Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: James Kanze on 8 Feb 2010 18:25 On Feb 8, 12:25 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...(a)start.no> wrote: > * James Kanze: [...] > But strangely, one thing that motivates me is apparent peer > disapproval. For in many social environments (last week or so > there was a damning report about this kind of environment at > the University of Oslo, happily I'm not there) the art of > put-down'ing and dissing is key to personal success. When > someone else does something really good then put-down'ing > becomes necessary and the default response. Thus, when I get > critique that has more emotional impact than technical I > concentrate on the technical points. Then, interpreting those > more technical points in a kind of inverse-picture way, I know > what's good. Any commercial firm which created that sort of environment would fail very quickly. And I'll admit that I've never quite seen it to that point. (I have seen cases where one manager tried to cause the failure of projects for which another manager was responsible. But I've never seen anything similar among the technical personel.) I've always gotten a great deal of satisfaction from peer (as opposed to boss') approval. And it's been forthcoming in practically every firm I've worked in---my collegues have thought my programs good, and told me so. Even in really poorly run shops. (Perhaps more so in poorly run shops---in the better run shops, it was taken for granted that everyone would write good code, and you needed to do something exceptional to get special approval.) > Of course, that's part of the personal satisfaction > motivation, but I think it's interesting that personal > satisfaction, knowing that you've created something good, in > some/many environments can be directly incompatible with peer > approval. Don't work in such environments. They're dangerous for your (mental) health. And as long as you stick to the technical side, they are very, very rare. > And for me personal satisfaction weights more. > Peer approval would in most cases just say that I'm > conforming, which is not something that I'd be proud of; No. But it does mean that what you've done that is original can be understood by others. Which IMHO is good. > it's something I strive to avoid. But in some cases approval > is really nice. E.g., a few times you've stated that I'm > pretty good, or words to that effect, which coming from > someone that one respects is uplifting in a way; likewise, > once, many years ago, I had a dispute with one very well-known > C++ expert over in clc++m and wrote some things that I really > shouldn't have, the mod apologized for accepting the article > by saying that he didn't read closely because it was two "C++ > experts" discussing things, and that helped much, otherwise I > might have stopped posting... :-) Note that approval can come in many different forms:-). At times, I've argued strongly with you because IMO, you opinion counts. You're not just anyone---your knowledge of C++ (and software engineering in general) is exceptional. So when your point of view disagrees with mine, it worries me. Which makes me argumentive. -- James Kanze
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
From: James Kanze on 8 Feb 2010 18:36 On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > 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.) Yes! I think that most people fundamentally like to help others, in one way or another. And someone saying that they screwed up, and asking for help, is a strong motivator for most people. On the other hand, threats almost never work. People don't work well when they feel threatened. -- James Kanze
From: Arved Sandstrom on 8 Feb 2010 18:39
Seebs wrote: > 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 Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. AHS |