
Employees: looking for “the great boss who cares about their development” - ioanarebeca
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/171302/employee-satisfaction-doesn-matter.aspx
======
switch007
I company I worked at contracted a company to do "scientific" questionnaires
of staff, so management knew which kind of personalities people had, what they
wanted out of a job etc. We had to sit through an hour presentation, being
told what makes us happy.

Everyone was forced to do the questionnaire and afterwards we had an
opportunity to discuss the results with the company and our managers. All
through the process, management stressed how much they were interested in how
we can grow, how we can do better in the organisation and so on.

I asked: why don't just sit down with people over a coffee and ask them? I got
blank stares. You could tell they thought we were all too stupid to know what
we wanted and that nothing valuable could come out of that process. Completely
idiotic.

~~~
busterarm
I've worked for this company! Recently even.

We also had those wonderful quarterly AND yearly reviews that don't accomplish
anything other than give management a way to fire.

~~~
praneshp
Now I think I work here. $BIG_CORP_FEMALE_CEO_UNDER_FIRE?

~~~
nitrogen
It's probably happened at lots of large corporations.

~~~
busterarm
Right.

I don't work for that one. It wasn't a tech company, it was an ISP.

I also did not get fired.

------
officemonkey
I'd believe Gallup if they weren't hacks and crooks.

Five to ten years ago they had a big program that they peddled to
organizations about Employee Engagement.

They ended up paying the Justice Department 10.5 million dollars for crimes
associated with contracting irregularities (aka bribes.)

Looks like they're going to turn their "survey experience" to another part of
employee training.

It's really sad about Gallup. They've been riding on their good name that they
developed 60 years ago. They're bad pollsters (they predicted McCain would win
in 2008) and they're pretty blatantly partisan. Oh, as as mentioned above,
crooked.

That being said, yes, I'm sure that employees want "a great boss who cares
about their development." I knew that years ago. I also know that this "story"
is a puff piece to sell Gallup consulting services.

~~~
feld
I worked for them for a short time due to an acquisition. They're crazy. They
think they're solving the world's problems with polling data and they force
you to be psycho-analyzed and have a plaque at your desk displaying your
traits.

Nuttier than squirrel turds.

~~~
27182818284
It spreads too with things like
[http://www.strengthsfinder.com/](http://www.strengthsfinder.com/) which are
amazingly short-sighted. You mention you like solving some math-like problems
and then surprise your strengths are analysis and math-related things!

~~~
officemonkey
Yes. It was "Strengths finder," which was almost as mumbo-jumbo as Myers-
Briggs.

------
js8
I think employees want control of their own life, more share in decision-
making. Essentially, they want democracy, even if they can't articulate it.
But in capitalist society, where the ownership of capital decides, this cannot
happen.

There are attempts to tiptoe around this problem with holacracies and Agile
methodologies and similar concepts, but the main problem still remains.

~~~
danieltillett
In theory workers co-operatives are this, but they have a habit of not doing
so well in the real world. It is a really interesting question why this is the
case. Why should a business owned by a capitalist for their own benefit be
able to outcompete a workers co-operative?

~~~
jasode
_> It is a really interesting question why this is the case. Why should a
business owned by a capitalist for their own benefit be able to outcompete a
workers co-operative?_

Because 99.9% of typical workers _don 't have the money_ to build the
business.

Take for example, Google Inc. origins in 1998. Both L Page and S Brin came
from upper middle class families but neither of their bank accounts nor their
parents' bank accounts had $25 million to spend on a business. It's also
doubtful if either family could have been approved for a $25m unsecured
business loan from a bank. Likewise, Google's first 100 employeees also didn't
collectively have $25 million. On the other hand, VCs like Sequioa and KPCB
_did have $25 million_ to invest. Later on, more investors bought IPO shares
totaling $1.9 billion. There is no union of workers that can pool together
that kind of cash.

Since a co-op by definition must be _owned by the workers_ , the question is
no longer "interesting" with a mysterious answer. Instead, it's tautological.
If you look at the typical workers' modest savings as the ceiling for funding
a business, it's obvious why they can't compete with businesses built by
investors/capitalists money. While WorkersOwnedSearchEngine Inc scrapes
together $30,000 from their owners-workers' savings accounts to buy a 5th rack
server from dell.com, Google Inc. can use a fraction of its $2 billion war
chest to buy _an entire data center_ and also break ground on a brand new one.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
That (access to capital) is the big issue for coops. I used to be a member of
a UK coop in the technical space (poptel) and we did do some work with VC
funding.

As long as the coop members have 50% +1 that ok but it can go wrong (thank you
very much ICANN) as we found at poptel.

The other problem is the coop movement in general is very old fashioned and
isn't really embracing technical changes. Which is a pity as if poptel had
been brought out by the main uk coop we woudl have all had a very nice 6
figure payday.

------
vfc1
This is great stuff. Problem is there is the work the company needs you to do,
and the work you want to do.

Both of these change overtime, for example in software development when the
lifecycle of the project advances. As the project reaches maintenance mode,
you can no longer design the architecture and implement things from scratch,
its already done.

So the work the company needs you to do now is very different.

Then there is your personal preferences that change over time.

So the work you want to do and the one the company wants you to do will
probably only overlap for a short period of time.

