6 ms·

I've often felt that a 5 day work week is about availability, not raw productivity. I could easily compress all of my weeks work into 30 hours or less, but that

I've often felt that a 5 day work week is about availability, not raw productivity. I could easily compress all of my weeks work into 30 hours or less, but that's not what my managers and clients value. What they value is the fact that I'm making progress on my tasks, and that my reachability is not preventing anyone else (people above me or below me) from making progress on their tasks

lettergram 8y ago
Never thought about that, but availability is probably closer to what employers are looking for. One thing my colleagues always value that I’m willing to respond at any time. It means most people come to me with their problems and my value to the business has increased (removing blockers from others).
wojcikstefan 8y ago
This is a good point. If you're a go-to expert in some category at your workplace, your availability and responsiveness might be too valuable to give up.
- ggurgone 8y ago
  you might want to avoid having "go-to" experts at work because when they leave you might be screwed
  - wojcikstefan 8y ago
    Yep, definitely agree. Increasing the bus factor is always a good idea.
dyeje 8y ago
Doesn't that problem disappear if everybody switches to the same shortened schedule?
MiddleEndian 8y ago
This is why working remotely is fantastic for work life balance. I can do my personal tasks, travel, visit my family, etc. and still be available.
- amelius 8y ago
  How are you available when you are traveling and visiting your family?
  - popotamonga 8y ago
    Take the computer with you. Once in a while you have to pop it out. Rarely.
    - jrochkind1 8y ago
      > Once in a while you have to pop it out. Rarely. I think "working from home" means something different to different people...
      - sl1ck731 8y ago
        Yeah, it can go either way. I tend to spend more time "working" than I would in the office because I get more invested in things or am just more comfortable. If I went into the office ever I would 100% just shut off at 5, and if I was asked for significantly more I would tell them to shove it. Some of my coworkers view it differently though and it becomes difficult to collaborate because they are running around doing other things during core hours. It is kind of an internal battle because I don't want the privilege taken from me.
  - MiddleEndian 8y ago
    Family: Laptop, internet at family member's home, work in the day. "Vacation" travel: Haven't done this myself (outside visiting family) but have had colleagues who did it without issue. Available and worked in the day, did vacation things in the evening presumably.
YayamiOmate 8y ago
That's what i notced with my friend in the managerial position. He can spend most of the time in Work From Home mode, has really good pay grade, and can't rest. He's looks like he's on a wrist band leash getting mails every 2-3 minutes and needs to somehow react on 10%. He doesnt do much other than be available 12-16h 6-7days a week. It's taking more toll than one would expect.
- adetrest 8y ago
  I could never understand why would someone accept these jobs. What's so great about becoming a manager and work 60h/week? How's that better than 40 a week as a subordinate and letting someone else worry about all the office drama?
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    I'm guessing it is something to do with money in most cases.
    - adetrest 8y ago
      1.5x the pay for double the hours isn't a trade-up though.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        If you're paid 100 units [after-tax] and your expenses are 80 units, you're left with a (higher than average) savings rate of 20% or 20 units of currency. If you double your hours, raise your pay to 150 units and inflate your lifestyle by 25% (from 80 units to 100 units), you are now making 150, spending 100 (with more luxury), and saving 50 units (250% of what you were saving before). That might be considered a trade-up (and is more or less the path I chose).
        bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        and probably a portion of that luxury is stuff like cleaners and other labor saving services which means that a lot of time that was spent on non remunerative work is now spent on the work.
ggurgone 8y ago
This is a valid point, managers and clients value availability and that's mainly the reason why they want you full time. In fact IMHO many prefer availability to productivity. Being available 40-50h a week is rather tiring though and it can affect productivity. For example I found that I perform better on a 32h/week. The availability problem can be solved by having the team cover the full week (different shifts with overlapping days).
- guitarbill 8y ago
  I think "the reason why they want you full time" is usually because they can (very few people push back) and/or they are in roles where more time put in equals more work done. For example, as a manager doing 1:1 is still tiring, but if you aren't paying 100% attention, that doesn't cost money unlike bugs in code. Almost nobody can do more than 3 hours of heavy concentration/flow work regularly. Add another two or three hours for meetings, answering emails, triaging bugs, etc. and you get ~30h per week. When I'm in a position to do so, I tell my team that I'd rather have 3 hours of great work than 6 or 8 hours of mediocre work full of mistakes. Still, it's an uphill battle culturally. And sometimes even developers don't like it, since they can't hide a lack of output behind hours in the office. I think this is a positive, because as a team lead you notice issues quicker, e.g. if someone is having a rough week. But it's also a good way to "unmask" people who e.g. embellished their skill level during the hiring process and maybe aren't a great fit for the role. That way, you can get them the training they need, or find them a different role.
  - ggurgone 8y ago
    > they are in roles where more time put in equals more work done This is partially true if: 1) you only hire young folks 2) you don't care about long term health of your team Based on this philosophy I could work 90h/week and get even more done i.e. there is always work to be done but IMHO this way of working is unhealthy and not sustainable. Personally for me it takes more time than the average to recharge so having a shorter working week helps with recharging and do well next week and be productive. And by that I mean being equally productive to a "full time". > if you aren't paying 100% attention, that doesn't cost money I'd argue it can cost you money, in different ways.
teekert 8y ago
Wow, you really put in words what I have unconsciously felt for a long time. This is very true in my job as well. Btw, 32 hours is almost the norm in my country but you have the same issues ;)
pasbesoin 8y ago
I've held a number of "exempt" positions (salary, no overtime pay) where the workload is typically high but there are the occasional slow periods or an abnormal personal schedule demand. When they want you to work extra hours, there's no argument. There's the project and the deadline. Come a slow day or two, though, or the need to take an hour or three for a personal task (see the doctor, for example), and there's no automatic, corresponding flexibility from them. Oh, your manager may grant you the time, but it's always at their discretion and a "favor" in return for your "good behavior." Gee, thanks. :-/ By the way, the positions are "exempt", but there's no hour-by-hour management of associates that requires constant attention. The whole definition of "exempt" is skewed to fix labor costs rather than provide (and pay, at a higher fixed level) for real "management of employees". Hell, often I'm not even directly interfacing with anyone who is non-exempt. Butts in seats. In my mind, it goes along with the "open space" paradigm. It's not actually about being "efficient"; it's about appearances, and control. Like the one petty tyrant manager who wouldn't let us upgrade woefully outdated and overly expensive process, because he might lose some headcount. His status and "security" were, in his mind -- and perhaps even correctly -- tied to that headcount. And... I suppose low cube walls helped to "show it off." P.S. I actually got along pretty well, including with my management. Perhaps too easy-going. As I've had time to reflect back upon all this, my resentment has grown and hardened. A LOT of wasted time and energy. If/when you start feeling this way, look around not just at the ostensible work you have to complete, but at the system and environment in which you are expected to complete it. Which are the real problems?
test1235 8y ago
you might want to give the developer hegemony[1] a read - the author mentions this specifically: the output of a developer is hard to quantify, so now instead of being paid to build things (as might a traditional labourer), you're instead paid for your time, during which the company can assign you any work. [1]https://daedtech.com/book/ https://daedtech.com/book/
village-idiot 8y ago
The problem is that the actual limited resource for workers is not time or effort, but attention. If you're available at work, you're spending that resource.
drdeadringer 8y ago
> is about availability That's what I've found especially with my current job. I can sit for a whole long time doing Nothing. I mean literally Nothing. I could tap out to see a 2.5h movie, come back, and nobody would have noticed. But "I'm available". Oh but of course, I'll press this button for you. Let me refer you to the "subject matter expert". And no, there's nothing explicitly for me to actually do. I can't wait for this contract to be over.

