
How do you tell managers that having good developers is a privilege? - bbx
http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/18119/what-is-a-friendly-way-to-let-managers-know-that-having-good-developers-is-a-p
======
jessedhillon
I find it very sad that the top answer on stack exchange is a guide for how to
have mature discussion, see the manager's point of view and collectively look
for a solution -- while respecting his authority. But when you come to HN,
10-to-1 the comments are all about punishing the manager by leaving, teaching
management a lesson, suggesting that maybe they only need mediocrity (in other
words, developers as great as us would never bow to such demands) and
generally espousing a naive us-versus-them attitude.

Edit: I find it also frustrating, as I suspect that a lot of the bluster is
from armchair cowboys, and in no way reflective of what those commenters would
actually do in the given situation.

~~~
lhnz
I didn't personally find it very mature. It's just somebody parroting "How To
Win Friends" with an authoritative spin. I found it manipulative and warped.

This guy isn't happy with being told what to do. A conversation is very
unlikely to sort this out.

I don't think leaving is about "punishing the manager." This job will be more
appropriate for somebody else, and this company will probably be better off
with somebody happy working in the new environment. It's not about mediocrity
- it's about people sharing similar values and being happy with their working
situation. That's very important and when people believe completely different
things and don't have mutual respect for each other, it's very hard to find
some kind of meaningful compromise.

Edit: I say what I've said not because I'm an armchair cowboy (thanks), but
because I've tried the other approach before. It's better to find people
elsewhere that share your philosophy, than to try to convert people.
(Converting people feels egotistical to me. We all love our own opinions but
who is to say that they are best for our neighbours? I certainly don't want to
be the one arguing this - it is such a grey line and so easy to accidentally
antagonise somebody.)

~~~
mikeash
The top-voted answer is a great example of how much wording matters. It
_sounds_ very mature and reasonable, compared to the off-the-cuff and coarse
answers given in the comments here.

But when you actually look at what it says, it's basically "roll over". The
best outcome envisioned in that response is, "If he compromises and lets you
have a bit of flexibility". First, take a moment to appreciate that *lets you
have" remark. As if we are grade schoolers and the manager is a teacher who
gets to decide when we go to the bathroom.

Then notice how the best outcome imaginable is a compromise. A scenario where
you simply get what you want is not even on the table, here, even though it's
entirely possible that getting what you want in this case is the best outcome
for everyone involved, and at the very least is probably achievable and
reasonable.

Really, this is something that you can't properly advise on without knowing
the personalities and the context. If management is full of dickheads, then
this is your signal to search for the exits. Start looking for a new job, and
jump ship when you can. Things will only get worse. On the other hand, if
management is generally reasonable and this is an isolated problem, a
reasonable discussion with this manager to find out what's going on is the
thing to do. But this should be a discussion between equals, not the groveling
and tiptoeing suggested.

~~~
benihana
> _But when you actually look at what it says, it 's basically "roll over"_

I don't think we read the same comment. It most certainly doesn't say roll
over. It says try to find a diplomatic solution before you fire shots. An
ultimatum isn't going to change anyone's mind, and will only make things
difficult. Try to come to an understanding so OP can keep his job and be
happy, and the new manager can keep his developers and be happy. It also says
that if there's no other way out but to leave, it costs OP nothing to be
cordial and professional as he's exiting the company.

~~~
mikeash
A diplomatic situation implies a meeting of equals. That comment suggests a
meeting wherein you very very _very_ gently raise the possibility that
_perhaps_ there can be a _small_ change to what's been mandated.

Cordial and professional doesn't mean being a doormat, and talking to
management as an adult with autonomy over one's own life does not require an
ultimatum.

------
lhnz
You don't tell somebody such a thing. It would never work. The rules are the
rules to most people.

What you do is look for another job and resign when you've found it.

This is win-win for both of you: you can find something suitable for your
lifestyle, and they can find somebody willing to play by their rules at
whatever level of the market that is.