~~~
dozzie
> So the work you want to do and the one the company wants you to do will
> probably only overlap for a short period of time.

Similarly, there's only short period of overlapping of the work you want to do
and the work doing which you would grow. I see too often programmers jumping
around abandoning their half-written application or library once it is
somewhat working, never learning what semantic versioning is about, what it
takes to write good documentation, or how architecture works.

I've seen people _proud_ of having an opportunity to maintain (note: not to
develop, just to maintain) big products. Such product was doing amazing things
and was well-written, of course, but would you think you could take pride of
maintaining somebody else's work?

~~~
philipov
I can easily imagine taking pride in maintaining a _well-written_ project
doing _amazing things_. I believe most people unhappy with maintaining someone
else's work are dealing with neither, and are furthermore discouraged from
doing anything to make it better. Just complete the tickets as quickly as
possible, and keep your head low.

~~~
dozzie
Yes, but you wouldn't know in advance that this codebase you're going to be
assigned to is well-written, or that it does amazing things (unless you're in
its target users group or know the target industry already).

If somebody offered you a job to merely maintain an old, gigantic codebase, I
don't think your first thought would be "wow, I'm going to learn _so much_
from this!", and there probably wouldn't be any way you could assess the
codebase quality before accepting the offer so you could end up thinking that
eventually. This is how things that you want and that could help you grow can
be vastly different.

~~~
philipov
I mean, if you're a novice, it _should_ be your first thought. If it isn't, I
consider that a failure of education. Jumping into writing something from
scratch when you're not part of the target user group or know the target
industry already is a great way to produce horrible code that you (or someone
else) will hate to maintain.

This is why it's so important to grill your interviewers about the reality of
working at the company, although I'll admit that I learned which questions to
ask from bad experience. Asking those questions also happens to serve as
excellent signalling to your technical interviewers, much more effective than
being able to solve some silly logic puzzle.

And to be perfectly fair, you do learn so much from working on poorly written
projects that are a horror to maintain. Failure teaches you which mistakes to
avoid next time.

~~~
distracted828
> failure teaches you which mistakes to avoid next time

As a recent grad who has been fired from two jobs, I would be afraid to join a
poorly written project because I would worry that I would fail and then be
fired.

Learning how to be successful is pretty important and teaches you things you
cannot learn from lurching from failure to failure.

~~~
jschwartzi
Even the jobs with poorly-written codebases teach you a lot. Only they're
teaching you through experience what is or isn't maintainable.

~~~
distracted828
Sure, but at a certain point, you need to learn a method to writing a
maintainable codebase. Otherwise you never become capable of building a
successful project.

------
6stringmerc
The term "Glass Ceiling" was created to help discuss the difficulties for
advancement by women and minority / upwardly mobile individuals in the
workplace. I'd venture a guess HN is likely stratified to a predominately
middle-aged or younger demographic (US), albeit with a significant number of
professionals with decades of longevity with technology. So, not the primary
target of the concept, but a group that definitely has grown up with the
concept being discussed as a social/professional issue.

However, outside of technology fields, from personal experience and numerous
discussions with peers (anecdotes), I think I finally hit the right term to
describe a different 'advancement' conundrum: "The Grey Ceiling."

To put the idea in blunt terms, there's no room for advancement and career
development when the prior generation(s) are stuck in the workforce for
whatever reason(s) - lack of retirement savings, dependent adult children or
being part of the 'Sandwhich Generation' or significant debt accumulated over
the years.

The Grey Ceiling has no incentive to assist up and coming professionals to
grow, to increase their income, or become peers in the corporate environment.
The Gray Ceiling sees youth as a threat - insofar as if a younger worker gets
a raise it's less monies available for themselves. The Gray Ceiling is not a
'guidebook' or 'conspiracy' to keep the younger professionals from advancing,
but rather simply a result of self-interest amongst a cohort of people.

