3 ms·

>I think when you hear 2hrs/3hrs/etc per day, often it is the fault of the organization for: > - Not having good business cases > - Thinking Engineers don't c

by ksk 6y ago

>I think when you hear 2hrs/3hrs/etc per day, often it is the fault of the organization for: > - Not having good business cases > - Thinking Engineers don't care about reasons for doing things > - Not providing distraction free blocks > - Not sufficiently sharing rewards with the company In your list, it seems its the company's that's often at fault. Can you explain that a bit more? As a manager, I expect my direct reports to do the work I assign them. As a good-faith effort I will do my best to assign work that is relevant/interesting/etc. But I accept that in the real world, there is a lot of work that is often boring, repetitive (some of that is going away thanks to automation). Especially in the scientific domain, performing the same experiment over and over isolating for some factor or the other, and there is sometimes very little intellectual stimulation. I think it would be the same in engineering fields as well.

TuringNYC 6y ago
Thats a good point, which is why I was noting 3/4 criteria were met in places where I witnessed great productivity. If it isnt interesting, people should be rewarded and at least understand why they are doing something. The hedge fund, for example, was not terribly interesting for many years. But I understood the importance of the work, the drivers for it, and I got rewarded and so did everyone else. A company or manager might say -- well continued employment is the reward. Yes or no, depends on the situation. It is common for companies to hire people and then cut benefits (less healthcare benefits, 401k matches cut, etc.) -- well then the rewards are not being shared, especially if the cuts are not universally applied. It is also common for companies to reward unequally. For example, many companies reward salespersons or executives yet continue to tighten rewards for Engineers/Ops/Support. As a result -- quite possibly not intentionally -- you have engineers like the ones on this comment section: noting they are finding 2 or 3hrs productive time. In an ideal world, rewards should be aligned to input and required effort -- and I've seen incredibly productive Engineers at hedge funds when they realize they have massive skin in the game with huge upsides. Finally, with regards to respect and needs. I have never seen Engineers more unproductive than once they realize that all deadlines are false deadlines -- especially when these false deadlines are constant. I think people understand real urgency and real deadlines when they are explained, not "do it because I said so." The problem is -- even if you pay engineers, "do it because I said so" doesnt work since there is such a creative element and so much uncertainty. You end up with 8 "productive hours" full of unnecessary bug fixes and shortsighted design because people are not bought into the vision. The worst situation is when management actually things that is real productivity -- then you know it is over.
- ksk 6y ago
  I think I understand where you're coming from, but your responses are very specific. I don't think this is the common case. I believe, the common case is that most engineering jobs are dull and boring and are not breaking new ground. Tirelessly testing software, or polishing UI or to take my workplace (vaccine r&d) performing the same set of tests/experiments/assays/etc over and over again. I'd go far as to say that you have to be self-motivated to be successful in most jobs. There is a limit to which management can coddle you.

by ksk 6y ago

TuringNYC 6y ago

Thats a good point, which is why I was noting 3/4 criteria were met in places where I witnessed great productivity. If it isnt interesting, people should be rewarded and at least understand why they are doing something. The hedge fund, for example, was not terribly interesting for many years. But I understood the importance of the work, the drivers for it, and I got rewarded and so did everyone else. A company or manager might say -- well continued employment is the reward. Yes or no, depends on the situation. It is common for companies to hire people and then cut benefits (less healthcare benefits, 401k matches cut, etc.) -- well then the rewards are not being shared, especially if the cuts are not universally applied. It is also common for companies to reward unequally. For example, many companies reward salespersons or executives yet continue to tighten rewards for Engineers/Ops/Support. As a result -- quite possibly not intentionally -- you have engineers like the ones on this comment section: noting they are finding 2 or 3hrs productive time. In an ideal world, rewards should be aligned to input and required effort -- and I've seen incredibly productive Engineers at hedge funds when they realize they have massive skin in the game with huge upsides. Finally, with regards to respect and needs. I have never seen Engineers more unproductive than once they realize that all deadlines are false deadlines -- especially when these false deadlines are constant. I think people understand real urgency and real deadlines when they are explained, not "do it because I said so." The problem is -- even if you pay engineers, "do it because I said so" doesnt work since there is such a creative element and so much uncertainty. You end up with 8 "productive hours" full of unnecessary bug fixes and shortsighted design because people are not bought into the vision. The worst situation is when management actually things that is real productivity -- then you know it is over.

ksk 6y ago
I think I understand where you're coming from, but your responses are very specific. I don't think this is the common case. I believe, the common case is that most engineering jobs are dull and boring and are not breaking new ground. Tirelessly testing software, or polishing UI or to take my workplace (vaccine r&d) performing the same set of tests/experiments/assays/etc over and over again. I'd go far as to say that you have to be self-motivated to be successful in most jobs. There is a limit to which management can coddle you.