May 25, 2005 at 8:47 am
I ran across this blog entry recently talking about the choices that IT professionals make regarding their jobs. It was interesting to me because it referenced a survey on Information Week that I wrote about recently as well as another survey on Dice.
The Dice one is very interesting because it looks at what people perk find most important. If you could pick one, would it be an 8% raise or flexible work hours and telecommuting. More people picked the flexible hours, 40% over a raise, 35%. Not a huge difference, but an interesting one. Granted 8% isn't a huge raise, but it's more than most people have gotten in a few years, at least those that I know.
What was more interesting to me is that only 13% would choose a extra weeks vacation over those two. Now I'm assuming that some of the 40% would have chosen this over a raise if they were side by side. That's what I would have done, but a flexible schedule every week, when I'm not sure if kids are sick, on vacation, errands to run, etc., is much more desirable than an extra few days of vacation. After all, in this busy time, how many people get to use all their vacation? My wife gets 4 weeks and I don't think she's ever used it all in one year.
To me, this shows that over half the people surveyed in this poll would rather have more personal time than more money. The death march days of 100 hour weeks for months on end aren't worth it and don't provide the satisfaction. Even Microsoft, one of the great places to work, doesn't seem to be able to motivate people to work those hugely long hours except in short spaces.
It's part of a maturation of industry, in my mind, that IT and software development isn't a "cool" new thing. It's an established part of the world we live in and like everything else, it's become routine. And since it's routine, even though we enjoy it, we move on and look at other things in life. Like our families, leisure time, etc. Even if you really enjoy computers, you'd probably like to be doing something other than work, even your own computer project, than working on your boss' project.
With all the pressure from companies to show more earnings, boost their stock price, etc., they might take some note here. If you really want to retain your quality people, find out what matters to them and work towards getting it to them. It might not be more money, and if that's what you offer them, you may lose them. If it's an extra week of vacation or a couple days a week telecommuting, why not give it to them?
You'll probably get more work out of them than you expect.
Steve Jones
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
May 25, 2005 at 9:24 am
You got to the point. I used to enjoy 2 days a week telecommuting to work. It is so cool that when I woke up, I could start working in my pajama. Now we were told we can't telecommute on a weekly basis any more. I still got flex time though. I could be at work anytime between 6:00 Am and 9:00 AM and go home anytime before or at 6:00 PM as long as I finish my 8 hr day. I am trying to force my self to work 9 hr a day but sometimes it proved too long for me. Eventually I wanted to move to a 10 hr day so that I could just work 4 days per week instead of 5 days a week.
Also I would rather receive additional time off instead of a raised. To me, I think if we have more money, we spend more money so as long as we have enough to cover our bases, it's cool.
mom
May 25, 2005 at 9:49 am
Steve - I sent you a personal msg through scc...everytime I try to send an email to anything@sqlservercentral.com it bounces back...
fyi - the msg I sent you pertains to both today's post and the one you posted yesterday on salary surveys!
btw - do you know if others have had problems sending emails ?
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!**
May 26, 2005 at 8:46 am
Nice -- long -- email, but it struck me as more than a little self-serving, particuarly since you had one foot out the door already.
If you were working in the securities industry, it would be career suicide to send something like this out to "most of IT", in addition to the chief officers.
The reality is that we live in a world where employers in a number of industries see the system of ranking employees vis-a-vis their peers as the only way to "fairly" divvy up the compensation pie, which tends to be significantly smaller in IT relative to the front-office, regardless of individual perceptions of competence or otherwise.
If you don't like it, then don't work at an investment bank -- and obviously don't work at PeopleSoft. However, not everyone can be gainfully self-employed, and the dot-com days are long dot-gone.
As a manager, it is up to us to see that team rankings hold -- even when encouraged to downgrade in line with the trend -- and to fight for the team. Admittedly, this doesn't always work, but you can always argue for more pie based on productivity, which for operations support DBA's is 24/7 and usually fairly easy to justify based on the number of hours alone (read: increased bonus numbers). It is not always about comp, I know, but if someone is living in fear of losing their job simply due to a peer ranking system, then maybe that someone is justified in that fear and should be looking elsewhere.
Regards, Melissa
May 27, 2005 at 6:48 am
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, but if someone is living in fear of losing their job simply due to a peer ranking system, then maybe that someone is justified in that fear and should be looking elsewhere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical management thinking. I've said that in the company I work in, a frontal lobotomy is mandatory for any promotion to a management position. Why don't "management types" realize that they have completely different needs and desires when it comes to their work environment than do "the little people" who actually get the work done? When I was in the shower this morning, the thought came to me that the people who are attracted to "power" are the very people who seem to be the least qualified to be in positions of leadership. There seems to be a direct relationship between lack of self esteem and the desire to have control of others. People who are professional and confident in their abilities do not have the need to be "ranked" in order to feel secure in their positions. They realize that different people have different skill sets and one set of skills is not necessarily "better" than the other, just different. And it takes a team of people with different abilities to get a job done. And it can usually get done a lot better if the "management types" just get the he11 out of the way and let people do their work!
May 27, 2005 at 6:57 am
In my past experience, a lot of the difference has been that management got 'at risk' pay (bonuses, incentives based on performance, etc.). I mean things like explicit ammounts of bonuses based on performance.
The typical rank and file IT worker gets a straight bonus (not variable based on performance), if any. Management doesn't have the same motivating factors as 'we' do. Telecommuting would be career suicide, and they have even more of an incentive to put in extra hours to 'look good' than the rest of us.
May 27, 2005 at 7:18 am
Well, I have always believed that the best managers are hands-on, at the frontline, and not only assigning on-call, but participating as well. The only way that one can know what the "rest of us" is doing to do be one of the team in all senses of the term. This is not popular with "management types" who tend to be hands-off and robotically assigning the numbers, but so what? A good manager fights for their team, and knows where improvement is needed because they are also participating in carrying the load.
Not all managers are "lobotomized", and there is nothing worse than a non-technical manager running a technical team.
Anger is healthy, anger directed at the wrong target is not.
Regards, Melissa
May 27, 2005 at 7:19 am
Sorry for my earlier rant. It's not very responsible of me to drive more wedges between those who work and those who manage. And actually, my logic was a little flawed because management is one of the "different" skills that is just as important as the skills required to write code, administer a database, etc. A good manager holds the keys to taking a group of individuals and turning them into a productive team. It's just a shame that all too often, the official corporate culture works against the very team building that would ultimately contribute to it's greater success.
May 27, 2005 at 7:29 am
Eric, that's exactly right. It's one of the different skills...And actually it's made up of a lot of 'sub-skills' as well, like empathy, understanding, mediation, etc. (at least in a good manager). Some people just don't get that. I've been blessed with some good managers in my career that do.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply