4 ms·

People talk about "getting their work done" as if an equal amount of work were doled out every day to each worker and getting it done were a "you eat what you k

People talk about "getting their work done" as if an equal amount of work were doled out every day to each worker and getting it done were a "you eat what you kill" result of being highly productive. Is this work-assignment principle common? I could see why a manager might distribute work this way, but I've never seen it actually happen -- it has always been "oh great, you finished early today, you'll have twice as much work tomorrow." The optimistic explanation is that I haven't found a good manager + workplace yet and I should keep looking. The pessimistic explanation is that "getting your work done" is a sign of success at the game of politics on one hand and masterful framing on the other, rather than a result of skillful software engineering. I'm right out of school, I've only had one job, so I don't have a very good sample to make up my own mind from. I'd appreciate hearing opinions on the matter.

tbrownaw 10y ago
I have a mostly infinite to-do list, so my work is never done. When I'm on a more well-defined project, I'll have a deadline and a set of things to do based on how fast I work and what we (me, the project manager, maybe the other developers on the project) think is reasonable. Several co-workers usually have a single project where work is lumpy. They can have a several-day to-do list one week, and be twiddling their thumbs waiting on other people the next week. I don't know anyone who gets a daily task list that isn't calibrated to their skill level.
thinkmassive 10y ago
In my experience the explanations you provide apply more to general flexibility of working hours. Reasonable employers shouldn't have an issue with you stepping away from work at anytime as long as your performance is at least adequate. Playing politics might offer a similar result, but I think it'd be easier to lose this privilege if you don't actually have the skills to back it up and are found out. Leaving early for the day is more likely to happen if you complete a big deliverable early than anticipated. Like you reserve a full day for launching a major version, it goes smoothly, so your afternoon is unexpectedly free. The gamble is sometimes you might end up occupied until late into the night, so it tends to balance out.
refurb 10y ago
Poor phrasing on my part. It's more about long term performance. My manager knows I'll get my work done so she doesn't really care how it gets done. You are correct that there is always more work to do, but if I find myself reasonably caught up by noon and everything else can wait until tomorrow, I often just call it a day. My manager doesn't care.
curun1r 10y ago
I've always read "getting my work done" as similar to "pulling my own weight" or "doing my fair share." They're not supposed to be read literally, only to convey an overall sentiment. When I managed my team, work was never assigned to an individual. It was assigned to the team and the team took responsibility for it. Individuals accepted responsibility for pieces of work as they completed prior work. If an individual wasn't contributing enough, either the team's productivity would suffer or other members of the team would step up to fill in the gap. If that that lack of contribution became consistent, I'd notice, either through poor team performance or conversations with disgruntled team members who were covering. A lot of it was handled by feel and when a member of my team felt like he was accomplishing enough to keep the team performing well, s/he absolutely had the discretion to leave early. The key is that when the team is responsible, people are motivated very differently from when an individual is responsible. Your team members are often your friends whereas you might have a more combative relationship with your manager. No one wants to be the one that lets the team down. And, similarly, if a team is being pushed too hard, everyone will feel it and everyone can push back together. This makes it really easy to see, as a manager, when you're asking too much of people. I'd say if you're looking for a healthy work environment, look for ones that emphasize team accountability over individual accountability and then try to find a team where everyone respects each other. That team is, more often than not, going to do well and you'll share in that success. If you have a slump, someone will cover for you. If someone else does and you feel up to it, you can go above and beyond for a bit. It's a lot easier to give that extra effort when you're doing well than it is when you're struggling.
- nixos 10y ago
  Then if the team works hard (say, they're superhuman and can work 24 hours a day 7 days a week straight) and do what other teams do in 3 months in one, will they get the other two off? If not, you're just pushing responsibility up.
  - curun1r 10y ago
    Not exactly, but a similar situation happened with my team. There was a period where we simply accomplished a lot more than other teams. It wasn't superhuman effort, which isn't sustainable. Instead, it was better tool selection and streamlined processes (automation and continuous delivery, which shed a lot of the baggage that comes with large releases) that accounted for most of the increase in productivity. In fact, my team worked less hours and had fewer production issues than other teams. The organization (eventually) reacted the way that healthy organizations should...they promoted most of the team into leadership roles in other teams that weren't performing as well. The reward for our success was more money and responsibility and the entire organization benefited from what we'd learned. I say eventually, because I had to fight a pretty big PR battle before management above me saw the virtue of the way that my team operated. Before that, there was a tendency to give star performer awards and kudos to people putting in long hours to make release deadlines or putting in heroic efforts to keep error-prone production environments up an running. Management saw my team leaving at a normal time every day and didn't think that was worth rewarding. It took a mountain of data for me to show that a boring, predictable production environment that allowed us to push out more features was better serving customers.
ehnto 10y ago
I work at a digital agency, in many ways I am a cog in a ticket processing pipeline. We have an endless stream of tickets. If one gets done there is another waiting, there is no reason not to be working. It is a bit of a bummer, as a lifestyle. But makes total sense as a business. This isn't a school where the goal is learning and assignments are the method. The assignments are the goal and there is enough for months of work, I already know how to do them, so there is no reason not to. I yearn for something a bit different, I don't feel like an endless stream of 100% work is healthy. But the only way for that to be different is for the business to actively say "yes, we would like to make less revenue so that you can do something that isn't what we pay you for" The realistic scenario is that I work fewer hours and get paid less. Which is fine, and lines up nicely with the meritocracy rhetoric. But I can't help but feel like the work 40 hours, eat, sleep, die method of employment is a slight perversion of life.

