After reading a detailed article about how we spend [...] do you really think that we then CHAIN them to an Aeron chair [...]
The place that I worked that had such nice equipment basically did exactly that: you were given your standard issue equipment with virtually zero flexibility (amusingly other than keyboard and mouse, just like your setup).
That said, the impression mostly comes from the way that you write about the place. You use a lot of absolute terms. There's a lot of talk about best and ideal and happy and then very precise definitions of those things. This gives readers the impression that while you have a very luxurious office, that it's also one that's quite rigid.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if that wholly misses the mark. You're obviously a really smart guy that wants to do well by your employees, and good on you for that. But it also sounds like you're running a grand experiment at FogCreek where you're (mostly by fiat) deciding what you think is best for a company's culture. That may actually produce a place that for the type of folks that get hired there really clicks. I don't think I'd be one of those sorts.
It seemed clear to me that Joel was intentionally choosing the most expensive instance of each item (chair, monitor, desk, etc.) that a developer could reasonably want, not to suggest that every developer needs his specified setup, but rather so that he could put an absolute upper bound on what it could possibly cost you to keep a programmer happy. It was a mathematical exercise, not a recommendation.
and then very precise definitions of those things.
I understood the post in a very different way. There were no definitions, but lots of concrete examples.
It is a staple of writing guidelines that one should be concrete rather than abstract, specific rather than general, etc. The reason for this is that it is easier for people to reason up to the general principle than down to the specifics.
The concrete examples make it more understandable.
The place that I worked that had such nice equipment basically did exactly that: you were given your standard issue equipment with virtually zero flexibility
This sounds to me like a place that grabbed the "what" and missed the "why". The two questions I would want any company I work for to ask are, "Why would our developers want to be productive for us?" and then, "What do they need to be most productive?" in that order. Give me a reason to be productive and then make sure my equipment doesn't hold me back.
The problem is a lot of people skip the first question and jump straight to the second. I personally believe they do that because the second question is quantifiable. The article is called "The Price of (Dev) Happiness: Part One" and it gives a price at the bottom. There is something a manager can put in Excel and show to superiors.
However, the "why" is more nebulous and harder to enact. Change company culture? Might take months, or years if it's even possible. But I can order $6,174 worth of equipment in an afternoon.
And this isn't just a problem in IT or even in business. There is a ton of information out there about how to lose weight. The "what" is easy to find. But people (including myself) are still overweight because they have no compelling "why".
So when I read this article, I read as a description of "what". And I think there needs to be articles about the "what" just like there needs to be information about how to lose weight. However, I am going to try to not let myself be enamored by it when deciding on a new job. I'm looking for the "why" as well.
The place that I worked that had such nice equipment basically did exactly that: you were given your standard issue equipment with virtually zero flexibility (amusingly other than keyboard and mouse, just like your setup).
That said, the impression mostly comes from the way that you write about the place. You use a lot of absolute terms. There's a lot of talk about best and ideal and happy and then very precise definitions of those things. This gives readers the impression that while you have a very luxurious office, that it's also one that's quite rigid.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if that wholly misses the mark. You're obviously a really smart guy that wants to do well by your employees, and good on you for that. But it also sounds like you're running a grand experiment at FogCreek where you're (mostly by fiat) deciding what you think is best for a company's culture. That may actually produce a place that for the type of folks that get hired there really clicks. I don't think I'd be one of those sorts.