6 ms·

Wondering if there is any stories backed by metrics on successful businesses that switch from a 5 days work week to 4 days

crispyambulance 7y ago
S.M.A.R.T. goals, phony deliverables/deadlines, accountability w/o agency, bullshit KPI's and metrics... Those are the things that really grind enthusiastic people doing hard, creative work to dust. Proving to the pointy-haired that going to a 4-day week won't hurt "because metrics" only puts a band-aid on the real problem which stems from the fact that many enterprises view people as "components"-- as means a to a corporate-defined end. For many people a 4-day work week only prolongs the path to burnout, IMHO.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  And managing the JIRA queue!
  - SamuelAdams 7y ago
    Hey project managers need to justify their 6 figure salary somehow.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      After those nice coloured boxes in excel don't fill them selves in :-)
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  The solution is to form cooperatively owned, democratically operated, companies.
  - tomp 7y ago
    How would that solve the freeloader problem?
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      Vote the freeloader off the island. A cooperative is not a charity, though it does have the freedom to be more charitable if that is what the employee/owners decided to do. And obviously, it operates in an external market place which places some pressure on it to operate efficiently. The primary difference of interest here is the way an employee owned cooperative is directed by people the employees (who know what is really going on in the company) and for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of disinterested shareholders.
      - vincent-toups 7y ago
        Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round. We should be extorting people with capital through the nose for them and making sure that we are taken care of instead of treated like disposable cogs.
        noobiemcfoob 7y ago
        I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place. Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.
        vincent-toups 7y ago
        A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things. I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Fundamentally that's the nature of employment, the employee is a means to an end? Even in non-capitalist systems you're primarily there to serve a goal. When it gets bad is where you're only there to serve a goal and your contribution and participation aren't valued. As you say, bad metrics are a problem. But some form of loop-closing is essential.
- tomp 7y ago
  I'm actually really interested in this topic. Not just as far as remote working is concerned, but running better companies as well. I'd say it's fairly clear that knowledge workers don't all fit in the 9-5 schedule, people have different sleep/productivity rythms, there's other beneficial activities that help foster creativity and focus (meditation, exercise, stretching, post-meal nap, ...) that one would ideally enable and even encourage employees to engage in... But all of that brings a huge problem, that in some way we also need to measure productivity - both to prevent (fire/reeducate) people from abusing the system (freeloaders), and to fairly reward people (avoid negative selection). An additional complication is that productivity is even ill-defined - is banging out tons of code day after day more or less valuable than brainstorming for a few months and coming up with a revolutionary new product? What about basic research, which takes years and has an uncertain outcome? Probably computing is one of the best test cases for better systems, as programmers have almost complete freedom to work when-/where-/however, it's not a heavily regulated industry, most code is not critical (so it's easy to iterate quickly, as well as experiment with different objectives - slow&correct vs move-fast-and-break-things), and also programmers are productive enough that a few bad apples is unlikely to break the company... I'm really interested in this general topic, I'd welcome any ideas/discussion/experience!
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    There was an interesting article about a closely related subject, but I can't find it anymore. Basically, there's a dichotomy between 2 different kinds of work: Convergent vs Emergent. In "Convergent" work you are delivering what a market has asked for. You are measured on meeting these requirements with accuracy, speed, cost. Predictability of outcomes is paramount, schedules are everything, people expect to be able to control all variables. By contrast, in "Emergent" work, you are effectively creating a market. You introduce something that hasn't existed before and which isn't merely a tweak in an existing product. The outcome of Emergent work is new ways of doing things, new products, and new resources. This introduces a lot of "grey area" and lack of focus. The most successful enterprises find the right balance between Convergent and Emergent work. In manufacturing (my domain), most initiatives are Convergent and expectations focus on meeting some deadline or numeric goal, literally everything else is subordinate to that. Start-ups, of course, have the opposite inclination. In those, a "runway of money" is burnt to introduce some potentially new product with only vague expectations of profit at some time in the future (despite whatever they tell VC's). You sort of need both in an organization and staff (as a whole) need to assimilate both types of work to really succeed.
- organsnyder 7y ago
  I had a recruiter send me LinkedIn spam that started with "Seeking a senior resource...". Even if the rest of the listing weren't garbage (it was a low effort copy-paste from the job description), that language immediately turned me off. My last job was for a large enterprise that viewed employees as drop-in components. Not only was it dehumanizing, but it was a terrible way to get any work done.
  - youknowme 7y ago
    Sounds like a horrible place