Of course there are dozens of firms that take on mentorship and development
type programs. Like becoming an i-Banking Analyst. Of course there's light at
the end of the 80 hour work week tunnel!

~~~
jevanish
That's an interesting term, "Grey Ceiling." It makes a lot of sense though.

In the "Great Recession" a similar effect happened when many who lost their
jobs took new jobs that they were overqualified for. This blocked out entry
level workers and recent graduates, especially when other companies also
adopted hiring freezes.

A related situation can also be if a company stops growing. If you're not
growing then the company doesn't have new opportunities for people to take on.
There's few promotions then and work can be "maintenance mode" (as an early
thread above talks about with engineers) for everyone, thus creating boredom
and career stagnation.

------
ryandrake
Funny thing missing from this thread: Money. Doesn't anyone work for money
anymore? You know, that stuff that allows you to survive day to day? I guess
it just sounds better to say that you go to work to "change the world" or
"fulfill a lifelong passion" or "grow your career". Saying you're in it for
money is crass. If I want personal fulfillment or engaging projects or ping
pong, I can do that outside of work, AND I get to pick and choose what I want
to do. Would you really do what you do for 1/3 of your life if you didn't
receive compensation for that time?

~~~
st3v3r
Because after a while, more money doesn't motivate. Most of us are making
levels of money where an extra $10k or so isn't really going to make as much
of a difference in your day to day life as some of these other things.

~~~
ryandrake
"Most" of us? Maybe if most of us are execs and senior VPs. For the rest of us
$10K is a big chunk of change--a significant percentage of compensation. $10K
is about $500/mo after taxes, which could, for example, mean being able to
afford to live in a much better neighborhood or send your kids to a better
school.

~~~
jevanish
There's a lot of studies that show that money is a poor motivator long term
once you pass the essentials for life (which admittedly in the Valley is
higher than many other places). As important, some of those studies show that
especially in roles requiring creativity (like engineering, design, etc) it
actually negatively effects motivation and output.

See Dan Pink's Drive for a good summary of many of this research, which has
led to his Autonomy - Mastery - Purpose framework that is part of his more
well-known TED Talk on the subject:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation)

Coincidentally, those 3 pieces of his framework hit on many of the aspects of
this thread and especially the Gallup research on the desire for goals and
growth.

~~~
childpsychismeh
This response has always seemed meaningless to the point of insult; and the
conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much of "they don't REALLY want/need
money" is motivated by the people who have to pay out.

(sorry, this comes off as very blunt, please take it as only a comment on the
argument and not you, but I needed to use strong words to express the strength
of what it makes me feel)

As you say, "essentials for life" are different in the valley, but are also
different per-person. My essentials were MUCH simpler when I was living alone.
When I got a fiancee in industry, my essentials became easier to support Now
that she went into academia, it suddenly became a struggle.

Combine this with area of living, and what do you see? That the "essentials"
are far more dynamic than your argument typically lets on, not only in terms
of material differences like spousal compensation/how many children you're
supporting, but psychological/learned response, e.g. "I have to get my used
car repaired every year or so because I can't afford a new one off the lot".

Is that essential? Different people could probably make different arguments.
Does it hurt when you have that thought pulling in next to someone driving a
Porsche? You better damn well bet it does.

So to bring this back to the root: VERY LONG TERM maybe I could agree with
you, but life isn't just a very long term calculation, the dominating thoughts
day to day are (at least for the less zen of us) very now-focused, and expose
many situations in which a little more money (as a parent comment said) would
drastically increase the quality of life.

~~~
ryandrake
I fully agree, and thank you for taking the time to comment on what's now a
very old thread. I'll put it even more bluntly:

Cavemen had "the essentials of life." That's not what I'm going for, and not
what most people are going for. Every little bit extra helps.

~~~
st3v3r
But what are you willing to trade for it? Keep in mind that I'm not talking
about people who are just above making ends meet; I'm talking about people who
are already making 6 figures. I would imagine that most of us, the additional
money, unless it is a very significant sum, like a 30% raise, would rather not
have the additional stress and the additional responsibilities, and instead be
able to use that time and energy on things that we want to do, like hobbies or
being with family.

~~~
existencebox
I am rather well paid. I push very hard in my job, to try and aim for monetary
promotions. I live in such a high cost of living area, however, that even on
my salary it is difficult to afford a house. and start a family, ESPECIALLY
competing with double income households.

