3 ms·

Being swamped always made me feel like I should take longer to complete tasks, to protect myself from the stress of working too hard for too long. Then I realiz

by daenz 4y ago

Being swamped always made me feel like I should take longer to complete tasks, to protect myself from the stress of working too hard for too long. Then I realized how insane that is...why should I artificially make myself a less productive person? It's like picking up a bad habit, like smoking. Imo the real issue is that management needs to learn how to identify people who actively seek out work as their default state, and not heap work onto them. These people naturally try to work close to their limit, so adding more work does not make them more productive.

baq 4y ago
in queueing, this is called backpressure and amazingly it works! so while it may not be logical from efficiency perspective, it might be from the process POV...
GreenWatermelon 4y ago
I would say rather than artificially make yourself less productive, you (talking about anyone, including me) should understand your limits, then keep a healthy margin of slack between your average daily effort (ADE) and those limits. This ADE (i.e. after cutting some slack) is what I would call your real productivity, since it's sustainable. IMO, always working close to your limit will surely lead to burnout. Not sustainable, and means you'll be less productive on the long run, thua it's not real productivity. This "extra effort reservoir" should only be tapped into when absolutely necessary (say, Critical issue with production) That said, if your limits are already very high, it means your productivity and output on 80% efficiency is already high, and I see no reason to artificially reduce your output any further. I read an article long ago about the importance of slack for any workers, I think it's this one [1] though I'm not sure. [1] http://www.everydaykanban.com/2012/07/27/slack-is-not-a-dirty-word-how-slack-can-improve-your-products/ http://www.everydaykanban.com/2012/07/27/slack-is-not-a-dirt...
- tetha 4y ago
  Very much this. Like, I know I can juggle 4-6 different system problems at once, context switching every couple of minutes between them. And during more massive outages, this is necessary to get things under control faster, sure. But it's also extremely mentally exhausting. And when I realized that, I stopped it and limited myself to 2 tasks at once outside of emergencies. Usually a slower-paced task where you fire off something and it does stuff for half an hour, and some smaller chore to do while waiting, or planning for a more involved thing, or reviewing and editing documentation. And if there is nothing to do with both tasks doing stuff... that's fine. Let's go and make some coffee or outside for a minute. Or it's just one thing if it's complex and critical and then I shutdown most communication too. It's noticeably slower, naturally. However, this slower pace is very good for my mental health and it's beneficial for the team, because it allows other people to get involved with the pieces and systems I usually maintain. A coworker is currently wading through some of the marshlands of infrastructure only I tend to go through and constantly pokes me to document another weird nook or cranny. That's good.

by daenz 4y ago

baq 4y ago

in queueing, this is called backpressure and amazingly it works! so while it may not be logical from efficiency perspective, it might be from the process POV...

GreenWatermelon 4y ago

I would say rather than artificially make yourself less productive, you (talking about anyone, including me) should understand your limits, then keep a healthy margin of slack between your average daily effort (ADE) and those limits. This ADE (i.e. after cutting some slack) is what I would call your real productivity, since it's sustainable. IMO, always working close to your limit will surely lead to burnout. Not sustainable, and means you'll be less productive on the long run, thua it's not real productivity. This "extra effort reservoir" should only be tapped into when absolutely necessary (say, Critical issue with production) That said, if your limits are already very high, it means your productivity and output on 80% efficiency is already high, and I see no reason to artificially reduce your output any further. I read an article long ago about the importance of slack for any workers, I think it's this one [1] though I'm not sure. [1] http://www.everydaykanban.com/2012/07/27/slack-is-not-a-dirty-word-how-slack-can-improve-your-products/ http://www.everydaykanban.com/2012/07/27/slack-is-not-a-dirt...

tetha 4y ago
Very much this. Like, I know I can juggle 4-6 different system problems at once, context switching every couple of minutes between them. And during more massive outages, this is necessary to get things under control faster, sure. But it's also extremely mentally exhausting. And when I realized that, I stopped it and limited myself to 2 tasks at once outside of emergencies. Usually a slower-paced task where you fire off something and it does stuff for half an hour, and some smaller chore to do while waiting, or planning for a more involved thing, or reviewing and editing documentation. And if there is nothing to do with both tasks doing stuff... that's fine. Let's go and make some coffee or outside for a minute. Or it's just one thing if it's complex and critical and then I shutdown most communication too. It's noticeably slower, naturally. However, this slower pace is very good for my mental health and it's beneficial for the team, because it allows other people to get involved with the pieces and systems I usually maintain. A coworker is currently wading through some of the marshlands of infrastructure only I tend to go through and constantly pokes me to document another weird nook or cranny. That's good.