[eropple]

> After hiring they are depressingly unexcited about delivering a new feature that promises business value, significantly improves performance etc. It's just work to be done.

Well...yeah, it is just work to do, because it's just a job. Turn it around: why should they be excited about something they have no meaningful ownership (and I don't mean a few tenths or hundredths of a percent) in?

If the co-founder who owns fifty percent of the company isn't excited, sure, be worried. If the developer who you value only for work-units provided doesn't, it's because you haven't created a reason to (and "hard problems" isn't one; pretty much anybody can find hard problems to work on).

[philmander]

I'm not sure what to make of that.

Assuming the product isn't genuinely boring, is it the norm then that developers without a direct financial incentive in the growth of the company should just be drones who type code in exchange for a salary?

[eropple]

Being strictly professional and capable and executing on a problem has nothing to do with being a "drone". Developers should be looking out strictly and exclusively for their own interests, just as the company that employs them does. Excitement and enthusiasm are tools used to get a better deal on behalf of the company than the company deserves, and that's literally it.

[linkmotif]

There's also something to be said about a salary. A good salary isn't something to scoff at. If someone paid me a lot of money, and the product and underlying technologies were interesting, and I didn't have any business ideas myself at the time, I would feel odd not having any enthusiasm about the job.

[tonyedgecombe]

Looking at it from the other perspective is it sensible to centre your life on a job that may not even exist tomorrow?

[philmander]

Showing some enthusiasm doesn't mean centering to your life around it