5 ms·

Indeed. I read that line and actually laughed out loud. On my team people regularly arrive in the office any time between 7am and 12pm. The notion that anyone i

by jsolson 11y ago

Indeed. I read that line and actually laughed out loud. On my team people regularly arrive in the office any time between 7am and 12pm. The notion that anyone in a modern software development job would care about the specific hours someone spends in a seat is ridiculous to me. You're either getting shit done or you're not, and you're either communicating in an appropriate and timely manner or not. If you're doing both of those things, who gives a fuck which specific block of hours your ass is in a specific seat?

alkonaut 11y ago
Well, as stated very well above by timv, it works both ways. The "as long as you deliver you can work whenever you want" can be abused to expect more than full time work with a constant workload of above full time (bad estimates etc) The agreement between me and my employer is that I work 40h per week, and deliver value during that time. Apart from that there is an understanding that I can work slightly more or less depending on workload and deadlines. What's important is that the long term average is never more than 40 (that would indicate and encourage bad estimates and bad deadlines). If I need to pick the kids up at 4 I pick them up at 4, deadline or not. If an employer felt it was a problem that I need to pick my kids up at 4 on deadline day they need to find another deadline or another developer. Regarding work hours - I'm not expected to be in my seat during specific hours but should be available during office hours. Having teammates who cooperate not work overlapping hours would be very bad for productivity. If I need to do some extra hours I try to d them late at night, but it wouldn't be acceptable for a team member to do all their work at night, when no one else is working. Direct communication is important.
- stronglikedan 11y ago
  > If an employer felt it was a problem ... they need to find another deadline or another developer. Be careful of this attitude nowadays. There's lots of people getting into software development these days, and there's lots that will work for less money than you. There's also a lot of managers that would love to pay someone less, regardless of their quality. I know it's always been that way to some degree, but the problem seems to be growing exponentially as the years go on and more "developers" flood the market fresh out of school and racked with debt.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Any manager who believes they can staff a non-trivial project with fresh bootcamp grads instead of formally trained senior engineers deserves the seven kinds of Hell they are going to get.
    - stronglikedan 11y ago
      I thoroughly agree with your statement. However, it seems that there's a lot of managers who are okay with mediocrity if it increases the bottom line.
      - annnnd 11y ago
        The catch is that it doesn't, they just think it would.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    The reason I don't really need to be careful with that attitude is because it works both ways -- I wouldn't want to work for an employer that didn't agree. I'm also very clear when interviewing, which of course could cost me the position but that is a good thing (don't want to work there otherwise etc).
wtbob 11y ago
> The notion that anyone in a modern software development job would care about the specific hours someone spends in a seat is ridiculous to me. Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working. I've been on teams where the majority of the team appear to spend about 6 hours a day actually in the office, and don't appear to be working (although of course they may be thinking/reading/learning) more than that. That seems undesirable. > You're either getting shit done or you're not It's not a boolean; it's a rational. One gets so much quality stuff done over time. Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time.
- jknightco 11y ago
  "Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working." "Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time." These two sentences directly contradict one another. If an employee is working 4 hour days and accomplishing more than their peers working 8 hour days, why do you expect them to spend 8 hours a day working—especially when you yourself have already said the former is more valuable? In my experience, people who are able to get quality work done in shorter amounts of time typically produce lower-quality work when forced to work longer hours. Shouldn't you be encouraging this?
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > > "Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working." "Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time." > These two sentences directly contradict one another. Nope, not at all. > If an employee is working 4 hour days and accomplishing more than their peers working 8 hour days, why do you expect them to spend 8 hours a day working—especially when you yourself have already said the former is more valuable? Because time marches on, whether or not someone is working. The whole reason I want someone who's productive in a shorter amount of time is that once he's done producing one thing he can get started on something else.

by jsolson 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago

Well, as stated very well above by timv, it works both ways. The "as long as you deliver you can work whenever you want" can be abused to expect more than full time work with a constant workload of above full time (bad estimates etc) The agreement between me and my employer is that I work 40h per week, and deliver value during that time. Apart from that there is an understanding that I can work slightly more or less depending on workload and deadlines. What's important is that the long term average is never more than 40 (that would indicate and encourage bad estimates and bad deadlines). If I need to pick the kids up at 4 I pick them up at 4, deadline or not. If an employer felt it was a problem that I need to pick my kids up at 4 on deadline day they need to find another deadline or another developer. Regarding work hours - I'm not expected to be in my seat during specific hours but should be available during office hours. Having teammates who cooperate not work overlapping hours would be very bad for productivity. If I need to do some extra hours I try to d them late at night, but it wouldn't be acceptable for a team member to do all their work at night, when no one else is working. Direct communication is important.

stronglikedan 11y ago
> If an employer felt it was a problem ... they need to find another deadline or another developer. Be careful of this attitude nowadays. There's lots of people getting into software development these days, and there's lots that will work for less money than you. There's also a lot of managers that would love to pay someone less, regardless of their quality. I know it's always been that way to some degree, but the problem seems to be growing exponentially as the years go on and more "developers" flood the market fresh out of school and racked with debt.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Any manager who believes they can staff a non-trivial project with fresh bootcamp grads instead of formally trained senior engineers deserves the seven kinds of Hell they are going to get.
  - stronglikedan 11y ago
    I thoroughly agree with your statement. However, it seems that there's a lot of managers who are okay with mediocrity if it increases the bottom line.
    - annnnd 11y ago
      The catch is that it doesn't, they just think it would.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  The reason I don't really need to be careful with that attitude is because it works both ways -- I wouldn't want to work for an employer that didn't agree. I'm also very clear when interviewing, which of course could cost me the position but that is a good thing (don't want to work there otherwise etc).

wtbob 11y ago

> The notion that anyone in a modern software development job would care about the specific hours someone spends in a seat is ridiculous to me. Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working. I've been on teams where the majority of the team appear to spend about 6 hours a day actually in the office, and don't appear to be working (although of course they may be thinking/reading/learning) more than that. That seems undesirable. > You're either getting shit done or you're not It's not a boolean; it's a rational. One gets so much quality stuff done over time. Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time.

jknightco 11y ago
"Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working." "Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time." These two sentences directly contradict one another. If an employee is working 4 hour days and accomplishing more than their peers working 8 hour days, why do you expect them to spend 8 hours a day working—especially when you yourself have already said the former is more valuable? In my experience, people who are able to get quality work done in shorter amounts of time typically produce lower-quality work when forced to work longer hours. Shouldn't you be encouraging this?
- wtbob 11y ago
  > > "Sure, but I do expect that folks on my teams are spending about ⅓ of their lives—or 8 hours/day—working." "Those who produce more quality features over less time are more valuable than those who produce fewer, more broken features over more time." > These two sentences directly contradict one another. Nope, not at all. > If an employee is working 4 hour days and accomplishing more than their peers working 8 hour days, why do you expect them to spend 8 hours a day working—especially when you yourself have already said the former is more valuable? Because time marches on, whether or not someone is working. The whole reason I want someone who's productive in a shorter amount of time is that once he's done producing one thing he can get started on something else.