Job Satisfaction

<i>They believed themselves capable of great things, so they rationalized that their current jobs must be satisfying already.</i><p>I believe exactly the opposite...<p>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.<p>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.<p>Being the one-eyed man in the land of the blind may make you look good, but it is hardly "satisfying".

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.<p>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.

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.

Here is my take on job satisfaction -&#62; <a href="http://gpbsblogon.blogspot.com/2009/11/happiness-at-work-matrix-4ps.html" rel="nofollow">http://gpbsblogon.blogspot.com/2009/11/happiness-at-work-mat...</a>

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).<p>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.

This post by him seems to be just another version of Theory X &#38; Theory Y (mis)management, with a twist of "child psychology" to fool the subordinates with motivational stuffs.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y</a>

I don't suppose that wildly inflated salaries during bubble years had anything to do with it.

&#60;disagree&#62;&#60;![CDATA[<p>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.<p>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.<p>]]&#62;&#60;/disagree&#62;