It's not always better to have "great" engineers - often companies just want
somebody sitting at their desk ready to act on instructions. If that's the
case then there is probably a lower-skilled engineer that would count
themselves lucky to be sitting at a desk for 8 hours. He will be a lot easier
to manage and probably a lot more appropriate for the new management.

Even when done with the best of intentions, second-guessing what upper
management needs to do for a company to be its best is a gigantic waste of
time and potential. Trust me, I've been there.

------
ropz
What a bunch of spoiled, whining brats! Sure, you can only code for 4-6 hours
a day, but why not honor your contract by spending that other 2 hours
mentoring less senior people, trying to understand your employer's business
goals, and generally trying to do your best to move your company ahead.
Sheesh. By the way, the sheer arrogance of the question "How do you tell
managers that having good developers is a privilege?" beggars belief. I
believe that as a programmer, it's your duty to spend some time doing stuff
your manager didn't know he needed to ask you to do, rather than running
personal errands.

~~~
walshemj
Yep the wording of the title reeks of a prima dona who has a massive chip on
his (and I would bet that it is a male) shoulder.

~~~
collyw
I bet you would have caused an uproar of sexism if your comment had said the
same about a female shoulder. Is there any basis for the sexist nature of your
comment?

~~~
walshemj
Decades of experience dealing with HR/IR issues Women dont "present" in the
same way - that attitude expressed in the SO Q is very male.

~~~
collyw
So you are just making assumptions based on your prejudices.

------
d0m
I think explaining that "Most senors developers can leave and get another job
with a 30-40% higher pay" and that "most current developers stay because of
the flexible time and casual environment" is a very strong point. I would try
to understand a bit more the concern about the forced 8 hours a day at the
office.

But obviously, if the manager is just dumb, just go to higher authority and
explain that this manager could create lots of problems (I.e. pissing off the
lead developer who has most of the software knowledge isn't wise. . especially
if he's already happy and doing a great job.)

If the higher authority doesn't give a @!$ well.. send me an e-mail I'm
looking for great javascript developers ; )

~~~
lazyjones
> _" Most senors developers can leave and get another job with a 30-40% higher
> pay" and that "most current developers stay because of the flexible time and
> casual environment" is a very strong point._

One of the worst things a developer can do is to underperform on purpose
because of thoughts like the above ("I could get a better job elsewhere, so I
don't need to put in any effort here"). It leads to the worst possible outcome
for everyone: low pay, bad performance, dissatisfaction on both sides. If you
think you deserve better pay, ask for it or go find it elsewhere. If you
don't, you were just looking for excuses to slack off.

~~~
d0m
I didn't say "Work at 30-40% of their capacity". The job environment is
obviously a very important factor when considering a position.. some
developers preferred to have a smaller salary in exchange for a better work
environment. This is what I think should be explained. Now, if a new manager
comes in and remove that great environment, what in hell would you stay if you
don't have the great environment AND you have lower salary than market
standard?!

------
pasbesoin
Over the years, I've learned that often, "talking" does little or no good.
Actions are what matter.

You demonstrate your value. They either respond in kind, or it's time to
leave.

Not to omit all communication nor seeking some understanding. But this tends
to be supplemental to the whole "actions" thing -- clarifying, perhaps, in
some cases. I've rarely observed it to play a primary role in fixing a
situation.

 _The new manager has no experience managing developers, and the old manager
has moved into a development role to fill in gaps left by senior developers
leaving the company and being unable to find replacements._

They have already failed. This is not your problem.

------
codingdave
For those younger folk who ask why older management feels that the younger
generation is full of entitlement - this scenario is exactly why.

The young engineer feels that they are a gift to their employer, and should
have the freedom to work as they want.

The older manager feels that the work environment has a structure inherent
within it, to which people are expected to comply.

As the engineer, it is your right to quit if you don't want to play by the
rules.

As the manager, it is your right to fire people who won't work within your
guidelines.

Either way, it is not a privilege on either side, nor a punishment if one side
or the other decides to end the relationship.

