6 ms·

Yes, but as I said, that's a slippery slope to walk on - you're not there to make friends or have fun - you're there to do work. The whole point of that arrange

by sbacic 5y ago

Yes, but as I said, that's a slippery slope to walk on - you're not there to make friends or have fun - you're there to do work. The whole point of that arrangement is that you do something that something else values enough to pay money for, perhaps something that you don't particularly want to do or something that bores you. If you start adjusting the workplace to fit the needs of the employee (gosh, how wrong that sentence sounds!) you end up in situations where it's suddenly justifiable to let developers use technologies unsuited for the situation because they're "fun" and "interesting" to use and keeping them happy means they're more "productive". Or letting middle management play politics because it keeps them happy and more productive. Or forcing people into open offices because some boss likes the feeling of lording over his subordinates and that makes him happy and productive. I guess what I'm trying to say is - some basic levels of courtesy and human empathy are needed for any group endeavor to work but beyond that, decisions should be made in the interest of the business rather than what makes individuals happy.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
“Should”. But how do you actually move towards doing that? I’ve never worked anywhere that was the case. It might be that there is no way to make that happen if it goes against human nature.
- sbacic 5y ago
  If I could answer that question, I'd be doing management consulting, not software development. But I think a good first step is to just be aware of it. Many people don't even notice these subtle biases. Once you're aware of them, it's a matter of training yourself to ask the question: is this good for me, or good for the business? Am I doing this because it's good for me, or good for the business?
dvdkon 5y ago
Do you really think workplace norms should never adjust for their employees? I think a balance between doing the bare minimum to avoid bankruptcy and squeezing employees for every last drop of productivity is needed and I don't see how listening to employee demands is somehow wrong in that context.
- sbacic 5y ago
  Oh, I think they should definitely adjust. But it should not be adjusted by employees or between employees but rather by the business, to serve its goals (retention, productivity, etc...). I think in these situations, the employee should ask himself: "what is good for the business?" rather than "what do I want to do?".
  - collaborative 5y ago
    The answer often is "what is good for employees is good for the business". This is a known recipee for success that rarely gets implemented because of greed and shortsightedness It's also true that "what is good for the business is good for employees". So it's a two-way street that needs to be walked by honest employees and empoyers. Not possible in toxic cultures. So it's important to keep the toxic employees and managers (even shareholders!) out. This is what hiring should mostly focus on (not sure on how to keep toxic shareholders out, and businesses often rot from their heads down because of this)
  - dvdkon 5y ago
    You can usually weasel your way to describing a personal benefit as useful to the business, e.g. "I want a new chair" -> "I need a new chair to be more productive by being more comfortable", so I'm not sure this distinction is useful. In the end, you're still weighing upsides and downsides, just a bit more directly.
alboy 5y ago
>you end up in situations where it's suddenly justifiable to let developers use technologies unsuited for the situation because they're "fun" and "interesting" to use and keeping them happy means they're more "productive" Well, companies already do that and justify the practice as something that selects for more passionate developers and makes job postings seem more attractive. Exhibit A: YC's very own Paul Graham wrote "The Python Paradox" [1] back in 2004. [1] http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html
lovich 5y ago
Not all of my compensation is in cash. Giving me time to experiment, learn, or god forbid enjoy myself is part of the cost for employers of software developers. You obviously can not want that as an employer but you’re either gonna have empty roles for a long time or pay out the ass for the lack of fringe benefits
coldtea 5y ago
>Yes, but as I said, that's a slippery slope to walk on - you're not there to make friends or have fun - you're there to do work. Both are important. Without friends and fun, in a heavily intellectual cooperative field like CS, you'll do subpar work.

by sbacic 5y ago

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

“Should”. But how do you actually move towards doing that? I’ve never worked anywhere that was the case. It might be that there is no way to make that happen if it goes against human nature.

sbacic 5y ago
If I could answer that question, I'd be doing management consulting, not software development. But I think a good first step is to just be aware of it. Many people don't even notice these subtle biases. Once you're aware of them, it's a matter of training yourself to ask the question: is this good for me, or good for the business? Am I doing this because it's good for me, or good for the business?

dvdkon 5y ago

Do you really think workplace norms should never adjust for their employees? I think a balance between doing the bare minimum to avoid bankruptcy and squeezing employees for every last drop of productivity is needed and I don't see how listening to employee demands is somehow wrong in that context.

sbacic 5y ago
Oh, I think they should definitely adjust. But it should not be adjusted by employees or between employees but rather by the business, to serve its goals (retention, productivity, etc...). I think in these situations, the employee should ask himself: "what is good for the business?" rather than "what do I want to do?".
- collaborative 5y ago
  The answer often is "what is good for employees is good for the business". This is a known recipee for success that rarely gets implemented because of greed and shortsightedness It's also true that "what is good for the business is good for employees". So it's a two-way street that needs to be walked by honest employees and empoyers. Not possible in toxic cultures. So it's important to keep the toxic employees and managers (even shareholders!) out. This is what hiring should mostly focus on (not sure on how to keep toxic shareholders out, and businesses often rot from their heads down because of this)
- dvdkon 5y ago
  You can usually weasel your way to describing a personal benefit as useful to the business, e.g. "I want a new chair" -> "I need a new chair to be more productive by being more comfortable", so I'm not sure this distinction is useful. In the end, you're still weighing upsides and downsides, just a bit more directly.

alboy 5y ago

>you end up in situations where it's suddenly justifiable to let developers use technologies unsuited for the situation because they're "fun" and "interesting" to use and keeping them happy means they're more "productive" Well, companies already do that and justify the practice as something that selects for more passionate developers and makes job postings seem more attractive. Exhibit A: YC's very own Paul Graham wrote "The Python Paradox" [1] back in 2004. [1] http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html

lovich 5y ago

Not all of my compensation is in cash. Giving me time to experiment, learn, or god forbid enjoy myself is part of the cost for employers of software developers. You obviously can not want that as an employer but you’re either gonna have empty roles for a long time or pay out the ass for the lack of fringe benefits

coldtea 5y ago

>Yes, but as I said, that's a slippery slope to walk on - you're not there to make friends or have fun - you're there to do work. Both are important. Without friends and fun, in a heavily intellectual cooperative field like CS, you'll do subpar work.