They believed themselves capable of great things, so they rationalized that their current jobs must be satisfying already.
I believe exactly the opposite...
We believe we are capable of great things because we are so used to looking good by delivering great software in environments where there isn't any.
Then we see all the cool things others are doing right out in the open and wonder why we spend all day on fixing bugs on horrible enterprise software, sitting in meetings, and taking direction from idiots.
Being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind may make you look good, but it is hardly "satisfying".
A significant amount of software stinks. The enterprise vendors are almost magical in their ability to extract dollars from their customer base.
I believe that many of the one-eyed men are starting to wake up to the power of the tools in front of them and ponder how they can deliver significantly more value in small startups than they do "fixing bugs on horrible enterprise software."
While great is perhaps too strong an adjective, we are capable of great things because we deliver great software in environments where there isn't any. Who else is doing it?
There is probably a huge shake-out coming in the average programmer's world. The big vendors seem increasing irrelevant except for their stranglehold on sales channels. Once we hack that (and some on this forum have or are well on their way) . . .
I've come to think that the state of Enterprise software is the direct result of large corporate structure.
Every single success story of swapping out a horrible enterprise piece with a Really Good replacement seems to have, as an integral part of its legend, the skillful subversion of the corporation's natural tendencies until deployment -- and an epilogue that notes political bad feelings remain, despite the results.
It truly seems that Good Software is only something that can happen despite corporate structure and never, ever because of it.
I suppose it shouldn't have been a surprise. I think we've all come to accept that individual efficiency is inversely related to company size (beyond some critical threshold). And when you look at why, you start seeing an awful lot of cross-over with the root causes of corporate software project failures. (political nonsense, perverted incentives, cog interchangeability concerns, liability concerns, etc)
Interesting idea, but built on a false premise. Jobs aren't necessarily unpleasant. You could find yourself in the position of enjoying something most people don't, like programming, or being better than every one else at something that many people enjoy, like golf.
In both cases you can get paid to do something you enjoy, and no matter how much fun you have, your boss can't pay someone else to do it because either there aren't that many other people who can do it, or there aren't many who can do it as well as you.
Indeed. Scott Adams is one of the most frustrating bloggers I know - he frequently makes sound points, but far too often you're blinded by a glaring error he makes in the first sentence or two to ever see them.
Skip the first paragraph, and the rest of this post is reasonably well argued.
Agreed, my job is quite fun but it requires specialized knowledge that produces economic benefit for my employer so they make more money by paying me than they would if they didn't. I am by no means unique -- many people are in this position because they picked a career in what they love to do not what they thought they could make a living in.
By creating a symbiotic economic relationship our companies get the stability they need in the jobs for it to be productive. The "people would be paying to do this" argument isn't true if they perceive they could be sharing in the economic benefit to the company.
Sports stars are a cherry-picked counter example to Adams' argument. Would LeBron play basketball for a mere $100K/year? You bet -- if that was his only option. It is that every team would like him to have lots of fun in its uniform that drives up his salary.
It's one counter example of many, though (indeed you neglected a second in the original comment). Most people don't enjoy their jobs, but many do, and in a huge variety of fields. People that aren't happy shouldn't be told that there is no other way, as Adams suggests.
In a similar fashion, many highly talented individuals would remain in the same industry for less pay (e.g. many highly-paid programmers). Because their skills are in demand, they can work in a satisfying ("fun") career and still be amply compensated, similar to LeBron. In fact, there is much more going on here than mere compensation: individuals doing creative work do better when they are happier. Hence, it is often in an employer's long-term interest to create an environment in which their employees are happy.
Aside from the false premise at the outset, which others have noted, there's also a simpler explanation for lower job satisfaction during downsizing. It's been observed that even the employees that "survive" bad layoff rounds become less happy as a result, presumably because they feel threatened that they might be next, because they feel they have no control over their situation, or because they feel their former colleagues were treated unfairly. As a result, they either work harder than they did before, in an attempt to please their superiors, or they resign in their mind. Neither makes them happier. The theory in the article inadvertently touches on the aspect of perceived loss of control, but I think the author reaches the wrong conclusions.
I think this post contains an un-intentional poke at the concept of libertarian free will. That is, you must have an alternative in order to be free (and feel free, therefore faking satisfaction).
But what makes that funny is we all know that just because you have a job alternative, it doesn't make you free or happy. What truly makes you free and happy is to do what you really want to do. It has nothing to do with having an alternative.
It would make me pretty unhappy to have a legit alternative and never take it. It's not having the alternative that makes you happy, it's exercising it. If you were already happy, then the existence of the alternative wouldn't matter.
I don't know. I am pretty fond of the right to terminate my own life whenever I choose to do so. On the other hand I don't see me going that path anytime soon.
This post by him seems to be just another version of Theory X & Theory Y (mis)management, with a twist of "child psychology" to fool the subordinates with motivational stuffs.
The fact is that if your boss shows a general caring in his/her subordinates (as in working with you when you need PTO for family, making sure you don't work overtime unless 101% necessary, getting you good development hardware, etc.) it adds a lot to job satisfaction. Combine that with a reasonable health care plan, a pay that you feel is more or less fair for your position and skill AND that you can live happily off, and interesting problems to solve at work.
Get all of the above all at once and you have job satisfaction. I don't blame myself for any bit of unhappiness at my job. But even with that I look at my job and think that I can get a better health plan elsewhere, I can get better pay elsewhere, I can get more interesting problems elsewhere, I can get all the things that make my job great elsewhere... but not likely all at once. So far this has been the most satisfying job I've had, because I feel appreciated in all respects for my skill and dedication, both in the words said to me and actions taken towards me.
I believe exactly the opposite...
We believe we are capable of great things because we are so used to looking good by delivering great software in environments where there isn't any.
Then we see all the cool things others are doing right out in the open and wonder why we spend all day on fixing bugs on horrible enterprise software, sitting in meetings, and taking direction from idiots.
Being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind may make you look good, but it is hardly "satisfying".