It is simply two incompatible perspectives. If neither side will change, best
to move on.

~~~
batoure
There is nothing about the poster that implies that the poster is particularly
young. Simply that the developer isn't part of management. Additionally, it is
a fallacy to confuse entitlement with rationalism. The developer rationally
knows that based on their skills they can go elsewhere easily. The question
posed is an interesting one. The manager who has been brought on certainly has
the right to make changes. But don't fall prey to the assumption that the
manager is a good one. Companies fail all the time because they make human
mistakes. The tragedy here is that chances are this cultural shift will
probably kill this company if it is too small. Most developers these days have
the privilege of picking workplaces based on the culture and companies that
don't account for this won't succeed. There is a reason that google has a
fleet of private busses that take their developers to and from work.

~~~
codingdave
You are assuming that the developers are critical to the success of the
company. This may be true in the startup world, but is not true in normal
enterprise environments. In most cases, the core business is something else,
and developers exist to improve the internal tools, not to drive the core
business. Therefore, improving the dev staff is just a question of efficiency,
not one of critical success or failure.

Actually, in many enterprise orgs, one of the key strategic questions of IT is
whether or not to even have a dev staff. That is the whole "build vs. buy"
discussion.

And frankly, the startup world should be jumping for joy over this - the lack
of quality internal dev staffing is exactly what creates the need for larger
enterprises to purchase outside products, and therefore create a market for
startups.

There is a larger ecosystem at play here - if/when every enterprise-level
company starts becoming a good place to be a dev, then their own internal
capabilities will become greatly magnified, there will be a correlating
decrease in their decision to purchase 3rd party products, and the market for
startup-created products will decrease in turn.

~~~
batoure
You are absolutely right OP is unclear if he is just part of an IT division at
a non engineering company. The vibe of his statement made it feel to me that
he was working for a software company which is why I responded in that
context. .. Assuming the case you present: If the OP is even a goodish
engineer there are lots of opportunities out their and companies that have
internal IT have to be conscientious of the fact that they are hiring from a
pool of people in a high demand sector. Standard methods for managing other
departments may not hold up in the IT department at a company that has decided
decided to internalize dev. The decision to force this square peg through the
round hole of the rest of your company culture may lead to the failure of the
goal of internal dev at your company. .. For a number of years I worked for a
large org that had decided to internalize some dev. The engineering division
functioned very differently than the rest of the company. Meetings were more
flexible there was no way to predict when developers might actually be on site
or working from home (something that was rigidly controlled in the rest of the
organization). Friends in other sections would ooze with jealousy over our
lifestyle... usually right up to the point where I started talking about the
average number of hours engineers in our department billed to the
organization. I was part of a team that regularly worked 15 to 18 hour days
and was happy doing it. The fact of the matter was growing the development
team was difficult, candidates with the appropriate skills were scarce. When I
was hired the company had spent 2 years looking for someone to fill the
position and it was another year of serious looking before we were able to
hire another. Keeping in mind the company spent serious time and resources
trying to grow this team which it wanted to be bigger. The company recognized
the support provided by our scarce resource by affording developers with the
leeway to live in a way were they might produce their best work. ... the is a
great story about Jeff Bezos telling an employee how to deal with a bad
manager by voting with their feet: [http://lifehacker.com/5921729/jeff-bezos-
taught-me-when-to-q...](http://lifehacker.com/5921729/jeff-bezos-taught-me-
when-to-quit) The fact of the matter is there are a management success is
dependent on cultural buy-in and a manager who was very successful at one
company may fail at another because of a predetermining culture that they
don't fit into. This is a risk companies in general have to manage and not
figuring it out can cost money over time and potentially lead to failure. ..
Also I know this is Y combinator but I think that it is weird the way that
people use the word startup to mean software company and talk about it like
its an industry instead of a phase. sorry if this is lexically nit picky of me
but i feel like the fact that you called me out for assuming that the poster
works at a software company and not in the IT shop of a larger org puts you in
a sort of glass houses and stones situation when it comes to word choices.

------
southpawgirl
I handed in my notice recently. My situation was somewhat similar to the one
of the poster: project really not that interesting, unglamorous company, so-so
salary, but casual atmosphere and not much to do, and I got to keep a lot of
energy available to study and pursue my own coding projects. Then there was a
change in management and pressure went up tenfolds, so I resigned.

First, I recognise now that it's potentially a bad idea to keep a job just
because it does allow you to coast. There's a depressing quality in such
choice; work representing the most part of our day, underperforming by choice,
by remaining in an undemanding job, can even lower our self-esteem. I didn't
do me much good, in any case.

Secondly, I am leaving because the market allows me to do it, because I know I
am likely to find something better in a reasonable time. I could have handled
the pressure, I could have remained and try to make that place a better place,
but it's simply not in my best interest and it did more sense to just quit.

The position of the poster baffles me a bit: he recognises that conditions
have changed and instead of adapting or refusing the new state of things, he
dumps his responsibility to his own happiness to someone else: his manager.
Indeed having good developers, in the current state of the market, is a
privilege. In five years or ten years it might not be the case. Why making a
case of us vs them? Isn't simpler to just take advantage of the bull dev
market and leave?

It's naive, but widespread, from the part of managers to believe that by
increasing the pressure they will get more bang for their buck. Let's them
learn the hard way, until we can afford it. To moan and not budge is almost
suspicious - maybe the poster is not so sure of himself after all? - and
counterproductive for every party involved.

------
systematical
If where I was working began to micro-manage me then I'd leave. I left my last
job because of this. It was so bad that they said I could only take breaks
every 2 hours and had to wear a tie. I left for a company that matched my
values and gladly took a pay cut doing so. Freedom is worth more than money.
Kindly and professionally let them know why you left in your exit interview.

~~~
QuantumGood
You can increase freedom/satisfaction by decreasing the things that you feel
threaten it.

This is especially true in relationships, sometimes expressed as "don't sweat
the small stuff—and it's all small stuff."

In evaluating a job or relationship, one technique is to make a pros and cons
list, and put things that are easiest to adjust your attitudes on (like
wearing a tie) in a third list to try to see the true value proposition.

Otherwise one risk is that you'll assume minor things may represent a
"cultural/attitude problem" that doesn't really exist beyond a few easy-to-
accept things, such as wearing a tie, taking out the garbage on a schedule,
etc.

Of course, if the value proposition doesn't satisfy you, then you're in the
wrong place. But if it does, keep your attention on the good things about the
relationship as you practice "not sweating the small stuff."

------
ChristianMarks
Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but it seems to me that the 45 hour week
is what employers really mean by a 40 hour week. For example, a very recent
advertisement for a position at _Gold Mansacks_ stated the job was full time,
40 hours per week, from 9AM to 6PM. One can argue about lunch time, and
whether the 40 hours are to occur somewhere within the hours of 9AM to 6PM.
(Something tells me that 10AM to 6PM won't cut it.) In my experience, the
mandatory lunch isn't mandatory, and the employer is getting closer to 45
hours than 40. At least to me, there is a significant difference between
working 35 hours/week and 40 hours/week,especially if those 40 hours involve
another 5 hours for "lunch."

------
greenyoda
" _How do you tell managers that having good developers is a privilege?_ "

By finding a better job elsewhere and resigning? (Assuming, of course, that
this person is really as good as they think they are.)

------
WalterBright
Many years ago, an acquaintance of mine told me how incompetent I was running
my business and managing people. She really let me have it, how could I be so
stupid, anybody could do it better than me, etc.

A few years later, she started her own business, and lost everything, whereas
I made money. (Note I'm not saying I was/am a great manager, I'm not.)

Anyhow, it's easy to dismiss your manager as being an incompetent fool. Until
you try being one yourself.