crispyambulance 7y ago

S.M.A.R.T. goals, phony deliverables/deadlines, accountability w/o agency, bullshit KPI's and metrics... Those are the things that really grind enthusiastic people doing hard, creative work to dust. Proving to the pointy-haired that going to a 4-day week won't hurt "because metrics" only puts a band-aid on the real problem which stems from the fact that many enterprises view people as "components"-- as means a to a corporate-defined end. For many people a 4-day work week only prolongs the path to burnout, IMHO.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
And managing the JIRA queue!
- SamuelAdams 7y ago
  Hey project managers need to justify their 6 figure salary somehow.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    After those nice coloured boxes in excel don't fill them selves in :-)
vincent-toups 7y ago
The solution is to form cooperatively owned, democratically operated, companies.
- tomp 7y ago
  How would that solve the freeloader problem?
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    Vote the freeloader off the island. A cooperative is not a charity, though it does have the freedom to be more charitable if that is what the employee/owners decided to do. And obviously, it operates in an external market place which places some pressure on it to operate efficiently. The primary difference of interest here is the way an employee owned cooperative is directed by people the employees (who know what is really going on in the company) and for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of disinterested shareholders.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round. We should be extorting people with capital through the nose for them and making sure that we are taken care of instead of treated like disposable cogs.
      - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
        I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place. Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.
        vincent-toups 7y ago
        A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things. I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.
pjc50 7y ago
Fundamentally that's the nature of employment, the employee is a means to an end? Even in non-capitalist systems you're primarily there to serve a goal. When it gets bad is where you're only there to serve a goal and your contribution and participation aren't valued. As you say, bad metrics are a problem. But some form of loop-closing is essential.
tomp 7y ago
I'm actually really interested in this topic. Not just as far as remote working is concerned, but running better companies as well. I'd say it's fairly clear that knowledge workers don't all fit in the 9-5 schedule, people have different sleep/productivity rythms, there's other beneficial activities that help foster creativity and focus (meditation, exercise, stretching, post-meal nap, ...) that one would ideally enable and even encourage employees to engage in... But all of that brings a huge problem, that in some way we also need to measure productivity - both to prevent (fire/reeducate) people from abusing the system (freeloaders), and to fairly reward people (avoid negative selection). An additional complication is that productivity is even ill-defined - is banging out tons of code day after day more or less valuable than brainstorming for a few months and coming up with a revolutionary new product? What about basic research, which takes years and has an uncertain outcome? Probably computing is one of the best test cases for better systems, as programmers have almost complete freedom to work when-/where-/however, it's not a heavily regulated industry, most code is not critical (so it's easy to iterate quickly, as well as experiment with different objectives - slow&correct vs move-fast-and-break-things), and also programmers are productive enough that a few bad apples is unlikely to break the company... I'm really interested in this general topic, I'd welcome any ideas/discussion/experience!
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  There was an interesting article about a closely related subject, but I can't find it anymore. Basically, there's a dichotomy between 2 different kinds of work: Convergent vs Emergent. In "Convergent" work you are delivering what a market has asked for. You are measured on meeting these requirements with accuracy, speed, cost. Predictability of outcomes is paramount, schedules are everything, people expect to be able to control all variables. By contrast, in "Emergent" work, you are effectively creating a market. You introduce something that hasn't existed before and which isn't merely a tweak in an existing product. The outcome of Emergent work is new ways of doing things, new products, and new resources. This introduces a lot of "grey area" and lack of focus. The most successful enterprises find the right balance between Convergent and Emergent work. In manufacturing (my domain), most initiatives are Convergent and expectations focus on meeting some deadline or numeric goal, literally everything else is subordinate to that. Start-ups, of course, have the opposite inclination. In those, a "runway of money" is burnt to introduce some potentially new product with only vague expectations of profit at some time in the future (despite whatever they tell VC's). You sort of need both in an organization and staff (as a whole) need to assimilate both types of work to really succeed.
organsnyder 7y ago
I had a recruiter send me LinkedIn spam that started with "Seeking a senior resource...". Even if the rest of the listing weren't garbage (it was a low effort copy-paste from the job description), that language immediately turned me off. My last job was for a large enterprise that viewed employees as drop-in components. Not only was it dehumanizing, but it was a terrible way to get any work done.
- youknowme 7y ago
  Sounds like a horrible place