3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
jsolson 11y ago
> 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. This was sort of my point. If people don't want to work they'll find a way to not work regardless of whether they're in a seat. > 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. Sure, but because of the above it can be difficult to tell whether two people who are equivalently productive are both working equivalently hard. At the end of the day, if they're delivering value proportional to their compensation, you're probably going to keep paying them.

by wtbob 11y ago

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.

jsolson 11y ago

> 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. This was sort of my point. If people don't want to work they'll find a way to not work regardless of whether they're in a seat. > 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. Sure, but because of the above it can be difficult to tell whether two people who are equivalently productive are both working equivalently hard. At the end of the day, if they're delivering value proportional to their compensation, you're probably going to keep paying them.