This leaves me with three options. Rent forever, at increasing rates. (not a
feasible option). Buy a house now, ride the constant increasing prices like
everyone already in the market, be glad I'm not a buyer any more. (trying, but
very hard to compete when 10% above listing is common.) Save up and move the
hell out.

In any of these situations, a 5%, hell, a 1% raise compounded over a decade,
makes a _meaningful_ difference in how long you'd be able to sustain living in
a better cost of living area (e.g. if I moved out into the country somewhere),
if not also on how much I can put out as a down-payment or as a lifeline to
keeping up with increasing rent.

Perhaps it's a sign of what would have in the past been comfortably middle
class being more and more stretched, but every little bit counts; it's an
oddly similar feeling to when I used to be far less well off a few decades
back.

------
lhnz
People want to be happy, it doesn't really matter how.

Often they don't really know themselves. But they're quite sure it'll happen
if only they were able to become more impressive. They will be happy once they
are promoted, treated with respect, and given more money.

A great boss feels like an ally, and often it's not the outcome that makes you
happy but the hope of a better future.

I think there are many people in an organisation that can alleviate this
desire. It's not just managers offering personal development or leaders
inspiring people to be bold, sometimes it is your friends that make you see a
better perspective on how your life already is. I think it's important to
think about how you can make others feel good, and not just how you feel about
your own position.

~~~
crimsonalucard
People are also designed to never stay happy for long. We will always need
more to be happy.

~~~
collyw
Where do you get that idea from?

(There is more evidence for people evolving rather than being designed).

~~~
crimsonalucard
Designed by natural selection. People are naturally selected to never stay
happy for long.

To be satisfied and satiated means you no longer feel the drive to compete.
There is no evolutionary advantage in a creature that does not want to
compete.

~~~
collyw
"Design by natural selection"

otherwise known as evolution. Design implies some kind of thought process
before creation.

There are plenty of counterintuitive examples of traits that have been
selected by evolution. Dogs seems happy all the time and they have not been
made extinct yet.

~~~
crimsonalucard
>otherwise known as evolution. Design implies some kind of thought process
before creation.

I apologize profusely for offending you with the word "Design." I accidentally
implied the existence of a god which is a totally off-topic conversation and
therefore must commit seppuku.

>There are plenty of counterintuitive examples of traits that have been
selected by evolution. Dogs seems happy all the time and they have not been
made extinct yet.

Sure, but for the specific case of humanity it is highly likely that the
reason we do not stay happy is due to natural selection.

Dogs are a domestic animal and therefore a product of artificial selection. We
as benevolent caretakers have have selected the dogs that are happy all the
time and euthanized the dogs that are angry all the time. The evolutionary
strategy dogs employ is a parasitic strategy and less common than the standard
strategy most competitive animals follow. Dogs hijack our paternal and
maternal instincts and cause us to give them resources, this caused them to
evolve non-standard traits that make them happy all the time and unable to
survive in the wild. The evolutionary strategy humans follow is more standard
and thus we display more malevolent and competitive traits.

------
mbrock
On the other hand, I don't want to be condescended to by managers that invite
me to meetings about improving _me_ , assessing my personality, helping me
"grow."

I want to help improve the _product_ , and the most fundamental way to engage
me with that is to ask me for input and take my ideas & concerns seriously.

Just coffee and a chat every now and then is a great setting for that. No need
for made-up agendas and bullet point lists and awkward quizzes.

~~~
taneq
On the third hand, if you have some kind of career goals, then you probably
want to be making some kind of progress towards them. While it's not always
possible to discuss such goals with your employer (eg. if your goal is "become
the CTO" and your immediate manager's goal is also "become the CTO" then
discussing this with them is likely to end poorly), it's important to at least
let them know which direction you want to go in.

At my last job, I was the primary fire-putter-outer on a number of fronts, and
it was very disheartening watching new projects (that I'd put my hand up for)
get handed off to others while I was busy fixing up the previous efforts of
said others.

~~~
jdmichal
> At my last job, I was the primary fire-putter-outer on a number of fronts,
> and it was very disheartening watching new projects (that I'd put my hand up
> for) get handed off to others while I was busy fixing up the previous
> efforts of said others.

I've seen this happen at an even bigger scale. The site I was part of was very
successful, and was therefore completely unable to get any time or capital to
do independent (non-contract) projects. And some of the projects we wanted to
do were to improve our IP holdings within the space we were working!
Meanwhile, the _entire site_ that lost two contracts to rebids all got put on
cool, independent, green-field projects. Completely bananas, and a symptom of
a much larger problem of not rewarding success that eventually caused me to
leave.

