If you stopped paying them, would they stay?
Say you took pride in your skill as a smith. That’s hardly incompatible with finding an employer who will pay for making quality armor.
Pride in the end product might, but most companies make nothing to be proud about, except the skill itself.
So, let's be real, they are at the company to make money, and if they have a better chance, they'll take it. Lack of those, good enough salary already, inertia, and "the devil you know" is closer to the reason they stay.
I can take pride in my skill anywhere I want. What I care about is that my employer takes pride in my skill.
Even if another pays more, I’d prefer working for someone that appreciates my skill (and shows that in ways not necessarily salary based).
Of course there’s a limit to this, but it’s generally true.
I also have to tell, honestly, they give me shit. They act like “Yeah we don’t care that your business survives, it’s your job to make your company earn money. At worst we’ll find a job elsewhere.” I’m constantly tempted to fire them before they tank my company.
Right - it isn't altruism; it's basic professionalism - and the only psychologically healthy thing to get through the day, actually.
"They're paying me decently, they don't take me for granted, don't get in my way of helping them and they definitely aren't jerks. So why not do a good job?"
Actually caring about the product/company doesn't need to factor into it.
My pace has almost always felt a bit off, but I've always hated shipping subpar systems. Whether it's other engineers or some local managers or the business, there's always been extreme pressure in competition with my desire to just do a good damned job.
It's been isolating & draining. Sometimes it's just a matter of spending 3x as long as it would have taken to line up the 300 reasons why at each spot the shit slapdash plan is shit and the good plan is good. Trying to be OK with the process, walking through people who really barely can understand any of... You have to just keep saying to yourself, fine, this is my job, I'm the expert, it's OK that you don't know, & I'm not sure that you do need to know, but here we are & this talking it through is how we're going to decide where we go I guess.
The primary job of an executive is risk management. Let’s say I run an engineering team where people have good ideas 70% of the time, and bad ideas 30% of the time. Famously, it takes 10x the number of resources it originally took to develop and deploy, to remove a bad system from production and replace it.
.7 * 4 + .3 * 3 = 3.7
.3 * 11 + 0.7 = 4.0
An engineering team that doesn’t take 3x the time it takes to do something to verify it ahead of time is actually slightly less efficient overall ( assuming that 3x the time it takes reduces the error rate to 0)
Yea there are lots of simplifying assumptions here, these are all averages, plans don’t all take the same time, etc, etc, etc, and a more sophisticated system would take it all into account. But the results don’t usually change, unless in very special circumstances.
I'd add to that: for all but the most intractably huge companies, there's a somewhat different, or additional, atmosphere that I think is even more important: everyone is focused on the success of the project/company.
Put another way: if you could somehow omnisciently and top-down get each person individually coordinated such that all they need to do is their complete their assigned tasks on schedule and with high quality, that'd be great. But, realistically, you can't (well, not in innovative startups, nor in a lot of tech work). So, if you can get people thinking and coordinating towards goals beyond whatever task someone told them to do, then then you can be more effective collectively.
Maybe you the craft you had in mind already implicitly encompassed this focus towards larger goals. But if you look at popular modern methodologies, organizational incentives, etc., it's pretty clear that's not implied many places.
I care about the quality I'd work I do, I feel it's a reflection of me, even though it find the product to be pointless
* What response do you get from the candidate?
* How do you account for candidates who might be faking enthusiasm due to need for a job?
* How are you measuring this enthusiasm within the company (ie are you having high employee survey scores compared to what you are paying them)?
Like seriously the "we are making the world a better place" only goes so far - especially in a climate where employers have shown who they truly care about. And may be you are suggesting that you might not be messaging that you are making the world a better place and instead everybody gets to be a davinci?
I personally do care about doing good work and ensuring what I do is well thought out and performant. However that does not mean I always care about the company. And what little care I do have can rapidly be eroded.
Workers nowadays are more aware than ever that you pay a passion tax. If you want to work where you really want to work, then companies know this and will take advantage of it.