Motivation of software professionals
in [Dot Net]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Feb 2010 13:30 Lew wrote: > MarkusSchaber wrote: >>> I won't dispute that money is a motivator, but it is not the most >>> efficient motivator. The more money you pay, the more you will attract >>> those developers which are purely after the money, and not the really >>> good ones. For the latter ones, a certain level on the paycheck is >>> enough to give attention to fun, excitement, atmosphere and such >>> factors. > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> I once joked with an employer that if he paid me twice as much I would >> only have to work half as long :-) > > Given that nearly nobody gives a perfect working environment, or even > close, money is the primary distinguisher. As a contract worker, I've > seen a few dozen IT workplaces. The grass is never greener. Offer me > twice as much compensation as the other potential employer and my > talents are yours to exploit. > > It's not that money is the motivator. The question is leading and > extremely ill cast. I don't depend on anyone else for my motivation. > Money is the decider; it decides whether and where I work. It doesn't > determine how. > > To get meaningful answers, the survey would have to ask meaningful > questions. > Some places you go, however, you never want to return. They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 13:46 On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Some places you go, however, you never want to return. > They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new > job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is > behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off > on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office. I should hope so! Last time we had a thing behind schedule, the management sent out a request that we put in extra time to bring it on schedule. They had already cut product specs in a few key places to try to make things better, and they told us they'd make it good if we helped them out. We had very close to 24/7 management coverage, and they helped out as much as they could. And yes, we made the deadline, and they rewarded us suitably. The primary motivation there wasn't the money, it was the visible demonstration that the management felt it was their problem more than ours that the schedule had been wrong. (Note the emphasis; it was not that we were behind the schedule, it was that the schedule was, empirically, wrong.) -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Martin Gregorie on 8 Feb 2010 18:18 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:32:01 +1300, Ian Collins wrote: > > In some contexts maybe, but golf and cricket clubs had their > "professional" long before anyone thought of developing software. It > isn't the term "professional" that has been bastardised, it's > "Engineer". > That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of town if they call themselves one. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 18:26 On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering > society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of > town if they call themselves one. This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless of any labels. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: James Kanze on 8 Feb 2010 18:33
On Feb 8, 4:06 pm, Lew <no...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > MarkusSchaber wrote: > >> I won't dispute that money is a motivator, but it is not > >> the most efficient motivator. The more money you pay, the > >> more you will attract those developers which are purely > >> after the money, and not the really good ones. For the > >> latter ones, a certain level on the paycheck is enough to > >> give attention to fun, excitement, atmosphere and such > >> factors. > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > > I once joked with an employer that if he paid me twice as > > much I would only have to work half as long :-) > Given that nearly nobody gives a perfect working environment, > or even close, money is the primary distinguisher. As a > contract worker, I've seen a few dozen IT workplaces. The > grass is never greener. Offer me twice as much compensation > as the other potential employer and my talents are yours to > exploit. That's completely wrong. The effect of money depends on a lot of things: someone who's just coming out of an expensive divorce, heavily endebted, will doubtlessly put more importance on it that a young, single person who has no debts and is making enough to comfortably sustain the lifestyle he likes. But environments do vary, enormously, and unless I'm under duress, I'll always go for the position which seems to offer the better environment. (But of course, at my level, even those positions offer a comfortable level of life. It's generally a question of being well off, rather than very well off.) > It's not that money is the motivator. The question is leading > and extremely ill cast. I don't depend on anyone else for my > motivation. Money is the decider; it decides whether and > where I work. It doesn't determine how. I'll refuse jobs that aren't sufficiently paid. But I recently changed jobs more because I was bored than because I make more in my new job. (Formally, my income is considerably higher. But so are my expenses---my living standard is basically unchanged, or even a little lower than it used to be.) -- James Kanze |