Motivation of software professionals

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

[...]

That said, by definition professionals are, to some extent, in
it for the money. If they were not, they would be amateurs as
I am now. How that is balanced against interesting work,
physical working conditions, status, etc. varies.

I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same conotations
in English as it does in French, but from the French meaning, I
don't think you can be truely a "professional" if you're only in
it for the money. "Professional" implies being paid for what
you do, but it also implies a certain degree of personal
standards with regards to quality and such---a "professional"
will take pride in his work.

Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a professional
body which regulates itself and has the right to control entry to the
profession. For instnace I can't simply buy scalpels and antiseptic
and set myself up as a brain surgeon - I have to go throguh the
British Medical Association before they'll let me chop people up. the
same is true for lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure
niches.

Most people aren't professionals, and the word has become misused to
mean 'skilled workers with high standards'. Bascially employers want
the advantages of professional status without conferring on their
employees the control that is the natural concomitant.

Computer programmers are rarely professionals in the true sense, but
ususally professional in the bastardised sense of the term.

Come to Britain where we have "boffins" or occasionally "eggheads" and
where the gas company will send round an engineer to fix your appliance.
Or, if he cannot manage it, a technician (yes - that's what they really
said).

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Seebs]

Some places you go, however, you never want to return.
They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new
job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is
behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off
on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office.

I should hope so!

Last time we had a thing behind schedule, the management sent out a request
that we put in extra time to bring it on schedule. They had already cut
product specs in a few key places to try to make things better, and they
told us they'd make it good if we helped them out. We had very close to
24/7 management coverage, and they helped out as much as they could. And
yes, we made the deadline, and they rewarded us suitably.

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.)

-s

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

I should hope so!

Last time we had a thing behind schedule, the management sent out a request
that we put in extra time to bring it on schedule. They had already cut
product specs in a few key places to try to make things better, and they
told us they'd make it good if we helped them out. We had very close to
24/7 management coverage, and they helped out as much as they could. And
yes, we made the deadline, and they rewarded us suitably.

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.)

-s

The best place I ever worked was in a small R&D dept run like a
skunkworks. We reported directly to the owner and all other layers of
management eliminated. The most productive place in over 30 years of
design. All went to shit when the owner was persuaded to get in "real"
management. 3 years and the company went from $30m to bust.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Martin Gregorie]

In some contexts maybe, but golf and cricket clubs had their
"professional" long before anyone thought of developing software. It
isn't the term "professional" that has been bastardised, it's
"Engineer".

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.

 

[James Kanze]

* 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.

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[James Kanze]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

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]

On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

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

 

[James Kanze]

[...]

That said, by definition professionals are, to some
extent, in it for the money. If they were not, they would
be amateurs as I am now. How that is balanced against
interesting work, physical working conditions, status,
etc. varies.

I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same
conotations in English as it does in French, but from the
French meaning, I don't think you can be truely a
"professional" if you're only in it for the money.
"Professional" implies being paid for what you do, but it
also implies a certain degree of personal standards with
regards to quality and such---a "professional" will take
pride in his work.

Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a
professional body which regulates itself and has the right to
control entry to the profession. For instnace I can't simply
buy scalpels and antiseptic and set myself up as a brain
surgeon - I have to go throguh the British Medical Association
before they'll let me chop people up. the same is true for
lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure niches.

Words have many meanings, and some professions are "reglementé".
Still, in France, I was a "profession libérale", and not a
"commerçant" or "artisan"---in Germany, the categorie was
"freiberuflich", rather than "Gewerber". These are very
distinct legal categories, with (especially in Germany)
implications with regards to how I was taxed, etc. (And it did
lead to some interesting situations in France, since typically,
as a "profession libérale", I was asked for my registration with
the professional association. Which didn't exist for my
profession.)

 

[Phil Carmody]

The 1950's [sic] were totally awesome.

Oh, yeah - the twin evils of McCarthyism and Communism. Racism. Sexism.
The
Cold War. Superpowers playing chess with smaller countries. Wars
everywhere.
Dictators. Massive stockpiling of nuclear and chemical weapons. Rapine
of
the planet. The birth of AIDS. Hideous fashions.