~~~
brazzledazzle
I've seen similar behavior and the theory I came up with is that managers are
engaged/rewarded by being associated with successful projects and technical
people that report to them are engaged/rewarded by new projects and
challenges.

I speculated that from their perspective someone tied down to maintaining a
very successful project (that continues to make succeed or make money) is in a
great position politically and those getting the new green-field projects are
being exposed to risk.

It reminds me of meetings–managers don't realize that they are a drain on the
people performing the work because that's of course how they work and
accomplish things.

------
blfr
All I want is work organization that doesn't get in the way of doing things
that actually make money. It's truly unbelievable how even small companies
adopted systems that impede sales and engineering, or worse make customers
jump through hoops, because it makes life easier for some bean counter.

That other stuff sounds like completely optional nice-to-haves.

~~~
benzofuran
Having been through a similar knee-jerk of late, the important thing to
remember (not that it helps) is that a publicly-traded company is a machine to
make money. Not to make sales, not to make designs / widgets, but make money
for the investors / owners.

Once I wrapped my head around that it helped somewhat.

~~~
blfr
These aren't public companies and it's definitely costing owners money. But
this isn't the point. The OP is about employees' satisfaction and
inefficiencies like an inflexible invoicing, warehouse or order management
system are incredibly frustrating and demotivating.

------
rbanffy
I think there may be some confusion between satisfaction through perks with
satisfaction through doing great work. I require certain perks - sufficient
time off with my family, time to educate myself further, a reasonably stocked
cafeteria, quiet spaces - but I also need to feel satisfied by knowing the
work I do is important - and what is "important" to me may not be important to
anyone else and what is important to me now was not important ten years ago
and will not be important ten years from now.

~~~
ricksplat
> satisfaction through doing great work

The org psych term for this is "engagement".

    
    
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement
    

Operationally "satisfaction" is an all encompassing term, that doesn't really
relate to specific factors. So while you might be "satisfied" with your bank
manager, you may not want to marry her.

Engagement speaks of something more: A satisfaction (if you will) derived
specifically from doing your work.

As an interesting aside, engagement is theoretically the other side of the
coin of "burnout" and is physiologically thought to operate on the same
mechanisms as "stress" (or "eustress" to distinguish it positively).

A "satisfied" state relates more to a relaxed, unstressed, disengaged
mentality.

Favourite example from one of my textbooks was a lion chasing a gazelle: Both
are physiologically experiencing the same thing, but the gazelle is "stressed"
whereas the lion is "engaged".

~~~
ricksplat
Actually you could in fact take this a step further into behavioral theory, if
you consider workplace satisfaction derived from doing work versus other
sources (football tables etc). It could be said that too much satisfaction
from the "other" sources "extinguishes" (or overrides) the satisfaction
derived from doing the work.

Kind of like that classic experiment of the rat who is given a regular dosage
of cocaine and soon starts to neglect any other activities beyond the
consumption of cocaine.

------
jevanish
It's kind of amazing how often this is getting talked about, but little seems
to be changing.

A few examples:

1) Mary Meeker's Internet Trends 2015 ->
[http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/internet-
trends-v1](http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/internet-trends-v1)

2) Gallup, here and in some of their research ->
[http://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-
manager...](http://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-manager.aspx)

3) Deloitte's latest study on Millennials ->
[https://getlighthouse.com/blog/deloitte-survey-
millennials-2...](https://getlighthouse.com/blog/deloitte-survey-
millennials-2016-takeaways/)

4) Reid Hoffman's book, The Alliance ->
[http://www.slideshare.net/reidhoffman/the-alliance-a-
visual-...](http://www.slideshare.net/reidhoffman/the-alliance-a-visual-
summary)

Companies don't reward managers for caring about people's development, so it
won't change until companies start to.

------
metasean
_... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait._ \-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

The original title is, "Employee Satisfaction Doesn't Matter".

~~~
ioanarebeca
Well, I didn't use the original title because my belief is that it is
misleading. Employee satisfaction does matter, but it depends how you define
it - that was my take from the story. Imho quoting an actual fact resulting
from their study was the objective solution compared to a debatable title
meant to attract eyeballs.

------
danieltillett
The problem is this is a hard problem. Developing staff takes effort, time and
resources, while a ping-pong table just requires money.

Personally I am of the belief that work is work. Pay for what you expect and
expect what you pay for.

