This is one of the more perplexing elements of both working as an IC and a manager. I'm constantly battling the line between treating the relationship as purely transactional and one where work is more meaningful than that. The problem is that whenever you bring other things in - "loyalty", "passion" etc etc you are at very high risk that these are circumstantially dependent on the coincidental alignment of the employee's interests and that of the organisation. The minute that changes, you will find you now have an employee whose motivation is at odds with the interests of the larger organisation and all kinds of dysfunction stems from that. The only true stable basis for alignment is that the organisation needs work done and the employee needs money. It's great if there is more than that, but the minute anybody relies on it they are essentially rolling a dice with some odds it turns against them.
It depends on whether you consider software development a rote activity or a creative endeavour.
The transactional approach certainly makes sense from a rote activity stand-point. Money, however, is a remarkably poor motivator for most people when they are required to pour their creative juices into a task. A sense of ownership, a higher cause, or a sense of accomplishment are much stronger drivers.
I think the problem stems from management lumping both types of work into a common bucket. That's when what you describe starts to occur.
Well said. For me, it was a great source of burnout when the true transactional nature of work was thrust on me. I had been giving work 110%. My work ethic and output were part of my identity, and I was integrated well socially in the team/unit. I was motivated, gaining influence, getting interesting shit done, and working with great people. But I was also green, and when all of those motivating factors were eroded away, I wasn't prepared. I found my complaints were falling on deaf ears - surely it's obvious to management that there are legitimate problems which will result in worse business outcomes? Surely all of the rhetoric about passion, collaboration and The Mission wasn't just BS? It was very difficult to move from that naive thinking to a more detached one where work is simply a means for earning money to live. The unfortunate reality is that there are few employers at few moments in time that tick more of my boxes as a human than simply paying me money. I think this warrants scaling ones inputs in the same way a business does; I put enough in to get what I need out, and no more.
I'm curious if you're willing to share more about that experience? I believe that I'm in a fairly similar position atm, and reluctant to let go of the "work ethic and output as part of identity" and therefore career (research vs just a code moneky), and wonder what epiphanies you had to switch your mentality to from one to the other
I wish I could say there were epiphanies, but it seems more like a gradual decline in my opinion of profit-oriented organisations due to increasing exposure to the shitty things they do under the guise of "it's just business", which of course is rolled out the moment that they want to do something shitty, in contrast to all of the levers of morality and virtue that they pull on to extract more from you as a resource. It repulses me and I guess I've just decided that I refuse to be defined by my utility or lack of, especially to some manipulative entity like that. What should I be defined by, instead? I'm still working it out. But I don't think the idea that I am better or worse human simply because of the degree to which I support profit generation serves anyone but a profit-oriented organisation; seems obvious, but you don't have to look hard to see common ideas that do reduce you to a resource: "work gives your life meaning", "the unemployed are lazy", etc.
The topic reminds me of the red pill, blue pill metaphor and to lean into it, I'd say I've taken the red pill but I'm still figuring out what reality means for me now. I hope your situation works out for you. Good luck!
This is one of the more perplexing elements of both working as an IC and a manager. I'm constantly battling the line between treating the relationship as purely transactional and one where work is more meaningful than that. The problem is that whenever you bring other things in - "loyalty", "passion" etc etc you are at very high risk that these are circumstantially dependent on the coincidental alignment of the employee's interests and that of the organisation. The minute that changes, you will find you now have an employee whose motivation is at odds with the interests of the larger organisation and all kinds of dysfunction stems from that. The only true stable basis for alignment is that the organisation needs work done and the employee needs money. It's great if there is more than that, but the minute anybody relies on it they are essentially rolling a dice with some odds it turns against them.