David O’Hara, one of my colleagues at Improving Enterprises, posted the following to Twitter today:
Folks, if you’re not willing to buy tools to get your job done faster/better – please do us all a favor…
He and I had the related Twitter discussion which you can follow, as well as a chat offline to further clarify what we meant. However, I thought it was a subject rich enough to deserve more than 140 characters in explanation. It’s my stance that the quote above at first read is essentially saying if you aren’t willing to buy productivity tools, then we’d be better off without you. David has since explained that he was really targeting people who complained about built in tool support or the lack thereof and that if you weren’t willing to buy the tools, stop complaining and just do your job. However, several other people agreed with Dave’s quote as written and I fairly strongly disagree so let’s look at the quote as it is.
My stance is that this is a purely economic decision at its most core, one that if taken at face value, expects developers to take a financial risk, e.g. pay for a yearly subscription to Code Rush or Resharper, and accept in return a non-financial reward, e.g. greater productivity which we’ll assume leads to greater happiness. Additionally, an employer who can convince all his employees to buy their own subscription reaps almost immediate rewards while taking on none of the risk. This is a bad economic decision for an employee to take. There is an edge case which nearly everyone brought up in their agreement with David and that is a craftsman. We’ll discuss that in a minute.
One point that’s critical here is that we’re talking about salaried employees and not independent contractors of any kind. When I first objected to Dave’s remark, I questioned what other profession expects the employees to buy their own productivity tools. I don’t think there are any outside of independent contractors. This is an important distinction because contractors can pass the cost of their increased productivity on to the consumer through either higher prices or longer engagements if they choose not to use the productivity tools. Salaried employees do not have that option. Several people argued that employees who were more productive would be rewarded in the long run but again, this is not a good economic bargain since future returns on my economic risk today are inherently, well, risky. Maybe the employer lays me off or pays me less than my productivity cost me.
Looking at it from another angle, by convincing me either implicitly or explicitly to pay for tools to increase my productivity, my employer has also lowered his salary costs while gaining in output. Again, in an economic agreement, this is a big loss for me. Of course, David didn’t mention the employer in all this but the assumption is that if I have to pay for my productivity tools, it’s because my employer refuses to do so for whatever reason.
Granted, I may have a choice in the matter. I may choose not to work with the tools. I may choose to get another job. But all of these come with associated costs, costs that must be weighed when making a decision.
In the end, the best employers ought to provide the best tools for their developers in an attempt to get the very best employees. The best employers do this because they know it’s in their best interest to focus on the long term return of having the very best employees while the worst employers focus on the near term return of the cutting costs. This is true across many fields, not just software development.
What about that edge case? Here’s where my thinking converges with David’s sentiment. Craftsmen always work with the best tools because their work is qualitatively different than that of the average software developer. They want to operate at the highest level of efficiency in order to achieve the quality of work that their internal motivation demands. Of course, the irony in this is that typically craftsmen refuse to work for employers who expect them to buy their own tools because that is a sign of the type of work or environment they can expect.
Overall, I don’t think it should be the employee’s obligation to provide themselves with productivity tools. They agree to do a job to the best of their abilities when they join a company. If there are tools that enhance their abilities, the employer should provide them as an investment in the long term gain of more productive and ultimately happier employees.
Of course, all this said, I choose to buy my own tools. I do this in part because I want to have them after I leave a given company but also so that I can use them in my own personal development as a software developer. I’m light years away from being a craftsman but I suppose striving to be one is the next best thing.