3 ms·

I see this more as "the people who just show up" vs "the people who actually work when they're at work". Dividing them up like this the typical "just shows up"

by knorker 10y ago

I see this more as "the people who just show up" vs "the people who actually work when they're at work". Dividing them up like this the typical "just shows up" person is purely stimulus driven. Nothing happens if you don't tell them to do exactly something. They won't tell you they're blocked on Bob sending a purchase order for a month. They won't tell you because you didn't ask. You didn't ask so they just... they just do nothing. Or you have contractors who really don't care[1]. They bill by the hour, and if you don't give them tasks then they can take a second contract and bill more. Most companies I've seen are full of stimulus-response people. You don't need to work more than 40 hour weeks to be productive. What you need is managers and coworkers who understand what your job kinda entails. People who when you say during the two week planning meeting that you'll fix a typo and that's it, will call you on it saying "that won't take two weeks, what else?". I've seen competent people (with children) fall into a comfort zone where they can keep up and "perform well" working just an hour or two a week, because nobody else gets any work done so it's not like they're blocking people. These same people actually perform in better companies. [1] I'm not saying no contractors care. But they have extra reason not to care if they happened to be paid and aren't "stimulated" (in the simulus-response sense).

pooper 10y ago
> Dividing them up like this the typical "just shows up" person is purely stimulus driven. Nothing happens if you don't tell them to do exactly something. They won't tell you they're blocked on Bob sending a purchase order for a month. They won't tell you because you didn't ask. You didn't ask so they just... they just do nothing. I'm sorry but I'd argue that I cared more when I was younger (mostly because I was stupid). I've spent entire days in someone else's cubicle (not so much pair programming as me standing guard against distractions such as business analysts and quality assurance who apparently kept popping in) making sure they finish their part of work. Actual code writing for me was fairly easy once the roadblocks got out of the way. I've told people to shut up in meetings when they start going off in tangents. Clearly, it was not good for my career.
- knorker 10y ago
  Not sure what part you're arguing with.
- Mandatum 10y ago
  > I've told people to shut up in meetings when they start going off in tangents. Clearly, it was not good for my career. It's an awkward situation, I usually just ask "is this relevant to everyone in this room?" Sometimes a manager says "yes" (it's not) and I just sit there and die quietly inside, otherwise they just say "yeah let's take this offline". Whatever that means. As long as it's not fucking with the meeting ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- mk89 10y ago
  > I'm sorry but I'd argue that I cared more when I was younger (mostly because I was stupid). I've spent entire days in someone else's cubicle (not so much pair programming as me standing guard against distractions such as business analysts and quality assurance who apparently kept popping in) making sure they finish their part of work. I think this is one of the main points. Some managers literally abuse the commitment a good worker has toward the company - for any possible reason: first job, belief in career advancement (within the same company), pure love for work (workaholic), etc. However, once you change a couple of companies, and once you see what managers really value, you start to wonder: what am I doing here? who am I kidding here? Your priorities start to shift toward something that becomes more important for you (family, kids, your own person, friends, and so on). My 2 cents. I might be completely wrong, so ignore me :) In general, I feel that the "proactive" or "reactive" mindset is not always the main reason of such issues occurring at work. Sometimes the environment is so literally fucked up, that you can't do anything, even if you are super proactive. Really, nothing, even when you try to find yourself a task, something to do; and this will kill you inside, until you change job. I believe that good managers make you productive, even when you "literally" work 50% of the time. After all, that's what they are also paid for, isn't it? I also want to believe that a good manager doesn't let that happen (that you work like hell), for the simple reason he is aware of the consequences. However, I find it's hard to generalize, it always depends on the case/company/team/person.
vesak 10y ago
>Most companies I've seen are full of stimulus-response people. Most companies I've seen turn perfectly good work-driven people into stimulus-driven wrecks. I think it should be punishable, since it's very similar to a more labour-oriented employer creating circumstances where physical accidents happen.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by knorker 10y ago

pooper 10y ago

> Dividing them up like this the typical "just shows up" person is purely stimulus driven. Nothing happens if you don't tell them to do exactly something. They won't tell you they're blocked on Bob sending a purchase order for a month. They won't tell you because you didn't ask. You didn't ask so they just... they just do nothing. I'm sorry but I'd argue that I cared more when I was younger (mostly because I was stupid). I've spent entire days in someone else's cubicle (not so much pair programming as me standing guard against distractions such as business analysts and quality assurance who apparently kept popping in) making sure they finish their part of work. Actual code writing for me was fairly easy once the roadblocks got out of the way. I've told people to shut up in meetings when they start going off in tangents. Clearly, it was not good for my career.

knorker 10y ago
Not sure what part you're arguing with.
Mandatum 10y ago
> I've told people to shut up in meetings when they start going off in tangents. Clearly, it was not good for my career. It's an awkward situation, I usually just ask "is this relevant to everyone in this room?" Sometimes a manager says "yes" (it's not) and I just sit there and die quietly inside, otherwise they just say "yeah let's take this offline". Whatever that means. As long as it's not fucking with the meeting ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
mk89 10y ago
> I'm sorry but I'd argue that I cared more when I was younger (mostly because I was stupid). I've spent entire days in someone else's cubicle (not so much pair programming as me standing guard against distractions such as business analysts and quality assurance who apparently kept popping in) making sure they finish their part of work. I think this is one of the main points. Some managers literally abuse the commitment a good worker has toward the company - for any possible reason: first job, belief in career advancement (within the same company), pure love for work (workaholic), etc. However, once you change a couple of companies, and once you see what managers really value, you start to wonder: what am I doing here? who am I kidding here? Your priorities start to shift toward something that becomes more important for you (family, kids, your own person, friends, and so on). My 2 cents. I might be completely wrong, so ignore me :) In general, I feel that the "proactive" or "reactive" mindset is not always the main reason of such issues occurring at work. Sometimes the environment is so literally fucked up, that you can't do anything, even if you are super proactive. Really, nothing, even when you try to find yourself a task, something to do; and this will kill you inside, until you change job. I believe that good managers make you productive, even when you "literally" work 50% of the time. After all, that's what they are also paid for, isn't it? I also want to believe that a good manager doesn't let that happen (that you work like hell), for the simple reason he is aware of the consequences. However, I find it's hard to generalize, it always depends on the case/company/team/person.

vesak 10y ago

>Most companies I've seen are full of stimulus-response people. Most companies I've seen turn perfectly good work-driven people into stimulus-driven wrecks. I think it should be punishable, since it's very similar to a more labour-oriented employer creating circumstances where physical accidents happen.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]