Why Do So Many Tech Workers Dislike Their Jobs?

Nerval's Lobster writes: So what if you work for a tech company that offers free lunch, in-house gym, and dry cleaning? A new survey suggests that a majority of software engineers, developers, and sysadmins are miserable. Granted, the survey in question only involved 5,000 respondents, so it shouldn't be viewed as comprehensive (it was also conducted by a company that deals in employee engagement), but it's nonetheless insightful into the reasons why a lot of tech pros apparently dislike their jobs. Apparently perks don't matter quite so much if your employees have no sense of mission, don't have a clear sense of how they can get promoted, and don't interact with their co-workers very well. While that should be glaringly obvious, a lot of companies are still fixated on the idea that minor perks will apparently translate into huge morale boosts; but free smoothies in the cafeteria only goes so far.

Comments

Major disconnect from layers

[mwfischer]

The grunts know how things work and what's possible in the infrastructure.

Managers have an idea how things.

Directors don't know how things work.

C level has no idea what they even have.

--

Essentially if you're not on the front lines for long, you have no idea what is actually going on.

Re:Major disconnect from layers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The only difference between tech and other jobs is that tech people think the C-suite SHOULD know how the IT stuff works while other professions accept that it is their job to make sure the next person up the chain knows enough to do their job. The C-suite, whose job is to guide the company strategically, does not need to know how the hardware and software works on a detailed level, or at all really.

The assumption of intellectual superiority of the IT worker is the problem. The problem is that IT workers are on average "smart", younger than average, ambitious, etc. Management exploits perks as a recruiting tool and then... depression... work is still work, even with a ping pong table. These kids would be just as depressed without perks but management needs to compete.

Re:Major disconnect from layers

[HornWumpus]

In other words most tech workers are whiny bitches.

Re:Major disconnect from layers

[Archangel Michael]

I am assuming you've never had a C type person make huge IT decisions without having even consulted with IT.

In my 30+ years of experience, I've seen enough clueless C types make clueless decisions because some dude in a suit with a briefcase sold them a nice fat lie.

In our case "All it will take are a couple IP addresses and a server. No other IT is required" If it takes IP addresses and a server, it requires IT support. And in this case, the product was so fucking horrible that it requires regular (several times a week) IT support, just on back end crap from a product designed so bad that it just breaks every two weeks from design flaws.

Or this, "We've already bought it, you WILL support it" (with no additional IT funding for more IT help) multiple times over.

Or buying a mom and pop application with no Enterprise class requirements in its design. "What do you mean you don't do LDAP for authentication. There is no fucking way I'm entering 16,000 users by hand"

The issue with certain people is that they want "Shiny Pretty Technology" without caring, or wanting to know about what it actually takes to run. And it happens in enough organizations that I know that it is not an exceptional experience.

You're right, the C types don't know shit, which is why they should stay out of shit that they have no clue on. Yet they think they know better than the people who REALLY do know whats going on. In short, IT is a bastard child in most organizations, one that has more power than most of those C types actually know.

Re:Major disconnect from layers

[KGIII]

I owned my own company for a long time. Eventually I was kicked out of my own server room by people I paid to do a job. You know, I listened. I could do the job well enough but they could do it so much faster. Eventually I no longer even maintained my own code. "Code comments go in the code and not on a pile of coffee soaked index cards, asshole." Again, I listened. Sure, I could do all those things effectively - efficiently if you don't count my time but I paid experts because, well, they were better at the job than I was.

I suppose you could have called me a CEO, I mean I technically was, but we weren't real big on titles. Hell, my company paid me less than some of my employees made (of course I had the cookie jar).

I guess my point is that not all bosses think they know everything. My understanding is the new parent company has kept the culture much the same. It was not entirely uncommon to see a curious look when I admitted I did not know something and would like to consult with someone who did before making choices. I can only surmise that the behavior is due to ego.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at all the freebies here, if you can find a break in your 80-hour work week, you'll totally dig them!

Re: Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how pay has been cut - one of the ways - inflation is the other.

When I started, you could work a 40 hour week - less, we took long lunches with our boss there.

Then, after the dot bomb crash, there were a LOT of tech workers running around, so we had to take pay cuts to work - at least we younger guys. The older guys - 30 something's - were left in the dust.

Then, we had to work more than 40 to make dwadlines.

Then it turned into if you got your work done in 40 or less, you don't have enough work. But if it takes you more than 40, it's because you are not smart enough to get it done on time.
Catch-22.

And, over the past decade, pay has gone down, back in 99, a C programmer around with 5 years of experience made about 80k.
Now it's 65 and in 00 money, that's 40k.
So, we're working much harder for half the pay - and food is on us.
And the poor bastards who were let go after 09 were never hired because businesses figured out that they can just their current workers work harder. Don't like it? There's a line behind you.
There is no shortage of STEM workers. Obama needed to stop listening to tech industry lobbyists.
Read here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/college-calculus

There are many reasons.