------
hadees
I think the simple way would be to just ask for a raise to market levels or in
lieu of more pay you would take additional privileges such as being able to
set your own hours.

~~~
Theodores
Or it could be rephrased - effectively he is only working a four day week
spread over five days. If he is to work a full five day week he will 'need'
25% in more pay.

The chances are that if he does move to somewhere else he will have to do the
full 8 hours a day but his pay will be commensurate with that. Again, this
could be explained like that rather than 'you pay badly'.

So it may work if the manager 'sees' him as only hired for a four day week. He
can then make the case for paying him for five days a week in order to achieve
certain objectives, e.g. meet deadlines.

------
watwut
The developers there essentially take 30-40% pay cut in order to work 25% less
hours?

I would find to cleaner to sign contract for 6 hours a day instead of 8 hours
a day one and then slack away the difference. Is it possible that manager
there is trying to change local culture?

Second thing that bothers me is the "any expectations of us, beyond that we
produce quality software according to schedule" part. So, he works in a
company that makes over-estimates work. That is unusual and something to be
thankful for, but I do not find it "fair" to abuse the situation.

If we buy that argument, then manager is in perfect position to pack schedule
much more in order to keep them there as long as he wants. My opinion is that
management that leaves some room for unexpected problems in schedule someone
to be treasured and not taken advantage of.

------
JimmyL
That manager is bad at their job, or has a different set of values than the
developer who's asking the question. In either case, this is a recipe for a
bad relationship.

As a manager, I consider my biggest responsibility to be creating and maintain
an environment and structure where the developers that work in it (and report
to me) are happy, productive, trusting, and engaged. Anything else I'm
responsible for doing - like, say, delivering software - can't happen in a
sustainable and predictable way without my being good at that first thing.
Being a good software manager - or any manager really, but I've got less
experience outside of of the software realm - is about people first and
whatever-you-do second, and it sounds like this manager has forgotten and/or
missed that.

What do you do in this situation? Make preparations to quit (which is distinct
from actually quitting, but it can lead to that). If you have a decent network
- and if you're good enough to get a 40% raise on moving jobs, you should - go
talk to a few people at other companies you admire. If you've know any
recruiters you trust, talk to them. Get a feeling for what the market will
actually pay for your skills. Spend some time working though a good answer to
"why do you want to leave your current job and come here," which force you to
clearly work out what it is that you don't like in your current job (and if
moving jobs will fix that).

Once you've done all that and still want to leave, go to your old manager (and
their manager) with a job offer in hand, and tell them you want a 20% raise
and the following four things to change in this specific way, pulling no
punches. If they hesitate, put in your notice there and there. If they accept
immediately, book another meeting for a month hence with both of them to re-
evaluate how fixing those issues are going, and go back to your job.

If you're in this position, like Toronto, and can give a brief discourse off
the top of your head about when it is and isn't appropriate to use a metaclass
in Python, respond to this and let's talk.

------
gesman
You don't need to tell them anything.

If you're a good developer, you choose where and with whom to work. Feel your
power and use your power.

Really good developer does not need others to acknowledge their worthiness or
change what others should do or think.

------
ohyes
It's called an exit interview. Once you secure a new job, don't be shy with
your managers about why you are leaving.

~~~
mb_72
I would be wary about being completely open and honest about such things at
exit interviews. There is nothing to gain for the ex-employee personally at
that point in time, and everything to lose by 'burning bridges'. You never
know when a few criticisms (even if they are accurate and correct) will come
back to haunt you. At the exit interview, the main thing is to do what is best
for yourself. If you really want to change how the company operates, stay on
and apply gentle pressure or guidance. Criticism presented at an exit
interview will 99% of the time come off sounding like sour grapes
(unfortunately).

~~~
ohyes
This is totally right, you absolutely want to sugar coat it. Don't say "I'm
leaving because I hate bill". But for everyone else's benefit you can drop in
that this new place you're working for gives you the flexible hours you
require and is paying you more money.

The point was more, "if you're unhappy, find something new." You don't owe
anyone anything, and if they can't figure out how to incentivize you into
staying, you shouldn't. It sounds like old manager had a good grip on it and
new manager does not, in this particular case.