Totally awesome.

The complete lack of sarcasm...

No, I think you'll find that Tom Lehrer was quite active in
those days.

Phil

 

[Seebs]

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.

Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal
standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed.

In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would
be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the
title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought
to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization.
Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually
not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another.

Measurement by proxy is not very good measurement.

-s

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal
standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed.

In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would
be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the
title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought
to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization.
Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually
not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another.

At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software
developers. So it's pretty much a moot point.

If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed
a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a
certification process?

[ SNIP ]

AHS

 

[Seebs]

At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software
developers. So it's pretty much a moot point.

I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance.

If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed
a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a
certification process?

How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You
wouldn't.

It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification
processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone
once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing
to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually
substantially better than this. Certainly, they are extremely popular,
especially among people who have already obtained those certifications.

-s

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance.


How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You
wouldn't.

How would I, or you, not know? It's not like we are discussing Masonic
rites here.

I myself have chosen not to get any software development certifications,
except for one that I got from the technical campus of Dalhousie
University for a series of software development courses. It's not that I
consider many of the MS and Java etc etc certifications to be
individually useless - many are not - but lacking a larger professional
development framework to plug them into, and because the accountability
of software developers currently is risible, why bother?

It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification
processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone
once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing
to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually
substantially better than this.

I can only comment on engineering (I am not one myself but I have a
diploma in engineering, and most of the credits for a baccalaureate in
engineering - I eventually decided to concentrate on a physics degree; I
am also reasonably familiar with how APENS, the Association of
Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia, does these things).

Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more
comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever
exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that
software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or
indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective
professional engineeers.

It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack.
It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client,
professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order
for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt
similar standards.

Certainly, they are extremely popular,

especially among people who have already obtained those certifications.

-s

_What_ are extremely popular? Professional engineering accreditations or
software development certifications? I expect both are.

AHS

 

[debra h]

That may be a motivator for taking a job, but I suspect is fairly far
down the list for leaving a job.

Leaving motivations might include:

personality conflict
boredom
too much pressure

Personally, the opportunity to do something I had never done before
was always the top priority.  Employers usually want people who have
extensive specific experience.

In hiring, my main interest was loyalty.  Employees don't get really
useful until after the first year. I don't expect them to hit the
ground running. I anticipate investing considerable effort in training
them. I looked for reasons why they would likely want to stay.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Productshttp://mindprod.com

You can’t have great software without a great team, and most software teams behave like dysfunctional families.
~ Jim McCarthy

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.

 

[Mike Duffy]

Leaving motivations might include:

personality conflict
boredom
too much pressure

- Working hours
- Lack of access to training
- Lack of privacy (email snooping, sharing a desk with others.)

And don't forget work-related health problems or an unhealthy work
environment that management refuses to address. (Harassement, A/C
ventilation, lack of ergonomic furniture, employee security etc.)

Death is always the most compelling reason for not continuing to work.

 

[Tom Anderson]

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.

No, the engineering mindset is that a thing is what it's been validated by
testing to be. If it works but you haven't proven it works, then it
doesn't work. You could see qualifications as being the HR equivalent of
testing.

The minor problem here is that no *software* engineering qualifications
are worth shit, because there isn't really such a thing as software
engineering, but that's a different debate.

tom

 

[Martin Gregorie]

The minor problem here is that no *software* engineering qualifications
are worth shit, because there isn't really such a thing as software
engineering, but that's a different debate.

....and an MBCS is worth remarkably little because bad apples never seem
to be thrown out.

 

[John Koy]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[...]

Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more
comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever
exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that
software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or
indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective
professional engineeers.

It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack.
It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client,
professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order
for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt
similar standards.

As long as we disclaim all liability and give no warranties for the
solutions/products we build, SD cannot be an engineering field and the
term "software engineer" remains as an oxymoron.