3 ms·

Now do that for a month. Or even a week. You may be more productive bc you don't want to be seen as slacking off with someone watching, but maintaining that kin

Now do that for a month. Or even a week. You may be more productive bc you don't want to be seen as slacking off with someone watching, but maintaining that kind of pace is untenable. Did you ever get stuck and check your email or Facebook just to give your brain a little break? Did you ever sit, unsure of your next move? Or did you do the first thing you thought of, even if it was wrong, so you didn't look like you were wasting time? Intense productivity with someone looking over your shoulder is great for a day. After a week you'll want to quit. After a month you'll want to kill yourself.

travisjungroth 8y ago
That’s fine. Having a tool I can use a few hours a few week to get me through things that are the highest product of important and annoying is super valuable. Doesn’t have to be a lifestyle.
- coldtea 8y ago
  You won't be the one choosing when and for how long to use the tool...
  - alangpierce 8y ago
    Normal office environments already have managers that are plenty capable of watching and critiquing everything you do all the time, but at least in my experience, that's almost never how it goes. Good managers know that freedom and autonomy are empowering. I'm sure others have had much worse experiences, but I think it's mostly well-established that micromanagement is a bad thing. Whether it's in-person or with a tool like this, if your employer is creating an unreasonable amount of pressure/stress, then that puts them in a weaker position in the job market than companies that treat their employees well. Give them feedback, and if they're not receptive to feedback, see if you can ask for a raise or find another job.
    - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
      > Good managers know that freedom and autonomy are empowering. I'm sure others have had much worse experiences, but I think it's mostly well-established that micromanagement is a bad thing. This is really important. If your manager or PM is constantly bothering you, you won’t be able to get into your flow state, which is important in software engineering.
    - em-bee 8y ago
      that's what we use daily standups for. i announce my plan for the day, and the next day i report on how well it went. if i procrastinate to much i have nothing to report. it doesn't impact my freedom and autonomy because i decide what to do every day, so i set my own goals and only report on how well i achieved them or explain why i didn't (run into a bug etc)
- k__ 8y ago
  True and depending on how much your performance improves it may be freeing time for other stuff. If you get ten times more stuff done than usual, it would be enough to do this one or two times a week.
williamdclt 8y ago
That's one way to see it. Another way is "I've shown that I got some unleashed productivity potential. How can I make it sustainable rather than an exhausting sprint?". In other words "how to make it a habit", habits are easy to sustain I'm not arguing for having a stranger watching you all the times or that you should only think about productivity, just that it shows that there's a margin for improvement that can't be dismissed
- mratzloff 8y ago
  It's not sustainable. Your brain needs downtime, just like you can't run everywhere you go.
  - glennpratt 8y ago
    This is not black and white, many of us procrastinate in ways that are not always a healthy break and finding ways to curb some of that is not bad.
    - adjkant 8y ago
      I don't think this approach necessarily helps with that distinction of good breaks and bad procrastination. I think it would be interesting to distinguish those, but I would look for another method if that were my goal. That also isn't to disregard the interest of the experiment above, just to say it doesn't help here.
  - trickstra 8y ago
    but can't we just allocate those downtimes to the time when we are not on the clock?
jonahx 8y ago
I'm not so sure this is true. Yes, being "on" takes energy, but it's counterbalanced by the buzz of productivity and working at your peak. I'd expect to be more tired at the end of day, but also to feel more accomplished.
wisty 8y ago
I'd imagine that after a week you'll start checking email (because that's still work, right?) and after a month you'll be on Facebook because really, who cares about some stranger knowing you're procrastinating?
mordymoop 8y ago
Maybe. On the other hand, the human animal has a powerful capacity to decide that whatever it’s doing is the good and right and normal thing to be doing. After a month you’re just as likely to be completely acclimated as you are to be suicidal. There’s also the element that when a stranger (or a subordinate) is watching you don’t just act busy — you act like you enjoy your job, you show off a bit. This is the kind of performance that soaks into the skin and becomes real.
- deepGem 8y ago
  I find that pair programming has the best of these benefits at the same time reducing the probability of feeling suicidal etc. Personal experential bias of course.
hliyan 8y ago
I don't believe this is the case at all. When I was in university, everyone I know (including myself) organized into study groups precisely to combat procrastination, and not for any intellectual benefits. It worked. At the end of a day of solo studying, you would feel horrible and ashamed because you got so little done. But at the end of a group study session, you actually feel fulfilled.
- uvu 8y ago
  I don't believe studying with a group of people and letting stranger watch you what you are working. Also, did your study group have stranger or at least you kind of a bit familiar with them?
  - hliyan 8y ago
    Some were friends, but there were members I only knew by sight. Of course, by the time of the tests, they were friends.
em-bee 8y ago
this is not much different from pair programming. even pairing with a junior developer where i do most of the work myself makes me more productive. pair-programming is also exhausting. after an 8-hour work day i am beat. however i can't think of any better way to work, and it it is practiced in several companies successfully. if people would want to quit after a week or kill themselves after a month of pair programming we would see a lot of backslash against it.
- ui-explorer12 8y ago
  >> if people would want to quit after a week or kill themselves after a month of pair programming we would see a lot of backslash against it. That's been my experience. Even at the few places I've been were some do pair programming it's a very rare occurrence. Occasionally upper management will stump for it, likely because they (a) don't actually program all day and (b) see it as some sort of kale-like super habit. None of my IC have ever pushed hard for regular sessions.
- l0b0 8y ago
  We pair programmed more than 90% at my last job, and it was great. Together we would typically come up with architecture, design, tests and names which were better than either of us would have done on our own. It is hard work, but very rewarding, and it has many pitfalls and nuances which we tried to work out at our ~fortnightly review sessions. More important than pair programming itself is the willingness to look at what works for the team and how you can improve the experience and productivity together. Most of the time we did traditional pairing, with two keyboards and mice on a dual-monitor PC, and simply signalled each other when we wanted to take over or cede control. Towards the end of the four years there we very successfully "mobbed" on some complex problems, and split up when we had worked out what to do next. We would typically work in different pairs every day, which resulted in everybody knowing the entire system to a similar degree — we didn't even need a handover when someone left, and onboarding basically meant that the more senior employee had to explain a bit more of the context while pairing with the new hire. I found it did wonders to my understanding of how other developers think and especially how to explain my thinking to someone else. But YMMV, and good luck!

