The Main HR Problem: How One Departure Destroys an Entire Team

I've already described a similar situation in my book. But then another report on "Salary Expectations of Specialists" was published, and it all kicked off again...

Friends, the issue isn't just about "salary expectations." Changing jobs for a technical specialist — and not only technical ones — is stressful. People stay at their workplace even when market salaries double! But once one specialist leaves, others find it easier to make the same decision. Here's how it happens and where it leads.

The Setup

For illustration, let's take a department solving an important task. For example, they maintain and develop a 1C system or implement a CRM. The department has 7 people, a well-established team:

• 1 project lead who is also the lead developer and the informal department head
• 3 strong developers
• 1 senior/retired specialist — older, mostly serving as a functional architect and consultant, communicating with clients
• 1 intern
• 1 weaker developer — but still important, handling routine work like writing user documentation and configuring reports

There's no free time, the project is fairly interesting, and everyone is fully loaded.

The developers earn, as an example: from 75,000 rubles for the intern, roughly 100,000-125,000 for the weaker developer and the senior, and 140,000 to 180,000 for the rest. Total payroll is roughly 900,000 rubles net (approximately 2 million gross).

The Trigger

Then the following happens: the lead developer is denied something by HR, who isn't immersed in the department's processes. It doesn't matter what exactly — perhaps he asked for a raise for the intern, or his vacation wasn't approved, or he was denied a raise himself, or — even more insulting — he was denied the formal title of "Department Head," even though he informally performs that role.

The lead opens HeadHunter and realizes he's fallen significantly behind market salary levels. He doesn't just "change jobs" — he selects similar or potentially interesting projects, starts asking former colleagues who works where, and soon the market learns that a competent person is looking for work and, potentially, is ready to bring his team along.

The market is no longer overheated, it's in a downturn. But someone is still looking for capable specialists, possibly with experience in exactly the kind of 1C modifications or CRM launches this person has. The result: he receives an offer for 350,000 rubles, stands up, says goodbye to everyone, and leaves to settle into his new role.

The Cascade

So instead of 4 developers who were loaded at 100%, there are now 3, and the departed lead's tasks are distributed among them — meaning they should theoretically be loaded at 133%. Of course, 133% is impossible, but the workload still increases and deadlines shift to the right.

Now HR needs to fill the position according to the staffing table. As usual, they start the search at the minimum range — 125,000 or 150,000 rubles. Resumes from interns arrive, people who don't even formally qualify. Then they have to raise the bracket once. Then again. Then HR suddenly realizes that there are no adequate developers at 180,000 — the previous employee's salary. Not even at 200,000. And even at 250,000 you still have to search hard, while candidates turn up their noses at everything from "inconvenient commute" and "why is health insurance only 50% covered, not free?" to "where's the recreation area in the office?"

Meanwhile, the remaining employees watch the job posting with interest, observing the rising salary figure. Eventually a candidate is found and starts work. They begin getting up to speed, trying to understand things, and the developers have to spend time on "knowledge transfer" and adjustment. And this new person isn't nearly as strong a professional as their predecessor.

The Fatal Mistake

And here HR makes its biggest mistake — they don't raise the salaries of the remaining employees. "Why bother? They're working, aren't they?"

Suddenly the "remaining employees" realize they're doing work for 150,000 rubles while being deeply immersed in the company's tasks and processes, while the new person — who "knows how things should be done" but doesn't understand why certain things won't work because they haven't encountered the realities — earns 250,000-300,000. And they were even promised a title after the probation period — the same title that was denied to the previous lead. As a result, three more resumes appear on HeadHunter. Two are immediately poached by the "first lead," who has already settled in and secured approval for "his team." The third goes to either a startup, an "interesting company," or a large holding company called "MoneyToSpare Inc." The intern, whom nobody is mentoring anymore, also leaves, having added "mid-level" skills to their resume.

The Aftermath

So the department is left with: 1 "weaker" developer who undervalues himself and doesn't demand a higher salary, and one senior employee for whom it doesn't really matter whether they work or not — they just have nothing to do at home and there's work nearby to keep them busy. But this person can't lead development. And yes, above them sits one "lead" developer carrying the workload of 4 people. And 3 open vacancies. Guess at what salary? Forget about 140,000 and look at the market. And pray that you get lucky with the team.

Ultimately, the payroll has to be brought in line with candidates' expectations, which means 2.8 million net or 5 million gross. And that requires explaining to management — and who needs that headache? So the candidate search drags on. The new "lead" starts getting pressured for results, and management looks suspiciously at their ideas since they contradict established practice.

So the "new lead" successfully leaves the "toxic company," leaving a negative review to boot.

The Result

The department is completely destroyed, and the launch of the needed functionality... Well, as Pavel Alferov would say, it's a project of the "Maybe, Somehow, Whatever" type: if the project was or became non-critical — for example, if priorities shifted — it will be quietly buried. And managers will, to their relief, continue tracking clients in notebooks and spreadsheets. But if someone suddenly remembers it was a critically important project, they'll flood it with money and resources: Russia knows how to do "mobilization" projects. But this will cost the company not the original 900,000 rubles per month, but many times more.

And What About HR?

And HR? What do they care? The more "activity" there is, the more visible their work becomes — "team retention" isn't their most important metric; it's hidden behind the soulless "personnel turnover rate" or "attrition percentage." And now their budgets have been multiplied, plus they can get a bonus for "successful team recruitment during crisis times."

So everyone wins! Well, except the company.