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.
My theory is that it seems so much easier to "delegate" and buy one's responsibility out of the problem when one's budget is awash with investor cash, particularly for public companies. In some ways it is often refreshing to work for early-stage/cash-starved companies because blatant waste such as this is not that easy to achieve. A darker variant of this theory tries to determine whether the principals of the firm being contracted have any relationship with the people hiring them.
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.
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.
Small correction, they predicted Romney would win in 2012, not McCain in 2008; they actually predicted Obama would do better than he did in 2008 (tied for the highest overestimated prediction). Their results have been poor indeed.
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.
Actually, as an employee I want a strong vision with clear, achievable goals. It makes it easy to tell what I should be doing to be successful, and that is what lets me control my career. Interestingly enough, these properties are usually enhanced with smaller decision making groups, because values are less spread across the spectrum. If I have 50 decision makers, I have 50 different value functions to attempt to meet. [0] If I have one decision maker, I only have one value function to meet.
[0] In reality, I would have to spend some time trimming down the list of 50 based on influence. Which is not always an easy signal to find.
Well, "the ownership of capital", in a lot of public companies, is basically an absentee landlord. So it's not entirely about ownership, but rather about management. You can have cooperatives that are de-facto feudal/tyrannical structures, and private companies that are de-facto democracies.
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?
How does democracy give employees "control of their own life"? In any organization of appreciable size, your vote doesn't matter.
Capitalism gives employees control; your life has changed immediately after you exercise your option to exit. Voting simply doesn't.
It's also potentially very harmful, due to the principal/agent problem. Every agent (employee) has the incentive to loot the company, build empires, and protect their job. But such things are of course very bad for organizations.
This is made worse by democracy, because not only do voters have no incentive to do what's best for the organization, they can do whatever makes them feel good (since their vote doesn't matter).
(As an example of the principal/agent problem, witness Marisa Mayer vs Starboard. She wants to keep her job and build her empire at Yahoo. Shareholders want to avoid paying taxes on Alibaba, which will destroy far more value than the Yahoo empire could ever plausibly be worth.)
One of my professors in college stated (perhaps wishfully) that one day we'll look back at today as a time where employees had the strange habit of coming into work in the morning and first thing they did was remove their brain and leave it with their jackets on the coat rack because they wouldn't need it the rest of the day.
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.
> 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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
You hit on something that researchers discovered in the 60s.
Turns out some things you need to be ok, but they don't make you happy. If you don't have them, they make you unhappy. They're called "Hygiene Factors".
Then there's a whole set of things that if you have them, they make you happy, but the absence doesn't make you unhappy. These are called "Motivators".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think plenty of people are content with a secure job with OK pay, interesting work, enough vacation and be treated as adults with respect. They don't want ultimate satisfaction. That goal is very attainable.
I have never heard people demanding a ping pong table.
[+] [-] switch007|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kabdib|10 years ago|reply
I was polite and kept to topics involving work. I left about two months after that for a much better environment.
[+] [-] busterarm|10 years ago|reply
We also had those wonderful quarterly AND yearly reviews that don't accomplish anything other than give management a way to fire.
[+] [-] fweespeech|10 years ago|reply
All I want is to work remotely permanently but they insist it isn't what i want and offer me more money.
[+] [-] abawany|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] officemonkey|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
Nuttier than squirrel turds.
[+] [-] afterburner|10 years ago|reply
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-po...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-v...
[+] [-] zxcvvcxz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js8|10 years ago|reply
There are attempts to tiptoe around this problem with holacracies and Agile methodologies and similar concepts, but the main problem still remains.
[+] [-] jdmichal|10 years ago|reply
[0] In reality, I would have to spend some time trimming down the list of 50 based on influence. Which is not always an easy signal to find.
[+] [-] toyg|10 years ago|reply
Well, "the ownership of capital", in a lot of public companies, is basically an absentee landlord. So it's not entirely about ownership, but rather about management. You can have cooperatives that are de-facto feudal/tyrannical structures, and private companies that are de-facto democracies.
[+] [-] danieltillett|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|10 years ago|reply
Capitalism gives employees control; your life has changed immediately after you exercise your option to exit. Voting simply doesn't.
It's also potentially very harmful, due to the principal/agent problem. Every agent (employee) has the incentive to loot the company, build empires, and protect their job. But such things are of course very bad for organizations.
This is made worse by democracy, because not only do voters have no incentive to do what's best for the organization, they can do whatever makes them feel good (since their vote doesn't matter).
(As an example of the principal/agent problem, witness Marisa Mayer vs Starboard. She wants to keep her job and build her empire at Yahoo. Shareholders want to avoid paying taxes on Alibaba, which will destroy far more value than the Yahoo empire could ever plausibly be worth.)
[+] [-] hencq|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vfc1|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] datr|10 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.hays-journal.com/issue8/
[+] [-] ryandrake|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RogerL|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhnz|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mbrock|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] danieltillett|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blfr|10 years ago|reply
That other stuff sounds like completely optional nice-to-haves.
[+] [-] rbanffy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricksplat|10 years ago|reply
The org psych term for this is "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".
[+] [-] jevanish|10 years ago|reply
Turns out some things you need to be ok, but they don't make you happy. If you don't have them, they make you unhappy. They're called "Hygiene Factors".
Then there's a whole set of things that if you have them, they make you happy, but the absence doesn't make you unhappy. These are called "Motivators".
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory
[+] [-] jevanish|10 years ago|reply
A few examples:
1) Mary Meeker's Internet Trends 2015 -> 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...
3) Deloitte's latest study on Millennials -> https://getlighthouse.com/blog/deloitte-survey-millennials-2...
4) Reid Hoffman's book, The Alliance -> http://www.slideshare.net/reidhoffman/the-alliance-a-visual-...
Companies don't reward managers for caring about people's development, so it won't change until companies start to.
[+] [-] metasean|10 years ago|reply
The original title is, "Employee Satisfaction Doesn't Matter".
[+] [-] ioanarebeca|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hepta|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danieltillett|10 years ago|reply
Personally I am of the belief that work is work. Pay for what you expect and expect what you pay for.
[+] [-] suttree|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rikkus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jotux|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] svendlarssen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draw_down|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mc_Big_G|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crimsonalucard|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|10 years ago|reply
I have never heard people demanding a ping pong table.