4 ms·

What you describe is different that the topic that came up on HN recently. In that case the author decided that he wants to have someone monitor him. That’s com

• ravenstine 8y ago
  The intended outcome, whether it be that of the watcher or the watchee, is fundamentally the same. What I'm commenting on is, whether one willingly consents to constant monitoring or not, it's counterproductive and unhealthy in the long-term. At the time I worked for that company I described earlier, it wasn't as if I didn't go along with the micromanaging for a significant period of time under the assumption that it was both normal and necessary. Like I suggested, my ego fed off the basis that I was working hard and contributing something, so having my productivity closely watched played into that. Over the course of a year, I realized what a sham it all was. Let's say it had been entirely my will, and that I hired someone to watch me work remotely, like that other article that came up on HN; I still maintain that it's not only going to lead to burnout and disappointment in the long-term, but normalizing these sorts of productivity-hacks can lead to expectations that I don't think everybody should be subjected to. Both these articles are about two sides of the same coin; the idea of using close monitoring to maximize performance is supposedly being repopularized. I don't support it no matter who is making the choice. Forgive me if I'm conflating ideas, but I don't see it that way.