).

Well yeah, it could mean that. Or it could mean that he isn't getting paid enough. I'm objecting to the idea that programmers "don’t care about money, actually, unless you’re screwing up on the other things". Disagree 100%. Last time I talked to my manager, who knows I am planning on leaving and wanted to get me to stay, he asked me what they could do besides compensate me more. I said nothing. I have no serious complaints but the pay, and there is literally nothing they could do other than pay me more money. But then, I'm below the median pay as 49ish% of programmers are.

@Andrew You wouldn't value having a nice quiet office instead of a cubicle farm with 30 other people? Good working atmosphere where marketing doesn't control your schedule? Good working environment (those comfy expensive chairs and mechanical desks are lovely), with the right tools (ever worked in Visual Studio without resharper?) to work? But yes I can understand that up to a specific level money is a big incentive. But don't forget we're talking about key employees in an established business - I doubt they make less than six figures (entry level salary at google was 80-100k 5 years ago).