5 ms·
I think of job satisfaction as a function with weighted attributes. There's a "perks at work" attribute, a money attribute, an attribute for how much you like y
by ambition 18y ago
I think of job satisfaction as a function with weighted attributes. There's a "perks at work" attribute, a money attribute, an attribute for how much you like your team, how many weekly hours the work culture demands of you, how much you like your boss, whether the work is meaningful and related to your life goals, the opportunities to advance in the company and to grow as a person, whether you can live in a location you like, etc. etc. Google's problem relative to this article is that for many people, the "perks at work" weighting isn't that high. So no matter how good Google's perks are, other factors can dominate.
I think there might be a bit of an effect where people don't appreciate what they don't have to pay for, too.
- skmurphy 18y agoThe title positions Google as a nice resort no one should want to leave. But for most engineers (who would have pursued a different career if they were purely money motivated) salary and perks are "hygiene factors", which can dissatisfy if they are inadequate but can't really satisfy. See Hertzberg's "Two Factor" theory of job satisfaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_factor_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_factor_theory
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoI wonder how Google compares to SAS in job satisfaction? SAS is famously high in employee perks and retention, and is extremely family-friendly.