~~~
suttree
Totally agree, the hard problem in all of this isn't people analytics or
people ops, it's people. Dealing with them is hard because we're all so
different.

------
rikkus
If you get a great boss, stay where you are. There's not much more important,
IME.

~~~
endemic
I've also seen assertions that employees don't leave companies, they leave
supervisors.

~~~
jevanish
And the data backs up that statement...
[https://getlighthouse.com/blog/gallup-employee-engagement-
su...](https://getlighthouse.com/blog/gallup-employee-engagement-survey-
managers/)

------
st3v3r
It's pretty simple: If they don't care about me, why should I care about their
product? I'll still come in and do the job, but why should I put in extra
effort?

~~~
jotux
Related:
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508133157.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140508133157.htm)

------
svendlarssen
I currently work for a small company in Denmark. The moment I decided to sign
a contract with the firm, all my friends look at me and wondered: why? The
answer was simple: I chose a boss, not an employer.

------
draw_down
I don't disagree, who could.

But this type of stuff is usually nothing more than a justification for taking
away the free lunch, without actually doing anything about making sure people
have meaningful and fulfilling work. You know, we're getting serious by taking
away the free Cheez-Its... and making your boss ride your ass to work 12 hour
days.

------
zenplatypus
I think this touches the odd phenomenon of our hedonic preferences. In a given
moment there are probably a majority of people in corporate, public ("money
making machines" as I believe someone referred to them as) who would state
that they desire the increased vacation, provided meals, ping pong table
version of happiness at work and truly believe that would make them better
off. And it likely would to some degree, but as has been shown in economics
over and over, outside of basic needs we have a remarkable ability to
normalize our happiness back to a baseline level despite increases in material
access (but we still crave). Thus this may put an employer in an odd dilemma
if deciding where to place their "happiness" efforts for their employees.
Employees would support "perks" and "perks" are easy. But to sustainably
become a motivating and development-focused employer you need a ton of buy-in
from likely apathetic managers, you need a top-down level of emotional
maturity and management skill that is rarely seen in companies of scale, and
you need to have the ability to operate in a longer term horizon (because
payoffs and results take time) which few companies and leaders do. I guess the
'so what' from this is that we should take it upon ourselves to move beyond
visceral preferences to act in our (and others') real best self-interest.

------
Mc_Big_G
Giving employees a reasonable amount of vacation is bad? Fuck you

------
crimsonalucard
This article is wrong. Why is it wrong? It talks about fulfilling work and a
great boss as if it's the ONLY thing that employees look for. BY common sense
what employees look for is a huge multitude of factors combined together part
of which includes "Free lunches, more vacation time, latte machines --- and
don't forget a ping pong table." It is stupid to discard all of these things
as inconsequential when the employee himself states that these are things he
wants.

Engaging work is ONLY one factor out of many things that Employees declare
that they want.

What this article is trying and failing to address is the fact that most
employees become dissatisfied with their work EVEN when employers try to
satisfy all these needs and wants. It hints at the fact that there is
something that the employee wants that he isn't fully aware of. What is this
thing that he wants?

Simple. The answer is: Career Growth. As humans our needs and wants are
unlimited. It doesn't matter how many needs and wants are satisfied, the
employee will eventually want more. Employees are looking for a continuous
improvement in their well-being keyword being "continuous." The company that
provides the employee with the fastest rate of unlimited growth is the company
that retains the employee.

The reality is, nothing can satisfy an employee if his wants and needs are
unlimited. We all fight for this plateau of ultimate satisfaction that we will
never reach. If you want to retain employees you must give employees the
constant illusion that they are making progress towards this nonexistent
plateau.

~~~
vinceguidry
Not all jobs can offer growth. It's in everybody's best interests if you just
move on from such jobs once you outgrow them.

I spent two and a half years at my current job maintaining a legacy codebase.
I looked for, and explored, growth opportunities at that job. In the end, I
had to find them myself. Nobody at the company could really put in the effort
it would have taken to keep me fulfilled, so I did it myself. I did lots of
reading, experimenting, diving deep into fundamentals.

I am a much, much better programmer than I was when I started the job. The
company did not give that to me, it couldn't have given it to me.

I eventually convinced the company to move off of the old legacy platform,
that it was holding them back. I wanted to build them a new platform, but they
decided to go with Magento. They're giving me a pretty sweet severance deal
while I go out looking for a job.

