I'm moving towards a lead dev role, running a small group (3 other devs). I always try to thank people, and include enough specific detail that it's plausible. One dev, fresh to a problem, recently identified a place where if we used a multi-map instead of a map, it would solve problems that had plagued us for months. My response was "Fuck yeah, we've been trying to figure out how to work around that for months. Good catch." I praised another dev who just joined for getting a whole lot more done in her first two weeks than I expected. Entirely new language and tech stack on a sophisticated application. It's impressive. I said so.

Remuneration aside, they're humans who benefit from positive validation. It seems well recieved. Maybe an important point is I actually am grateful that they're good at their jobs. Man, working with competent people who aren't phoning it in is a pleasure.

And yeah, in the abstract, my position with my employer is basically "fuck you, pay me." But that's just a sine qua non. Whether or not I like being there is contingent on how I'm treated.

Indeed, you have summed up a huge problem with SF area culture: many people think that these fake-nice platitudes are meaningful, and also use them against others on a large scale in their daily life as a form of pervasive emotional manipulation -- often to avoid paying someone money.

You're pretty close here.

I've been at places where there was no thanks, no money, no nothing, but I was empowered and left alone enough to get things done. That was okay, but it still felt a little thankless (obviously).

I have been at places where there was little empowerment, but where there was monetary rewarding of people who somehow still managed to achieve things by working outside of the box. That was even worse; they recognized we did a good job, but didn't actually translate that to "let them be empowered to make decisions".

People aren't dumb. They can tell when they're actually appreciated. It's a combination of things. If an employer truly respects and appreciates an employee, the employee knows they will respond with verbal thanks, some sort of gift or reward (often limited by corporate, but could be something as simple as buying lunch, if that's an infrequent thing), and look to empower the employee further to continue their good work. Dropping the ball on any of these will leave it feeling disingenuous.

First, I'll state the obvious: It's not an either-or.

Second, if you look at research on incentives, I think you'll find reducing everything to money tends to backfire, where people who used to go the extra mile in the past stopped doing so because they knew the amount of money they would get would be little.

Think of this scenario some of us have been in. A friend of mine who's big on cars insisted he change my oil for me. He insisted paying Jiffy Lube is a big ripoff. So he did the work, and then I tried giving him some money. He got very offended.

I needed to visit a city for some personal work for a few days, and stayed at a friend's place while there. I tried paying him a nominal amount for his hospitality. Result: He was offended.

However, in both cases, if I repay them by buying them coffee or a lunch, there would be no offense. From my perspective, the outcome is the same: I lose the same amount of money. But on their side, the response is drastically different.

I won't get into which approach is "correct" or "better". The reality is that, in most societies, including the US, the majority behaves this way.

Dan Ariely in one of his books talks about the research involving what he calls "social" vs "market" contracts. The former is usually non-financial, and often involves favors we do for friends. The latter is usually precise and monetary.

Now of course, it depends on the type of work you do, but for most salaried positions, it is a mistake to assume that only market contracts apply ("I do work, and I get paid for it"). What Dan Ariely's chapter shows, is that when companies do lean towards mostly market contracts, bad things happen: Poorer productivity, fractious work environments, etc.

Even if you're getting paid, there is a place for both types of contracts. If you're one of those who care only for the amount you get paid, you're definitely not someone our team wants to hire. I've seen this even within my company - one org takes care of both contracts, and another doesn't. I used to be in the latter and I'm glad I left for the former.

In my company, we have a tool where any employee can thank any other employee with a greeting card. The recipient's manager is notified. The "thanker" can attach company money to it (almost always do) - a nominal amount. Anything over about $30 needs to be approved, but anything under is provided without managerial approval - the company just provides a fund for this.

I think it works well, and in my department, we are frequently encouraged to thank others using the tool for both big and small things.

It doesn't impact your annual review at all. You still have the usual process to get a raise, promotion, etc.

I agree - this matches my experience too. Americans are blunt but that goes both ways. They appreciate a good deed while at the same time make their disapproval heard too.

Rather, it encourages people to become good at simulating gratitude in a plausible manner.

It devalues the entire notion of gratitude to engage in that sort of petty manipulation. Gratitude is rendered into a base and superficial thing.

That's cool! Which bot?

Caretakers and canteen staff.

I'm a teacher: the canteen staff know a surprising amount about students and can spot changes in mood/attitude very quickly. Its uncanny. Caretakers basically run the building. Advanced warning of furniture moving needs, and any special setups and a quick word of thanks afterwards, ensures smooth running. Good reception staff know where everyone is.

Heh, i noticed a site recently for some framework or other that claimed it was "serverless". Meaning that it was designed to run inside a container or VM, and thus whatever hardware it ran on was not "your" problem.

I really do wonder what kind of accounting gymnastics this kind of thinking leads to, as at the end of the day someone has to pay the people that monitor and maintain the hardware, never mind the power bill.

I think you're being downvoted a little too harshly.

My comment to your experiences: I've been in your shoes. The solution was not to become cynical, but merely to find a better work environment.

When I was leaving my old job, the refrain from my peers was: "You're just running away. You'll face these problems in all jobs."

Never been happier that others were wrong.

To add on to this, this thinking of "fake" vs "real" gratitude falls into the typical Socratic thinking of "I can tell you what isn't XXX but I can't tell you what it is cause I'm not wise yada yada." As human beings we like to think we can tell human beings intentions. However, as miscommunication proves, we often can't, at least accurately. Having individuals go through the motions of generosity, humility, and gratitude is just as good as teaching people those intentions e.g. play the part long enough and you stop playing.

>Same with eating habits.

bad food is more appealing to eat. Is there something more appealing about not being grateful? probably. In which case constantly beating yourself is over doing the right thing as the article suggests is not going to work.

Same reason most diets don't work. you mind cannot deal with constant conflict all day, you have to understand and resolve the conflict, not chastise yourself all day.