Slashdot Mirror
Do Developers Need Free Perks To Thrive?
jammag writes "Free sodas, candy and energy bars can be surprisingly important to developers, says longtime coder Eric Spiegel. They need the perks, not to mention the caffeine boost. More important, free sodas from management are like the canary in the coal mine. If they get cut, then layoffs might be next. 'The sodas are just the wake-up call. If the culture changes to be focused more on cost-cutting than on innovation and creativity, then would you still want to work here? I wouldn't.' Are free perks really that important?"
I'd rather have a larger paycheck.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...that something could be amiss. That said, quite often the perks come right back when the company does better.
It's not just coders that like free perks...project managers, HR people, and the people who run the business like them as well.
Yes, while having these perks is nice, the narrative in this story makes the guy sound like an entitled twat.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Creating a supportive and productive environment isn't just something restricted to businesses employing software developers, it's just the only industry left that actually gives even the slightest bit of a thought to the happiness of its employees.
I've been in software development for 15 years now and I never had any of the stuff provided. And I'm glad they didn't. I'd be a fat turd now with diabetes. And the caffeine rush only lasts for about 15 minutes. So it's a myth. You'd be better off putting the money towards better tools, or a in-house better tools program (unassigned work time) so developers can pursue pet projects.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It's not the free drinks or candy, although those things are nice. What developers want is to feel like they matter to the company. One of the ways a company can do that is to provide some small freebies. But freebies alone don't cut it.
Options are a poor way of compensating employees. Just ask all the MS employees whose options are effectively worthless because the strike price is inappropriate for what the stock price will ever be. A better strategy would be to just do proper profit sharing or give them actual shares in the company.
Aretha Franklin knows what we need.
The perks themselves may not be that important to many employees. What matters is that the existence of the perks sends a message: that the company values its employees and is willing to put some amount of effort into retaining them. As the original article pointed out, if a company isn't willing to spend a few bucks on free food and drinks that the employees value, how long will it be until the work environment deteriorates in other ways?
Things are different if you work for a nonprofit and/or government agency where there is less discretionary income. You know what you're getting into. But a for-profit company has the choice. If they cut out minor perks like free soda, they're saying that they are willing to piss off their employees to add a few bucks to the bottom line. Either that, or they really are on the verge of bankruptcy – and in both cases it's a good idea to be looking for the exits.
The best perk for me has always been interesting work in a congenial environment. Everything else is secondary. It helps to be a senior person, so my tasks are usually along the lines of "Figure out $newtechnology. Find a way for the company to make money with it."
I've worked for a number of companies who did the "we pay less but we're such a great place to work!" thing. Someday I'd like to at least visit a "we pay lots but it sucks to work here" company, just to see what it's like.
...laura
It's not just the caffeine that benefits the company by stimulating workers, but also that you don't have staff doing daily coffee runs for a half hour.
The majority of places I've worked that really put effort into keeping a stocked kitchen do so for pretty manipulative reasons. They plan on absurd amounts of overtime or even unpaid hours and know that people are going to be less inclined to agree if their body is screaming for dinner.
Everything will be taken away from you.
1) A decent ergonomic chair that works for people 2 meters tall
2) A door
3) A manager who will
a) go to the meetings on my behalf and send me the 3-line email with the one detail that I needed to be there for
b) find interesting work for me to do
4) A bonus program that has clear, achievable objectives that pay out at least something if I beat my goals -- don't pull the rug out from under my feet if I've been slaving, just because Sales can't get in the door
Design for Use, not Construction!
the head of NCR (way back in the first half of the 20th century) was asked about the generous "fringe benefits" the company provided (including a golf course). He pointed out that employees were move productive when provided with the benefits. In his opinion NCR wasn't "giving away" anything, just doing what was best for the company.
any "perks" (like free soda) only increase productivity if the employee is happy with their base compensation. If someone thinks they are drastically underpaid/unvalued then no amount of freebies will matter
if someone feels like they are valued and doing important work - then they will be more productive/loyal
my guess is that the return on investment for free soda/coffee (in increased productivity) is extremely high - but it isn't about the soda
There is actually quite a bit of research on this type of thing - I'd recommend "Drive" by Daniel Pink and "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely (he just did a coursera class as well) for anyone interested ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I do believe it is a canary in a coal mine. I'm amazed at companies that will have no problem spending $125,000 in salary on a high end programmer, which is probably $150,000 with benefits and all that but if they want a second monitor for $400 it's a big no-can-do. Soda/tea/coffee is $0.10-$0.30 a serving, even if someone were a major drinker at 5 servings a day of the expensive stuff that's $375/person/year, or about the same cost. Gives you an idea of what they are willing to spend on a happy, productive employee.
People don't need a lot to be happy, but basic respect and curtesy go a long way. If you went to someone's house to visit them one of the first things they are likely to offer is some sort of beverage. It's basic hospitality. And the company isn't just inviting the employees into their environment, but what about vendors, partners, or customers come to visit? There should be something to offer to them.
Lots of management types are under the impression that getting a paycheck is what makes people happy. It's a false logic, just because not getting a paycheck makes people unhappy doesn't mean it works the other way around.
One company I worked for not only didn't provide coffee and drinks, they didn't provide coffee machines or drink dispenser machines. Even worse, they forbid coffee machines at the desk.
Not because of power supply issues, no.
Because they gave the cafeteria company an exclusive contract to supply beverages to the entire staff.
So instead of having coffee clubs like I did at most places I worked over the years, I was expected to pay nearly $2 for a sixteen ounce shitty cafeteria coffee. And I wasn't supposed to have them any time except 10, 12, and 2.
I quit.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I worked for a company where we had 100% dental for just about any procedure; it was awesome. Our company was purchased by a stodgy company run by 60 year old suits so I quit. Weeks later the first thing to go was the 100% dental. Two years later 95% of the staff were gone with only the most useless paper pushers remaining; basically people who couldn't move on.
What I have discovered with programmers is that the good ones are quite smart and don't take much crap. So a clear and fair salary system that is open works far better than the pretending that nobody blabs their and any other salaries that they know. If you want to quickly empty out a room of your best programmers reveal that some useless stump of a manger earns 3 times as much and blew at least one of their salaries on travel.
Or if you want them to quit after a few weeks of seething then just do a nepotism hire and put him in charge of "code reviews".
The key is not so much that perks make or break an environment but that they indicate a respect for the programmers. Often programmers are somewhat trapped in the office while the marketing and management get to travel and wine and dine clients. Thus throwing them some bones such as food and conference travel balances out the equation. But once management starts to act like the programmers are a bunch of undeserving brats it is game over.
One company that I particularly enjoyed quitting from would have the upper management basically give customer tours of the programmers like we were a zoo exhibit.
The best part of when they cut a perk and lose programmers is how many of the management seem to think that the pathetic losers quit because they took away the free drinks or some such. Then they get angry when they realize how development has screeched to a halt when the only 3 competent programmers just took off. I have even heard accusations of sabotage.