Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Feb 2010 21:18 MarkusSchaber wrote: > On 5 Feb., 13:23, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >> On Feb 5, 11:19 am, Stefan Kiryazov wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I am doing a research about motivation in software development, >>> the most efficient practices to motivate software engineers, >>> their popularity, etc. >> Strange question; the most efficient motivator of professionals is >> money, [...] > > This was proven wrong by Science. Read Bruce Eckels excellent blog > entries about this topic, he always references relliable sources on > this subject. Depends. Right now I am primarily motivated by money, or at least the lack of it. -- 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: MarkusSchaber on 8 Feb 2010 02:15 Hi, Dirk, On 8 Feb., 03:18, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I am doing a research about motivation in software development, > >>> the most efficient practices to motivate software engineers, > >>> their popularity, etc. > >> Strange question; the most efficient motivator of professionals is > >> money, [...] > > This was proven wrong by Science. Read Bruce Eckels excellent blog > > entries about this topic, he always references relliable sources on > > this subject. > Depends. > Right now I am primarily motivated by money, or at least the lack of it. 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.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Feb 2010 07:52 MarkusSchaber wrote: > Hi, Dirk, > > On 8 Feb., 03:18, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I am doing a research about motivation in software development, >>>>> the most efficient practices to motivate software engineers, >>>>> their popularity, etc. >>>> Strange question; the most efficient motivator of professionals is >>>> money, [...] >>> This was proven wrong by Science. Read Bruce Eckels excellent blog >>> entries about this topic, he always references relliable sources on >>> this subject. >> Depends. >> Right now I am primarily motivated by money, or at least the lack of it. > > 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. I once joked with an employer that if he paid me twice as much I would only have to work half as long :-) -- 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: Lew on 8 Feb 2010 11:06 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. -- Lew
From: Malcolm McLean on 8 Feb 2010 11:14
On Feb 8, 1:43 am, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 3:14 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...(a)acm.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > That said, by definition professionals are, to some extent, in > > it for the money. If they were not, they would be amateurs as > > I am now. How that is balanced against interesting work, > > physical working conditions, status, etc. varies. > > I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same conotations > in English as it does in French, but from the French meaning, I > don't think you can be truely a "professional" if you're only in > it for the money. "Professional" implies being paid for what > you do, but it also implies a certain degree of personal > standards with regards to quality and such---a "professional" > will take pride in his work. > Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a professional body which regulates itself and has the right to control entry to the profession. For instnace I can't simply buy scalpels and antiseptic and set myself up as a brain surgeon - I have to go throguh the British Medical Association before they'll let me chop people up. the same is true for lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure niches. Most people aren't professionals, and the word has become misused to mean 'skilled workers with high standards'. Bascially employers want the advantages of professional status without conferring on their employees the control that is the natural concomitant. Computer programmers are rarely professionals in the true sense, but ususally professional in the bastardised sense of the term. |