[dablow]

Some places have no idea what a sysadmin or software engineer is supposed to do. They assume we are all one and the same. So you will be harassed for any problem that involves using electricity.

Some places refuse to follow or put in place process/policies/limitations and enforce them in order to make the workload manageable.

Some places refuse to see the value in our work; They only see it as a cost center to be minimized at all costs, morale be damned.

It is a thankless job (and who cares about being thanked, show me the money lobowski!), yes most place refuse to pay what the position should be paying. So you either end up with subpar employees or are forced to work with subpar employees that cause a lot of problems you need to cleanup.

And the list goes on and on.

Maybe becuase

[John Napkintosh]

All the jobs I've had involve doing work.

Free Time is the only currency worth a damn

[captjc]

Every company that gives perks like that is only because they want you to stay all hours of the day and night. Sure, that is great and all and the money is wonderful at those places, I'm sure. However, the only thing that many of us care about is actual free time.

It seems like the whole culture is pushing this "Work your life away because it is the American thing to do" agenda. "40 hours a week is for lazy gits who will get nowhere in the workplace." Hell, where I work, don't work less than 90 hours a week if you want to make it through your next performance review. Most people start with at least 7 "use it or lose it" personal days and god help you if you actually try to take one. I am lucky because, as a contractor, they actually think twice about making me stay late as it is costing them. Salaried, I would never want to work there as that kind of environment is toxic to one's health and soul. This kind of shit is what makes tech workers hate their jobs.

Work to live and not live to work, words to live by.

What I don't like

[transporter_ii]

A lot of tech work is reactionary. And if all you have to do is put out fires, it isn't terrible. But you are usually expected to work at other things between fires. Which means the second you start doing one thing, you have to stop and go fix six other things. Always feeling like you are getting pulled in eighteen different directions sucks.

Companies don't get it....

[clifwlkr]

I've been in the software industry for a bit, and am appalled at what companies think attract great talent. It is so far off base today, that no wonder people aren't happy. Let's take a look at the things they believe are great:

Open office environment: What they say is it is great collaboration. What it really means is that you sit at benches back to back and face to face with your coworkers all wearing headphones. None of them talk, you have little personal space, and if you don't actually want to listen to music, you hear 3 different songs through the headphones. Never mind the Skype calls going on around you, or everyone's computer/phone./tablet all going off at the same time as the company wide email goes out. Good luck concentrating.

Game room/exercise room: What this means is more distractions for the young workers who already can't focus on their task for five minutes and get something done. Now they need to bug you to play with them and wonder why you say you don't have time as we are already way behind. So now you end up doing their tasks while they are shooting pool just to make sure the client gets what they were promised. Basically, more people NOT working while at work, forcing you into more hours to pick up the slack. BTW, how many hours a week does your company actually expect out of you?

Agile: A form of development co-opted by management and companies to micro manage you at every possibility, without actually establishing any direction. Yes, I know this is not how it is supposed to work, but after being in many companies doing it, it is all too often done this way. Everyone gets creative about 'what they did yesterday', and 'what they will do today', yet we still don't have a clear direction on 'what the heck we are doing'. That gets frustrating.

Unlimited vacation: What this actually means is no guaranteed vacation. You get to take it 'if you have time'. So the people who don't actually work take tons, and those who actually care about delivery get squeezed down. Reward is opposite to accomplishments

No Real WFH: Most places frown on WFH, as you are supposed to be collaborating. So you sit on your bench desk with trendy uncomfortable chair with said coworkers all plugged into their music not talking anyways. Why couldn't I work from home?

Quality of code: This one is debatable probably, but in the last three to five years the quality is so poor it is scary. People are rushed and rewarded for 'just getting it out' even though it fails all the time. How about rewarding people for putting something out that actually works and is stable? Could we actually teach proper coding in college?

What I really want is an actual office with walls and a window. Give me a door that I can leave open most of the time when people have questions, but I can close when things are crazy or tough. Give me co-workers that want to solve real problems, and care about unit tests, comments, and making a GOOD solution. Pay me for delivering quality, and more importantly, stop trying to figure out if I am operating at 100% efficiency all of the time. Define what the heck we are trying to accomplish up front, and then iterate rapidly on the solution. That would make me happy, anyways.....

Rant off.....

So does everyone else.

[coldsalmon]

"That's why it's called work," as they say. I laughed at the very misleading graph showing 19% of IT workers vs. 22% of non-IT workers saying they are very happy at work. That is a difference of 3%, but they made the graph on a scale of 19-22, so it looks huge. It's also not clear how much the authors cherry-picked data to support their thesis. On every measure cited, IT employees score poorly -- but do they score better in other areas that weren't reported? Why do they only report those who answered with a 9 or 10? How many answered with a 1 or 2?