I agree with the other comments here. But, there is a danger that if you change jobs too often any potential employer may reject you on the basis that you don't stay anywhere very long and are thus not reliable. Remember, an employer is making an investment in you and expects to get a return on that investment. Having said all that I wish you luck in your new job.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
In my opinion it depends on what are you looking for; in the company in which I'm working help-desk people need quite a long training before being comfortable, since the product could be quite complicated. Looking at the youngsters' CVs, usually I don't like to see a long list under work experience: that means they are only trying to gain experience and soon they will leave without being useful.
Other 2 cents, but from the company point of view and with different cultural background (in Italy the work market is very paralyzed, and once you find the perm job you will be fine).
I've never been at a place for more than three years. I move when I need to get on in my career - more money or a higher position usually. If my current employer can't do that for me then I have to take responsibility for it and do it myself. If I'd simply stayed at one of my first couple of jobs I'd still be knocking out low quality "as quickly as possible" ASP.net websites for a pittance.
Most companies in the U.S. in today's market will tell you they value dedicated individuals that are loyal to the company. The fact is many of them don't really value you and will let you go at a moments notice no matter how long you have been there. If times get tough no matter how loyal or dedicated you have been you could find yourself without a job.
A friend who has been a consultant for close to a decade gave me these two bits of advice that I have found to be very true.
"Do what is best for you! If you are not happy at a position, you are going to torpedo your own career because subconciously you will not being your best work."
"If you interview well and fit their position companies will hire you. Especially if they think they can make money off you no matter what your tenure was at previous jobs."
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Well in my experiance, programmers have a pretty stressful life. Its is essenstial to give them adequet freedom in their workplace (not too much). Most sufable content should be monitored this is done with interest on the employees behalf and the companies behalf.
The employee, because restricting access to social networking sites will definitly show a boost in effeciency and performance in the work they do. The company aspect is that its preferable that employess dont missuse company bandwidth for personal tasks.
When it comes to worklife balance, flexi work hours should be naturally considered as this is a key aspect many employees look for in a software company. It would help them gain the work life balance they need. (Dont restrict listening to music while working) most programmers work better while blasting some tunes in their ears !!!!
Okay that explains it, HR are a bunch of anally retentive, brain dead, vacuous idiots who are a complete PITA, and no I'm not prejudiced, that is fair and balanced assessment of HR, and their managers are the worst of the lot!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
If it is piped inoffensive music then yes it will dull the mind and have negative effects. Most people go well on their own choice of poison. Mind it is harder trying to talk to someone who has music blasting in their ears. Employers should worry about the negative effects on hearing - employment tends to force people to sit with earphones for longer than they would otherwise choose.
but when it comes to companies run by a older generation
That would need qualification.
The "older" generation these days is quite familiar with software development. It could be that in some countries or some companies those in charge have a different culture in mind but I don't see that as a general truth.
Only time I've seen something like that is when another manager emailed a bunch of people asking everybody to stop using Pandora, as that was slowing down the internet for others. Wasn't a problem for me, as I stream via my phone anyway.
Though, they are getting pretty annoying as of late. When I visit YouTube, I get a "we're watching you" guilt message saying "hey, you can visit this website, but it takes a lot of bandwidth, and we'll nag you again in an hour." And all of the videos on our website are hosted on YouTube, and I can't seem to get past that guilt message when the video is inline. Because I totally needed another barrier to doing my job.
It's nothing you would have worked on in the past (assuming I'm remembering your "interesting" past correctly). It's a professional learning site. Their main thing is high quality videos that teach you various software products (e.g., all the Adobe stuff, such as Photoshop). They also have files to download (like Code Project) and transcripts (in case you want to search for text that was spoken in the video). If I had more time, I'd be on there constantly.
Mine is. To complete the double-whammy they are also want to pipe Radio n int the office, where n < 3. The worst outcome would be Radio 1 being piped, and frankly don't Radio 2 either, not if I'm forced to sit and listen to it for 8 hours a day.
The manufacturing job I worked at between when I graduated and got a programming job banned music about a week and a half before I left because production rates had dropped (the fact that they'd just sacked about 70-80% of the midnight shift and replaced them with newbies obviously wasn't a factor ) and told us we'd be allowed to have our CD players back when the numbers improved.
My comment (to coworkers, not the pointy hairs) was the standard 'the beatings will continue until morale improves'. I'm not sure what eventually happened since we were even farther from the (virtually impossible to meet) nominal quotas my last full week there.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
I have to say, I disagree with the controls listed here. I just finished my MBA and work for a company with unfettered access to internet, social media, etc. Productivity is fine. Especially with smartphones, people will access facebook, twitter, etc. if they want. Unfortunately, access is slower on a smartphone, so it takes even longer to waste time. The theory is that, if you treat the employees as adults, they'll tend to act like adults. Some basic monitoring is okay, then address any outliers as needed.