tbrownaw 10y ago

I have a mostly infinite to-do list, so my work is never done. When I'm on a more well-defined project, I'll have a deadline and a set of things to do based on how fast I work and what we (me, the project manager, maybe the other developers on the project) think is reasonable. Several co-workers usually have a single project where work is lumpy. They can have a several-day to-do list one week, and be twiddling their thumbs waiting on other people the next week. I don't know anyone who gets a daily task list that isn't calibrated to their skill level.

thinkmassive 10y ago

In my experience the explanations you provide apply more to general flexibility of working hours. Reasonable employers shouldn't have an issue with you stepping away from work at anytime as long as your performance is at least adequate. Playing politics might offer a similar result, but I think it'd be easier to lose this privilege if you don't actually have the skills to back it up and are found out. Leaving early for the day is more likely to happen if you complete a big deliverable early than anticipated. Like you reserve a full day for launching a major version, it goes smoothly, so your afternoon is unexpectedly free. The gamble is sometimes you might end up occupied until late into the night, so it tends to balance out.

refurb 10y ago

Poor phrasing on my part. It's more about long term performance. My manager knows I'll get my work done so she doesn't really care how it gets done. You are correct that there is always more work to do, but if I find myself reasonably caught up by noon and everything else can wait until tomorrow, I often just call it a day. My manager doesn't care.

curun1r 10y ago

I've always read "getting my work done" as similar to "pulling my own weight" or "doing my fair share." They're not supposed to be read literally, only to convey an overall sentiment. When I managed my team, work was never assigned to an individual. It was assigned to the team and the team took responsibility for it. Individuals accepted responsibility for pieces of work as they completed prior work. If an individual wasn't contributing enough, either the team's productivity would suffer or other members of the team would step up to fill in the gap. If that that lack of contribution became consistent, I'd notice, either through poor team performance or conversations with disgruntled team members who were covering. A lot of it was handled by feel and when a member of my team felt like he was accomplishing enough to keep the team performing well, s/he absolutely had the discretion to leave early. The key is that when the team is responsible, people are motivated very differently from when an individual is responsible. Your team members are often your friends whereas you might have a more combative relationship with your manager. No one wants to be the one that lets the team down. And, similarly, if a team is being pushed too hard, everyone will feel it and everyone can push back together. This makes it really easy to see, as a manager, when you're asking too much of people. I'd say if you're looking for a healthy work environment, look for ones that emphasize team accountability over individual accountability and then try to find a team where everyone respects each other. That team is, more often than not, going to do well and you'll share in that success. If you have a slump, someone will cover for you. If someone else does and you feel up to it, you can go above and beyond for a bit. It's a lot easier to give that extra effort when you're doing well than it is when you're struggling.

nixos 10y ago
Then if the team works hard (say, they're superhuman and can work 24 hours a day 7 days a week straight) and do what other teams do in 3 months in one, will they get the other two off? If not, you're just pushing responsibility up.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Not exactly, but a similar situation happened with my team. There was a period where we simply accomplished a lot more than other teams. It wasn't superhuman effort, which isn't sustainable. Instead, it was better tool selection and streamlined processes (automation and continuous delivery, which shed a lot of the baggage that comes with large releases) that accounted for most of the increase in productivity. In fact, my team worked less hours and had fewer production issues than other teams. The organization (eventually) reacted the way that healthy organizations should...they promoted most of the team into leadership roles in other teams that weren't performing as well. The reward for our success was more money and responsibility and the entire organization benefited from what we'd learned. I say eventually, because I had to fight a pretty big PR battle before management above me saw the virtue of the way that my team operated. Before that, there was a tendency to give star performer awards and kudos to people putting in long hours to make release deadlines or putting in heroic efforts to keep error-prone production environments up an running. Management saw my team leaving at a normal time every day and didn't think that was worth rewarding. It took a mountain of data for me to show that a boring, predictable production environment that allowed us to push out more features was better serving customers.

ehnto 10y ago

I work at a digital agency, in many ways I am a cog in a ticket processing pipeline. We have an endless stream of tickets. If one gets done there is another waiting, there is no reason not to be working. It is a bit of a bummer, as a lifestyle. But makes total sense as a business. This isn't a school where the goal is learning and assignments are the method. The assignments are the goal and there is enough for months of work, I already know how to do them, so there is no reason not to. I yearn for something a bit different, I don't feel like an endless stream of 100% work is healthy. But the only way for that to be different is for the business to actively say "yes, we would like to make less revenue so that you can do something that isn't what we pay you for" The realistic scenario is that I work fewer hours and get paid less. Which is fine, and lines up nicely with the meritocracy rhetoric. But I can't help but feel like the work 40 hours, eat, sleep, die method of employment is a slight perversion of life.