lettergram 8y ago

Never thought about that, but availability is probably closer to what employers are looking for. One thing my colleagues always value that I’m willing to respond at any time. It means most people come to me with their problems and my value to the business has increased (removing blockers from others).

wojcikstefan 8y ago

This is a good point. If you're a go-to expert in some category at your workplace, your availability and responsiveness might be too valuable to give up.

ggurgone 8y ago
you might want to avoid having "go-to" experts at work because when they leave you might be screwed
- wojcikstefan 8y ago
  Yep, definitely agree. Increasing the bus factor is always a good idea.

dyeje 8y ago

Doesn't that problem disappear if everybody switches to the same shortened schedule?

MiddleEndian 8y ago

This is why working remotely is fantastic for work life balance. I can do my personal tasks, travel, visit my family, etc. and still be available.

amelius 8y ago
How are you available when you are traveling and visiting your family?
- popotamonga 8y ago
  Take the computer with you. Once in a while you have to pop it out. Rarely.
  - jrochkind1 8y ago
    > Once in a while you have to pop it out. Rarely. I think "working from home" means something different to different people...
    - sl1ck731 8y ago
      Yeah, it can go either way. I tend to spend more time "working" than I would in the office because I get more invested in things or am just more comfortable. If I went into the office ever I would 100% just shut off at 5, and if I was asked for significantly more I would tell them to shove it. Some of my coworkers view it differently though and it becomes difficult to collaborate because they are running around doing other things during core hours. It is kind of an internal battle because I don't want the privilege taken from me.
- MiddleEndian 8y ago
  Family: Laptop, internet at family member's home, work in the day. "Vacation" travel: Haven't done this myself (outside visiting family) but have had colleagues who did it without issue. Available and worked in the day, did vacation things in the evening presumably.

