Thats a good point, which is why I was noting 3/4 criteria were met in places where I witnessed great productivity. If it isnt interesting, people should be rewarded and at least understand why they are doing something. The hedge fund, for example, was not terribly interesting for many years. But I understood the importance of the work, the drivers for it, and I got rewarded and so did everyone else.

A company or manager might say -- well continued employment is the reward. Yes or no, depends on the situation. It is common for companies to hire people and then cut benefits (less healthcare benefits, 401k matches cut, etc.) -- well then the rewards are not being shared, especially if the cuts are not universally applied.

It is also common for companies to reward unequally. For example, many companies reward salespersons or executives yet continue to tighten rewards for Engineers/Ops/Support. As a result -- quite possibly not intentionally -- you have engineers like the ones on this comment section: noting they are finding 2 or 3hrs productive time. In an ideal world, rewards should be aligned to input and required effort -- and I've seen incredibly productive Engineers at hedge funds when they realize they have massive skin in the game with huge upsides.

Finally, with regards to respect and needs. I have never seen Engineers more unproductive than once they realize that all deadlines are false deadlines -- especially when these false deadlines are constant. I think people understand real urgency and real deadlines when they are explained, not "do it because I said so."

The problem is -- even if you pay engineers, "do it because I said so" doesnt work since there is such a creative element and so much uncertainty. You end up with 8 "productive hours" full of unnecessary bug fixes and shortsighted design because people are not bought into the vision. The worst situation is when management actually things that is real productivity -- then you know it is over.