~~~
QuantumGood
Yup, important communication is often best when informal. For forms, official
interviews and the like, carefully protect your goals. But be creative in
considering how you can educate the other party.

------
justin66
Well, if this statement is actually true:

> The reality is that any of our senior developers can walk out the door and
> have a new job with as much as 30-40% higher pay within a week.

...it seems there's a pretty obvious object lesson to be had.

------
kabdib
Go over the manager's head. If that company is having trouble keeping senior
staff, there are reasons for it and those reasons are probably not secret.
I've done this, with mixed success, but have never had a problem with
retaliation. You might be surprised how welcome your skip-level feedback is.

Oh, and if your skip-level manager doesn't know who you are (and ideally,
_his_ manager), then you either need to work on visibility, or you're not as
senior or as pivotal as you might think.

Be polite. Tell them that you thought flexible hours were part of the deal.

And then walk. Moving to a new team in the same company is probably just as
good, if you can swing it.

~~~
QuantumGood
Beyond the straightforward good sense of this, it's a negotiation, and you
should "talk to all the players on the opposing party's team" as you gather
information.

------
callesgg
A manager that does not understand the value of his or her employees, is a
shity manager.

Basically you tell the manager straight up. But as we are talking about a
shity manager. They would most likely become offended and hate you or fire
you.

------
jason_wang
I find this situation to be less about good vs bad management or good vs bad
developer.

This situation is simply about a mismatch in culture, expectation and personal
value.

The company would be better off finding developers who are excited to be a
hacker at the company and wants to contribute as much as they can.

The developer would be better off finding a job that allows the freedom he
wants. It's clear to me the developer values freedom over pay and he should
find a company with the same value.

Trying to get the developer and management to meet in the middle will simply
prolong the agony.

------
jakejake
I don't know about other devs but I sometimes worry about bad karma, which is
why I try not to be an arrogant dickhead, even though I know I am important to
the company. Just the pungent stink of both arrogance and professional
ignorance coming from the OP kinda makes me embarrassed.

That being said, I don't consider it bad to speak up for yourself and it helps
if you feel secure in your job. New management is changing things around.
Instead of "dropping some knowledge" on this new manager about how developers
must be given special treatment over other employees - maybe just explain that
flex time is a major perk which you, personally, consider to be very
important. If they insist you can't have it anymore then you can choose to
adapt or find a new gig. You don't have to be the spokesperson for the entire
industry.

Even in this market it's not impossible to find quality devs with a good
attitude. I just find it better to conduct yourself professionally and not
feel like you are better than everybody else. Conduct your business with
integrity. Also keep in mind there's a 49% chance that you are a below-average
developer.

------
zaidf
By not continuing to work under managers that are shitty.

------
linuxhansl
IMHO a manager is to a good engineer what a tennis coach is to a tennis
player.

The coach cannot play tennis any better than the player, but he can help him,
keep him practicing, have him not miss any tournaments, manage his time, etc.

The coach trusts the player that he knows how to play tennis and player trusts
his coach that he keep his back free of distractions.

I think the main task of a manager is to enable the engineer to do his/her
work. Presence-obsession seems counter productive and this manager does not
seems to understand how to manage smart people.

Lastly it has been shown, that the human brain can concentrate for about 6h on
every sleep-wake cycle, everything else is subconscious drifting and
distracting. A 40h or more mandate is counter productive.

So a candid discussion with the manager making these points and explaining the
mutual benefit would be in order. If that does not work one has three choices:
(1) accept it (2) escalate up (3) leave. Which of these is appropriate depends
on the specific circumstances.

------
bdcravens
How can you make it a conversation about company objectives? Make it about the
company, not the developers. There are probably companies that don't need the
best developers. Others do. Talk about cost of bugs due to less experienced
devs, lost productivity time if new hires are needed, etc.

------
vinceguidry
The original asker of the question wrote exactly what he should say to the
manager, right into his SO question. It's this bit:

> The reality is that any of our senior developers can walk out the door and