I firmly believe that anybody can grow at any job. It's nice when the company
can help you do that, but your own growth is your responsibility, and nobody
else's.

~~~
crimsonalucard
>I firmly believe that anybody can grow at any job. It's nice when the company
can help you do that, but your own growth is your responsibility, and nobody
else's.

I'm not talking about personal growth.

I'm talking about growth in benefits, like salary or working environment.
People leave companies or learn new skills to get more benefits. The company
needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. Simply
buying a ping pong table or giving an employee "engaging work" isn't enough.

~~~
vinceguidry
> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee
> leaves.

This smacks of entitlement.

The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they
wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these
fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries,
providing a social ladder.

Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same
compensation, and turn over staff every few years. This only contributes to a
thriving job market, and means more opportunity for people at the bottom to
make their way into the field. More people coming in at the bottom means more
demand for services, meaning more opportunity at the top for organizing and
directing.

It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the
security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world.

~~~
crimsonalucard
>This smacks of entitlement.

Employees should feel entitled. They generate 99% of our GDP while 50% of that
GDP goes to the top 1% of the population. The capitalist employer / employee
relationship is designed to screw over the employee. The word "entitlement" is
a classic guilt tripping technique used by either employee or employer. Ignore
it, because as an employee you will never get a high enough salary that can
tip the scales. With 50% of the worlds wealth in the hands of the 1% (aka the
employers), the metrics say one thing and one thing only: you are always
entitled to more.

>The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they
wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these
fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries,
providing a social ladder.

If the employee isn't leaving and their isn't any growth, than the employee
stays out of desperation or fear. The employee is essentially too afraid to
take the risk to create growth. This is not the definition of employee
satisfaction. Many employees are in this situation and many employees aren't
satisfied because of it. It is very rare for a man to feel 100% satisfied
without any continuous growth. Additionally, I am not talking about whether
this situation is wrong or right, I am talking about what an employer needs to
do to satisfy an employee. Whether the employer wants to do that is a
different issue.

>It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the
security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world.

Sure. I never said anything to the contrary. We don't live in an ideal world.
But the context for my comment is "How to satisfy an employee" and I answer
the question with what is required.

The conversation is sidetracking from my initial comment about the true nature
of employment satisfaction into a technical argument on why such an idealist
endeavor isn't executed. So what? Do you agree with me on what makes an
employee satisfied or do you have evidence/logic to falsify my reasoning?

~~~
vinceguidry
You know what keeps real employees satisfied at their jobs, not just the
entitled ones that expect the good life to just come to them?

A sense of purpose. The feeling that what you do _matters_. The feeling that
at the end of the day, you've accomplished something. Something worth giving
1/3 of your life towards.

You're hiding your greed behind classist nonsense. You don't want a sense of
purpose, you just want that paycheck to keep getting bigger. You are very
probably already in the 1% of top income earners in the world. Being that that
cutoff is $34,000/year, it's not hard.

You should be focused less on fighting those with more than you, and more on
working with them to do things that _matter_.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Classist nonsense? Greed? "Smacks of Entitlement"? Your language has been
negative and insulting and I am highly offended. Your attitude is against HN
rules.

>A sense of purpose. The feeling that what you do matters. The feeling that at
the end of the day, you've accomplished something. Something worth giving 1/3
of your life towards.

You truly think that's all people want? Most people with jobs do not work on
something they consider meaningful. To do so means they ARE LUCKY. If that's
the case why are they working? What is the factor that is satiating them when
the job provides Zero meaning? Salary. You're essentially claiming most
employees aren't "real" because they work for money instead of meaningful
work.

You know those quants at wall street who spend their days building algorithms
that trade meaningless paper stocks that contribute nothing to GDP? They do it
for half a million dollars annual salary, not for a job that matters.

>You're hiding your greed behind classist nonsense. You don't want a sense of
purpose, you just want that paycheck to keep getting bigger.

I'm not even really hiding anything. All people want more money, including me.
You're trying to paint me as some "greedy" person because I want more money
when wanting more money is NORMAL. We are all imperfect creatures and we all
want more money. To openly deny this desire means you are a creature of utter
moral perfection and I question your honesty and the existence of such a
creature.

What I really want is this: More money AND a sense of purpose. Isn't that what
everyone wants? All you want is a sense of purpose and minimum wage. Ok, good
for you.

>You are very probably already in the 1% of top income earners in the world.
Being that that cutoff is $34,000/year, it's not hard.

Your numbers are loaded like the rest of your argument. You need 500,000
annually to be in the top 1%: [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-
percent-are-y...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-
you/)

>You should be focused less on fighting those with more than you, and more on
working with them to do things that matter.

