
Job Satisfaction - gaika
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/job_satisfaction/
======
imgabe
Interesting idea, but built on a false premise. Jobs aren't necessarily
unpleasant. You could find yourself in the position of enjoying something most
people don't, like programming, or being better than every one else at
something that many people enjoy, like golf.

In both cases you can get paid to do something you enjoy, and no matter how
much fun you have, your boss can't pay someone else to do it because either
there aren't that many other people who can do it, or there aren't many who
can do it as well as you.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Sports stars are a cherry-picked counter example to Adams' argument. Would
LeBron play basketball for a mere $100K/year? You bet -- if that was his only
option. It is that every team would like him to have lots of fun in its
uniform that drives up his salary.

~~~
jsankey
It's one counter example of many, though (indeed you neglected a second in the
original comment). Most people don't enjoy their jobs, but many do, and in a
huge variety of fields. People that aren't happy shouldn't be told that there
is no other way, as Adams suggests.

------
pmjordan
Aside from the false premise at the outset, which others have noted, there's
also a simpler explanation for lower job satisfaction during downsizing. It's
been observed that even the employees that "survive" bad layoff rounds become
less happy as a result, presumably because they feel threatened that they
might be next, because they feel they have no control over their situation, or
because they feel their former colleagues were treated unfairly. As a result,
they either work harder than they did before, in an attempt to please their
superiors, or they resign in their mind. Neither makes them happier. The
theory in the article inadvertently touches on the aspect of perceived loss of
control, but I think the author reaches the wrong conclusions.

~~~
marltod
Recession == No travel, hardware/software, or party budgets and friends get
fired.

No Recession == Travel, buy stuff whenever I need to, free food, friends leave
on their own terms.

------
bgurupra
Here is my take on job satisfaction ->
[http://gpbsblogon.blogspot.com/2009/11/happiness-at-work-
mat...](http://gpbsblogon.blogspot.com/2009/11/happiness-at-work-
matrix-4ps.html)

------
edw519
_They believed themselves capable of great things, so they rationalized that
their current jobs must be satisfying already._

I believe exactly the opposite...

We believe we are capable of great things because we are so used to looking
good by delivering great software in environments where there isn't any.

Then we see all the cool things others are doing right out in the open and
wonder why we spend all day on fixing bugs on horrible enterprise software,
sitting in meetings, and taking direction from idiots.

Being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind may make you look good, but it
is hardly "satisfying".

~~~
tom_b
Yes.

A significant amount of software stinks. The enterprise vendors are almost
magical in their ability to extract dollars from their customer base.

I believe that many of the one-eyed men are starting to wake up to the power
of the tools in front of them and ponder how they can deliver significantly
more value in small startups than they do "fixing bugs on horrible enterprise
software."

While great is perhaps too strong an adjective, we _are_ capable of great
things because we deliver great software in environments where there isn't
any. Who else is doing it?

There is probably a huge shake-out coming in the average programmer's world.
The big vendors seem increasing irrelevant except for their stranglehold on
sales channels. Once we hack that (and some on this forum have or are well on
their way) . . .

Good times.

~~~
roc
I've come to think that the state of Enterprise software is the direct result
of large corporate structure.

Every single success story of swapping out a horrible enterprise piece with a
Really Good replacement seems to have, as an integral part of its legend, the
skillful subversion of the corporation's natural tendencies until deployment
-- and an epilogue that notes political bad feelings remain, despite the
results.

It truly seems that Good Software is only something that can happen _despite_
corporate structure and never, ever _because_ of it.

I suppose it shouldn't have been a surprise. I think we've all come to accept
that individual efficiency is inversely related to company size (beyond some
critical threshold). And when you look at _why_ , you start seeing an awful
lot of cross-over with the root causes of corporate software project failures.
(political nonsense, perverted incentives, cog interchangeability concerns,
liability concerns, etc)

------
donniefitz2
I think this post contains an un-intentional poke at the concept of
libertarian free will. That is, you must have an alternative in order to be
free (and feel free, therefore faking satisfaction).

But what makes that funny is we all know that just because you have a job
alternative, it doesn't make you free or happy. What truly makes you free and
happy is to do what you really want to do. It has nothing to do with having an
alternative.

~~~
thwarted
It would make me pretty unhappy to have a legit alternative and never take it.
It's not having the alternative that makes you happy, it's exercising it. If
you were already happy, then the existence of the alternative wouldn't matter.

~~~
eru
I don't know. I am pretty fond of the right to terminate my own life whenever
I choose to do so. On the other hand I don't see me going that path anytime
soon.

------
Tangurena
This post by him seems to be just another version of Theory X & Theory Y
(mis)management, with a twist of "child psychology" to fool the subordinates
with motivational stuffs.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y>

------
neilk
I don't suppose that wildly inflated salaries during bubble years had anything
to do with it.

------
GrandMasterBirt
<disagree><![CDATA[

The fact is that if your boss shows a general caring in his/her subordinates
(as in working with you when you need PTO for family, making sure you don't
work overtime unless 101% necessary, getting you good development hardware,
etc.) it adds a lot to job satisfaction. Combine that with a reasonable health
care plan, a pay that you feel is more or less fair for your position and
skill AND that you can live happily off, and interesting problems to solve at
work.

Get all of the above all at once and you have job satisfaction. I don't blame
myself for any bit of unhappiness at my job. But even with that I look at my
job and think that I can get a better health plan elsewhere, I can get better
pay elsewhere, I can get more interesting problems elsewhere, I can get all
the things that make my job great elsewhere... but not likely all at once. So
far this has been the most satisfying job I've had, because I feel appreciated
in all respects for my skill and dedication, both in the words said to me and
actions taken towards me.

]]></disagree>