The only thing I would consider restricting would be obvious pornographic/gambling sites (just for your network's sake) and streaming media sites like Pandora, but only if you have a bandwidth concern. Judge the employees based on their productivity, not necessarily how they achieve productivity.
restricting access to social networking sites will definitly show a boost in effeciency and performance in the work they do
I don't agree with that one because:
1 - Employees that tend to engage a lot in social networking will still do it in their smartphones which will make them lose even more time with it.
2 - Social networking is just one part of what employees that like to drift away from work will do. Ban social networking they will just keep on browsing something else not work related. You have to fix the culture, not ban social networking. Monitoring employees internet usage and warning employees would be a much more effective way to boost productivity.
3 - I believe social networking can actually improve productivity as it is a good way to relieve stress sometimes and to take your mind away from a profession that is very brain intensive. Having a few minutes of relief in social networking can give the brain a break so it can have a fresh start in a few minutes. This of course works if the employee does not overuse social networking and uses common sense, which brings back to point 2.
The company aspect is that its preferable that employess dont missuse company bandwidth for personal tasks.
I agree, but I don't think banning it altogether is any good. Video streaming of course shouldn't be allowed as it can compromise the bandwidth other employees might need. But some personal tasks should be allowed so the user does not have to leave the office just to pay some bills. This can be really bad for the employee's motivation. Small personal tasks like internet banking and others should be allowed IMO, as long as it does not compromise the client or the company's security and NDAs.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Programmers work with their brains, not their hands. The brain has a mind of his own, and doesn't react well to monotony or any kind of restrictions. Also, the brain doesn't stop working on job stuff when you go home - unless you hate your job. Therefore, in order to get a high productivity and quality code from programmers, you need them to love their job, nothing more.
You can chain a programmer to his keyboard in an empty room for ten hours a day, and he may be producing more lines of code than someone working from home, or working only when he pleases to, but that's not what you're after. You want as much functionality delivered each day as possible. A bored or annoyed programmer may deliver more lines of code, but these lines will definitely implement less functionality, contain more technical debt, more bugs and require higher costs for maintenance.
Trying to get programmers to be more productive by using restrictions is like pulling a plant by its leaves to make it grow faster.
restricting access to social networking sites will definitly show a boost
Total BS. Restriction just makes your employees more restricted, not happier and not more productive.
Just imagine you spend 9 HOURS(!!) of your best day hours in an office. What a benefit you have (above money) sitting like in jail? Internet is one of valuable stuff (after printing personal stuff on company's paper ) that you can afford. If I feel tired, I f** your restrictions and just play Solitaire. What you win, stupid? Nothing except opinion "my boss is a jewish greedy". Will I work after hours on you? NOT.
Nowadays Internet doesn't and shouldn't be a way of manipulating people. Internet is YOUR RIGHT to read, to watch, to listen and to express.
Think twice before you "tie" conditions: you saw the bough which you sit on. THEY, your developers, do real things which you sell. Without happy, motivated developers your company slowly slide down like a sh**. Cost of your failure.... yep, ridiculous $1000 you "save" on their limitation.
As relaxed as possible, with the understanding that everyone has work assigned to them, and are expected to finish it on or ahead of schedule, or shout REAL EARLY if they have an issue. This should be easy to monitor if you are using agile (as you should find out from the scrum meetings)
So, if a dev has a task to do that is estimated by consensus to be about a two day job - if (s)he wants to spend one day chilling and the next working like a dog, into the evening, to finish on time, then that should be fine. Similarly if he finishes a day early it should be acceptable for them to 'slack off a bit' (after all, the alternative is rewarding finishing ahead of schedule with more work to do!)
in my experience, the good devs will not take advantage ( by overestimating and then cruising) and, when all is done, you (the company) want the job done to schedule - and as long as it is, I'd leave everything as loose as possible.
The only caveats to all of that is the expectations should be well understood
- you consistently under-perform, you're out.
- you will be present at the office for meetings/discussions when requested (with sufficient notice) so if they work from 11-7 they may have to come in occasionally at 9 for a meeting.
I would also expect all employees to ensure I am kept caffeinated at all times.
Internal Law - wtf? your majesty royal arseness you would like your *underling* to serve you like a King don't you. I treat even my domestic helper with respect and I don't write little red book what's permitted and what's not. where the hell do you come from man?
Either that or you have a very high spec for your sense of humour that it all flew over our heads...
Anyway, what the OP means by "law", I think, are company rules.
I don't think he wants to play being a tyrant but wants to make it clear what time his employees should turn up for work and how they get paid etc.