Who are you to tell me what I should do or what I want? You do not control
what satisfies an employee. Majority consensus defines this concept not you
telling me what I should do.

Also note that no employee ever really works "with" the employer as you put
it. To do so means you get an equal piece of the pie. Hence the usual term is
"Employees work FOR employers."

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I think that half-million is in the USA, not the world. Most people in the
world make a few dollars a day.

------
TheAndruu
I agree with the point, and appreciate the article stating in words what I've
felt.

If a recruiter tries to push the 'game room and free snacks' angle, I
immediately grow concerned that the employer is out of touch with employees
and thinks that this leads to happiness.

Everyone really wants to feel their work is appreciated.

------
greggarious
I'd also throw in "and treats them with respect"

Otherwise you end up with someone who has their entire identity wrapped up in
their work, which can be stressful no matter how much they "care about
professional development"

------
kchoudhu
I don't want my boss to look out for my development -- I want my boss to make
sure that I have a clear political field to advance my technical agenda.

Do that, and I'll take care of my personal development.

~~~
deelowe
Those are one in the same. Development could be:

\- clearing roadblocks \- training and coaching \- assigning work \- forcing a
change

------
oniMaker
I'd just like to note that this article has given us a fine new phrase to put
on the shelf of useful business culture metaphors, right next to bike-shedding
and dog-fooding.

Bear-feeding!

------
suttree
My approach to this is giving companies a place to start these kinds of
discussions with people - [https://www.somewhere.com/for-
companies](https://www.somewhere.com/for-companies)

Not people analytics or people ops, but a way to talk about how you think
about and approach work.

------
andrew950
Couldn't agree more. More and more people should focus on finding the right
boss instead of employer.

------
quaffapint
I want to write and learn good coding for myself.

While the boss would be just as happy with crappy code as good code, as long
as he sees that project percentage increase, it just makes me happier to do it
right as much as possible, even if I spend my own time on it.

~~~
distracted828
Here is something I don't understand: How does one effectively deliver on a
project while writing crappy code? Doesn't trying to do that result in the
codebase becoming so confusing that you don't know how to add things to it
without breaking other things?

~~~
Mikerad1979
When writing crappy code you are either not thinking long term at all, or you
are just "kicking the can down the road", in that you'll pay for it later when
there isn't a time crunch.

Not that I've ever done something like that...

~~~
distracted828
What I mean is, how do you keep it from catching up with you a week later?

------
a_lifters_life
Good article, thanks. Employees want to feel fulfilled, and engaged in their
work. A huge part of that starts with leaders, NOT managers. The world doesn't
need managers, they need leaders.

~~~
Spearchucker
The world needs both.

Consider an expedition making its way through a jungle. There are a bunch of
people hacking out a path with machetes. The manager makes sure the machetes
are sharp, that everybody has enough food and water, and generally ensures
that hacking continues unimpeded. The leader climbs a tree and makes sure the
hacking is taking place in the right place.

Back to your point - yes, you're partly right, but at its root it's an agency
issue -

Shareholder (owner) cannot or doesn't want to run the company, and so employs
someone (an agent) to do it on his/her behalf. These agents are leadership
roles (typically CEO, CFO, COO and CTO roles).

However, where these appointed leaders don't have a large-enough financial
stake in the organisation, they will do things to better their own financial
interests, rather than the interests of the shareholders.

That disconnect is called agency cost. A side effect is that these leaders
become managers because bettering your own interests requires finesse (aka
management). Sh*t, of course, flows downwards, and needs more managers.

------
ricksplat
Employee satisfaction _does_ matter to a point, as a "hygiene factor" \- but
yes the author is right, it's not to be confused with "engagement".

------
jonathanwallace
Stated in another way:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UayuSXBcg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1UayuSXBcg).

------
rocky1138
This is a great opinion piece. Where's the sources for the data behind the
rationale?

~~~
__derek__
There isn't really any. This is the Chairman and CEO wanting to opine,
probably to encourage sales[1]:

> What's more, companies should have all of their employees take the Clifton
> StrengthsFinder assessment and make sure they build programs for each of
> those employees to get the most of their innate talents and strengths at
> work.

[1] From "Millions of Bad Managers Are Killing America's Growth" (linked to
from the OP's article):
[http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/169208/millions-
bad-m...](http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/169208/millions-bad-managers-
killing-america-growth.aspx)

------
crispycrucnchy
2-way street

