I wonder about the "unintended consequences" takeaway here. Correlation is not causation. It seems to me that the talented startup engineers leaving and the decision to discontinue free soda don't likely have a causal relationship between them. Just both are things that happened along the growth path from startup to established company. More of a common cause explanation. If they had kept giving free soda would it have really kept the engineers from leaving? I have doubts.
My thoughts as well, but it _is_ plausible that if the sodas had remained free, it would have taken a few more months for the "elves" to notice that this was no longer the kind of place they wanted to work. The "uproar" basically sent the message of "this place is run by accountants now, not engineers", and that was what sent the engineers to the exits.
I could see myself being really upset by this change. It’s not just about the cost of the soda - it’s also about convenience. Now if I want to have a soda at work I need to remember to keep change or small value bills in my wallet. And if one day I forget then I need to leave the building in search of a treat, or else just go without - in either case I’m annoyed.
And more than that it’s about feeling valued and respected. It can be really upsetting when something you’ve gotten used to is taken from you. Especially when you know the cost to the company is just a tiny fraction of the overall operating budget, and unlikely to make any significant difference to the bottom line.
Interestingly at my first job that I worked at, sodas weren’t free, and it never really bothered me. But if they had been free, and one day stopped being free, that would annoy me. I think there is an asymmetry between the satisfaction people get when they use a perk, and they dissatisfaction they get if you take it away.
The interesting thing is that in MANY of these situations, you can guarantee that executives are getting free drinks, lunches, etc. as part of the perks.
I've seen it happen. No soda, no food. But the executive assistant will do a lunch run every day for executives. And will pick up drinks too. Or there's usually a stocked fridge for executives near their wings of the building.
It’s rare that a company can cut this kind of cost in a way that leaves the employees feeling trusted, valued and respected. That feeling is what hurts retention and dries up hiring referrals.
Additionally, the service has a value in time and money saved. There are bound to be employees for which it tips the decision to leave sooner. When many different conveniences are cut, more employees cross that threshold.
Finally, there’s a meta aspect to this. If you know a decision is harmful to the company and you see your managers making the harmful decision, it can be harder to keep working for them.
It's a combination of things - if company takes away benefits and provides no new benefits - you as an engineer lose money. Meanwhile in current market just changing the company means a rise. Why settle for an effective salary cut when you can trivially get a rise instead? The difference between no rise and cut is huge mentally.
Additionally if the company saves money on such a small scale it sends the signal things are BAD.
Hmmm ... anything is possible. You don't offer any evidence for your hypothesis and by that standard, anything is possible. The OP was there, at the company, saw what happened, and has observed several other similar circumstances.