travisjungroth 8y ago

That’s fine. Having a tool I can use a few hours a few week to get me through things that are the highest product of important and annoying is super valuable. Doesn’t have to be a lifestyle.

coldtea 8y ago
You won't be the one choosing when and for how long to use the tool...
- alangpierce 8y ago
  Normal office environments already have managers that are plenty capable of watching and critiquing everything you do all the time, but at least in my experience, that's almost never how it goes. Good managers know that freedom and autonomy are empowering. I'm sure others have had much worse experiences, but I think it's mostly well-established that micromanagement is a bad thing. Whether it's in-person or with a tool like this, if your employer is creating an unreasonable amount of pressure/stress, then that puts them in a weaker position in the job market than companies that treat their employees well. Give them feedback, and if they're not receptive to feedback, see if you can ask for a raise or find another job.
  - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
    > Good managers know that freedom and autonomy are empowering. I'm sure others have had much worse experiences, but I think it's mostly well-established that micromanagement is a bad thing. This is really important. If your manager or PM is constantly bothering you, you won’t be able to get into your flow state, which is important in software engineering.
  - em-bee 8y ago
    that's what we use daily standups for. i announce my plan for the day, and the next day i report on how well it went. if i procrastinate to much i have nothing to report. it doesn't impact my freedom and autonomy because i decide what to do every day, so i set my own goals and only report on how well i achieved them or explain why i didn't (run into a bug etc)
k__ 8y ago
True and depending on how much your performance improves it may be freeing time for other stuff. If you get ten times more stuff done than usual, it would be enough to do this one or two times a week.

