4 ms·

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

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.
  - guitarbill 8y ago
    I'm saying managers or clients aren't always technical, and for some of these non-technical roles, time is correlated to amount of work done, so they assume technical work is also like that.
nraynaud 8y ago
that's an interesting twist of thing. What about making it explicit, like: "I can answer the company chat quickly, but I'm painting a mountain with my friend Bob right now". I guess it can only go so far because some social time with family and friends have to be focused.

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.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  I'm saying managers or clients aren't always technical, and for some of these non-technical roles, time is correlated to amount of work done, so they assume technical work is also like that.

nraynaud 8y ago

that's an interesting twist of thing. What about making it explicit, like: "I can answer the company chat quickly, but I'm painting a mountain with my friend Bob right now". I guess it can only go so far because some social time with family and friends have to be focused.