> have a new job with as much as 30-40% higher pay within a week. Most of us
> are only staying here for the casual environment, and being able to mix
> personal time into our work days.

He should just say that. If it's really true, then he should feel comfortable
leveling with his boss like this.

------
shanemhansen
Went to stackexchange, wanted to make comment, "must have 50 reputation points
to comment", remembered why I don't use sites like stackexchange.com.

I'm a big fan of Dale Carnegie's book, and like many famous books, you can
support many arguments using it. Also, it's strange that the top voted posts
pulls several quotes for _changing someone 's opinion/winning an argument_ and
uses that to support an argument of: "Respect his authority", which is nowhere
in the Carnegie book.

I think of the story Dale Carnegie relates when a hotel he had long worked
with decided to massively increase the rates for renting out that venue after
the engagement had already been booked. (Analogous to changing workplace rules
after you've already decided to work their in return for certain forms of
monetary and non-monetary compensation).

The hotel certainly had every right to change their rental prices, it is,
after all, their property. Dale had every right to either accept the new
prices, complain about the new prices or leave. (I hope I don't have to spell
out the analogies anymore).

So what did Dale do? He called up the hotel, not in an angry way, and laid out
a list of pros and cons to the hotel changing their prices for speaking
engagements.

Under pros, they would have an open schedule during a busy time of the year,
and could book other engagements. Under cons, instead of getting value from
Dale Carnegie, they would get none. The other Con was that having Dale
Carnegie speak at the venue gave them tons of exposure to their target
demographic.

The employee/employer relationship, especially for developers, isn't too
dissimilar, and I think the SO OP gets that. While it's certainly the
companies decision about whether or not they want to change workplace policies
(including non-monetary forms of compensation like flexible hours), employees
are under zero obligation to continue providing their services under the new
plan.

However, A nice employee who has been treated respectfully may decide to warn
the company, out of the good of his or her heart, that their new
"compensation" program will cause them to lose one or more employees, which
will result in a decrease in morale, productivity, the manager in question
might end up being punished for his or her poor retention performance, and
they will have become less competitive in the insanely competitive market for
development talent.

You can call them ultimatums if you want, but at the end of the day employees
agree to a compensation package in return for their services. Both sides can
terminate that agreement at any time, and changes to either the service the
employee provides or the compensation the employer provides are valid reasons
to do so.

The word "authority" doesn't come into play.

In the software development industry, it's not like working for the town
plant. It's extremely progressive, has great compensation benefits and
flexibility. If a company isn't keeping up with the standard compensation
package, you're doing them a service (though they may not realize it) by
letting them know and possibly quitting. I've always understood 6-7 hours in
the office to be quid pro quo for things like crunch time, servers going down
in the middle of the night, etc.

Nothing's stopping the company from posting a job that pays 40k and requires
80 hours a week of in-office time, and nothing will force a competent
developer to apply for that job.

------
elwell
How do you tell good developers that they are good hackers but bad developers?

How do you tell good developers that they will always have a manager whether
it be a "manager" or a "client" or the demands of the problem they are trying
to solve?

------
nanidin
By leaving if they don't agree (assuming you're a good developer.)

------
no_wave
You quit.

------
corresation
You can't tell them: They can only learn this through experience. Alternately
they may be the sort of shop where average developers are perfectly
satisfactory.

If demands by an employer change or are no longer acceptable, find a new job
and move on. If you are confident in your marketability, outright state your
demands about flexible work et al, knowing that this may cause conflict and a
departure may be expedited. None of us are fixed in our jobs.

One thing worth mentioning is that developers, as in other high variance skill
pursuits (such as sports), have individual allowances and leeways. There is
nothing "unfair" about a star performer essentially writing their own rules,
and it is one of the great sadnesses of this profession that there are so many
lobsters desperately trying to claw their peers down to the bottom of the pot.