williamdclt 8y ago

That's one way to see it. Another way is "I've shown that I got some unleashed productivity potential. How can I make it sustainable rather than an exhausting sprint?". In other words "how to make it a habit", habits are easy to sustain I'm not arguing for having a stranger watching you all the times or that you should only think about productivity, just that it shows that there's a margin for improvement that can't be dismissed

mratzloff 8y ago
It's not sustainable. Your brain needs downtime, just like you can't run everywhere you go.
- glennpratt 8y ago
  This is not black and white, many of us procrastinate in ways that are not always a healthy break and finding ways to curb some of that is not bad.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    I don't think this approach necessarily helps with that distinction of good breaks and bad procrastination. I think it would be interesting to distinguish those, but I would look for another method if that were my goal. That also isn't to disregard the interest of the experiment above, just to say it doesn't help here.
- trickstra 8y ago
  but can't we just allocate those downtimes to the time when we are not on the clock?

jonahx 8y ago

I'm not so sure this is true. Yes, being "on" takes energy, but it's counterbalanced by the buzz of productivity and working at your peak. I'd expect to be more tired at the end of day, but also to feel more accomplished.

wisty 8y ago

I'd imagine that after a week you'll start checking email (because that's still work, right?) and after a month you'll be on Facebook because really, who cares about some stranger knowing you're procrastinating?

mordymoop 8y ago

Maybe. On the other hand, the human animal has a powerful capacity to decide that whatever it’s doing is the good and right and normal thing to be doing. After a month you’re just as likely to be completely acclimated as you are to be suicidal. There’s also the element that when a stranger (or a subordinate) is watching you don’t just act busy — you act like you enjoy your job, you show off a bit. This is the kind of performance that soaks into the skin and becomes real.

deepGem 8y ago
I find that pair programming has the best of these benefits at the same time reducing the probability of feeling suicidal etc. Personal experential bias of course.

hliyan 8y ago

I don't believe this is the case at all. When I was in university, everyone I know (including myself) organized into study groups precisely to combat procrastination, and not for any intellectual benefits. It worked. At the end of a day of solo studying, you would feel horrible and ashamed because you got so little done. But at the end of a group study session, you actually feel fulfilled.

uvu 8y ago
I don't believe studying with a group of people and letting stranger watch you what you are working. Also, did your study group have stranger or at least you kind of a bit familiar with them?
- hliyan 8y ago
  Some were friends, but there were members I only knew by sight. Of course, by the time of the tests, they were friends.

em-bee 8y ago

this is not much different from pair programming. even pairing with a junior developer where i do most of the work myself makes me more productive. pair-programming is also exhausting. after an 8-hour work day i am beat. however i can't think of any better way to work, and it it is practiced in several companies successfully. if people would want to quit after a week or kill themselves after a month of pair programming we would see a lot of backslash against it.

ui-explorer12 8y ago
>> if people would want to quit after a week or kill themselves after a month of pair programming we would see a lot of backslash against it. That's been my experience. Even at the few places I've been were some do pair programming it's a very rare occurrence. Occasionally upper management will stump for it, likely because they (a) don't actually program all day and (b) see it as some sort of kale-like super habit. None of my IC have ever pushed hard for regular sessions.
l0b0 8y ago
We pair programmed more than 90% at my last job, and it was great. Together we would typically come up with architecture, design, tests and names which were better than either of us would have done on our own. It is hard work, but very rewarding, and it has many pitfalls and nuances which we tried to work out at our ~fortnightly review sessions. More important than pair programming itself is the willingness to look at what works for the team and how you can improve the experience and productivity together. Most of the time we did traditional pairing, with two keyboards and mice on a dual-monitor PC, and simply signalled each other when we wanted to take over or cede control. Towards the end of the four years there we very successfully "mobbed" on some complex problems, and split up when we had worked out what to do next. We would typically work in different pairs every day, which resulted in everybody knowing the entire system to a similar degree — we didn't even need a handover when someone left, and onboarding basically meant that the more senior employee had to explain a bit more of the context while pairing with the new hire. I found it did wonders to my understanding of how other developers think and especially how to explain my thinking to someone else. But YMMV, and good luck!