YayamiOmate 8y ago

That's what i notced with my friend in the managerial position. He can spend most of the time in Work From Home mode, has really good pay grade, and can't rest. He's looks like he's on a wrist band leash getting mails every 2-3 minutes and needs to somehow react on 10%. He doesnt do much other than be available 12-16h 6-7days a week. It's taking more toll than one would expect.

adetrest 8y ago
I could never understand why would someone accept these jobs. What's so great about becoming a manager and work 60h/week? How's that better than 40 a week as a subordinate and letting someone else worry about all the office drama?
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  I'm guessing it is something to do with money in most cases.
  - adetrest 8y ago
    1.5x the pay for double the hours isn't a trade-up though.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      If you're paid 100 units [after-tax] and your expenses are 80 units, you're left with a (higher than average) savings rate of 20% or 20 units of currency. If you double your hours, raise your pay to 150 units and inflate your lifestyle by 25% (from 80 units to 100 units), you are now making 150, spending 100 (with more luxury), and saving 50 units (250% of what you were saving before). That might be considered a trade-up (and is more or less the path I chose).
      - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
        and probably a portion of that luxury is stuff like cleaners and other labor saving services which means that a lot of time that was spent on non remunerative work is now spent on the work.

ggurgone 8y ago

This is a valid point, managers and clients value availability and that's mainly the reason why they want you full time. In fact IMHO many prefer availability to productivity. Being available 40-50h a week is rather tiring though and it can affect productivity. For example I found that I perform better on a 32h/week. The availability problem can be solved by having the team cover the full week (different shifts with overlapping days).

guitarbill 8y ago
I think "the reason why they want you full time" is usually because they can (very few people push back) and/or they are in roles where more time put in equals more work done. For example, as a manager doing 1:1 is still tiring, but if you aren't paying 100% attention, that doesn't cost money unlike bugs in code. Almost nobody can do more than 3 hours of heavy concentration/flow work regularly. Add another two or three hours for meetings, answering emails, triaging bugs, etc. and you get ~30h per week. When I'm in a position to do so, I tell my team that I'd rather have 3 hours of great work than 6 or 8 hours of mediocre work full of mistakes. Still, it's an uphill battle culturally. And sometimes even developers don't like it, since they can't hide a lack of output behind hours in the office. I think this is a positive, because as a team lead you notice issues quicker, e.g. if someone is having a rough week. But it's also a good way to "unmask" people who e.g. embellished their skill level during the hiring process and maybe aren't a great fit for the role. That way, you can get them the training they need, or find them a different role.
- ggurgone 8y ago
  > they are in roles where more time put in equals more work done This is partially true if: 1) you only hire young folks 2) you don't care about long term health of your team Based on this philosophy I could work 90h/week and get even more done i.e. there is always work to be done but IMHO this way of working is unhealthy and not sustainable. Personally for me it takes more time than the average to recharge so having a shorter working week helps with recharging and do well next week and be productive. And by that I mean being equally productive to a "full time". > if you aren't paying 100% attention, that doesn't cost money I'd argue it can cost you money, in different ways.

teekert 8y ago

Wow, you really put in words what I have unconsciously felt for a long time. This is very true in my job as well. Btw, 32 hours is almost the norm in my country but you have the same issues ;)

pasbesoin 8y ago

I've held a number of "exempt" positions (salary, no overtime pay) where the workload is typically high but there are the occasional slow periods or an abnormal personal schedule demand. When they want you to work extra hours, there's no argument. There's the project and the deadline. Come a slow day or two, though, or the need to take an hour or three for a personal task (see the doctor, for example), and there's no automatic, corresponding flexibility from them. Oh, your manager may grant you the time, but it's always at their discretion and a "favor" in return for your "good behavior." Gee, thanks. :-/ By the way, the positions are "exempt", but there's no hour-by-hour management of associates that requires constant attention. The whole definition of "exempt" is skewed to fix labor costs rather than provide (and pay, at a higher fixed level) for real "management of employees". Hell, often I'm not even directly interfacing with anyone who is non-exempt. Butts in seats. In my mind, it goes along with the "open space" paradigm. It's not actually about being "efficient"; it's about appearances, and control. Like the one petty tyrant manager who wouldn't let us upgrade woefully outdated and overly expensive process, because he might lose some headcount. His status and "security" were, in his mind -- and perhaps even correctly -- tied to that headcount. And... I suppose low cube walls helped to "show it off." P.S. I actually got along pretty well, including with my management. Perhaps too easy-going. As I've had time to reflect back upon all this, my resentment has grown and hardened. A LOT of wasted time and energy. If/when you start feeling this way, look around not just at the ostensible work you have to complete, but at the system and environment in which you are expected to complete it. Which are the real problems?

test1235 8y ago

you might want to give the developer hegemony[1] a read - the author mentions this specifically: the output of a developer is hard to quantify, so now instead of being paid to build things (as might a traditional labourer), you're instead paid for your time, during which the company can assign you any work. [1]https://daedtech.com/book/ https://daedtech.com/book/

village-idiot 8y ago

The problem is that the actual limited resource for workers is not time or effort, but attention. If you're available at work, you're spending that resource.

drdeadringer 8y ago

> is about availability That's what I've found especially with my current job. I can sit for a whole long time doing Nothing. I mean literally Nothing. I could tap out to see a 2.5h movie, come back, and nobody would have noticed. But "I'm available". Oh but of course, I'll press this button for you. Let me refer you to the "subject matter expert". And no, there's nothing explicitly for me to actually do. I can't wait for this contract to be over.