12 ms·

I just talked about this with my wife just yesterday about her peer. If you're always the hero to take on too much work and you never keep up, you invite variou

by adra 4y ago

I just talked about this with my wife just yesterday about her peer. If you're always the hero to take on too much work and you never keep up, you invite various significant structural problems. You're too useful to remove, you may not get attention for corrective measures because of fear of the person leaving. You are often too swamped to effectively get work done smoothly and in an expedient manner. You become a single point of failure (bus factor 1) so that when you take a vacation / hit by a bus, the company suffers significantly. A common personality trait of these types of people seem to be self reliance / control seekers. When they own that authority of work, they are less likely to accept delegation to get them out of their woes. In general, these types of employees may end up being labeled super stars, but they're also potential albatrosses that could significantly wound a company if not properly managed.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
You're also making yourself too vital to whatever you're doing now - if the conceit is that the team/division/practice/company can't function without you doing your job you'll never be able to be promoted out of it.
- pydry 4y ago
  I've noticed only a few people do this but the ones that did did it out of either ego or anxiety (sometimes a mix). They werent usually angling for a promotion. The anxiety wasnt always unwarranted either. If you're in tons of debt, hate interviewing and work for an organization that doesnt care for people this isnt a wholly irrational strategy.
- luckylion 4y ago
  That has a pretty simple and effective solution though: just mention that you want to leave. I've just been through getting a healthy amount of equity (as a freelancer no less) because someone else announced they were leaving. If your job is _that_ important, you might not get promoted away, but you'll get the salary as if you were and then some.
  - paxprose 4y ago
    Under my own personal belief system, I don't agree with this sentiment. Sure, you might obtain the immediate but you're kind of poisoning the well with an announcement of expected departure. I take it as a rule to not ever mention that you're leaving somewhere until you're leaving and then follow through.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I don't know. If your role is that important, they'll make you an offer to make you stay, which, unless you really, really, really want to leave, you'll take, because it'll be very good. Then they either work on making you not the single point of failure, or they'll accept you being that important and just go on paying you appropriately for it. I see "wanting to leave" as either absolute ("I hate this company, no amount of money can make me stay") or relative ("I could make more money / have less work / do more interesting stuff elsewhere"). The latter can totally be shifted by adding significantly more money, at least for most people.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
I wonder if at-will employment in the US influences this. If I'm bus factor 1, they're less likely to fire me. I have anxiety around losing my job, which makes me more likely to say yes to piling on tasks. It doesn't seem so crazy when you consider my healthcare is directly attached to my employment.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  Dang, you can easily draw a connection between unstable work environments and unstable technical products. It's directly in the workers benefit to keep a product reliant on them or else they could just die. That's crazy.
  - Test0129 4y ago
    When you're reliant on healthcare and live in America that is first concern before anything else. Not to turn a post political, but the employer-tied healthcare situation in America is borderline a form of slavery. In tech it is simply well-paid slavery. I rarely if ever take vacations, and due to healthcare requirements cannot explore starting my own company or being without an employer to take an extended sabbatical from work. I am well compensated for my role and generally do well but if I lose my health insurance my life can be measured in months. It's a stressor that is hard to describe.
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      Yeah, and it ultimately harms everything. It's so interesting that ultimately this system would produce lower quality products and suppress innovation. I wonder if countries with more flexibility in health-care will have more start-ups?
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Almost all other developed countries have more flexibility with healthcare! Certainly it's never been part of any of my career decisions (in Australia). I don't believe it has much bearing on the number of start-ups, even successful ones - the US has too many other factors that overwhelmingly give it the advantage there - but I'm pretty sure it has been shown to affect upward mobility in general (America rates quite low on that compared to other countries with better safety nets and public/single payer healthcare systems, though other factors like cost of education almost certainly come into play).
pphysch 4y ago
If the maverick in question is an IC, then this responsibility is solely on their manager. Enthusiastic contributors are rare and good. Lazy managers who hope reports will self-manage are not.
- dnissley 4y ago
  It's not solely on the manager if the manager doesn't know because the employee in question is not giving feedback about their workload. Which isn't to say that the manager isn't to blame at all -- there are many things a manager can and should do to proactively suss out such issues.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    If you can't tell whether a direct report is being reasonably productive -- that's 99% a management problem. You need to set clearer expectations and indicators. If you identify a concrete issue, then it is the onus of the report to truthfully report on what is holding them back.
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      Makes you wonder what exactly those managers are for if everyone is meant to self manage their own workload anyway
      - creakingstairs 4y ago
        In my previous job they managed engineers workloads. Instead, they mostly “supported” engineers. This meant reaching out to people/ making noise to get roadblocks cleared, attempting to fix any interpersonal grievances and etc. It was great when the manager was an experienced developer, as their sagely advice/insight often made sense and helped me think about my problems in new light. But then we also had managers that never coded in their life who would link me some medium articles about some pop science productivity stuff.
      - orwin 4y ago
vorpalhex 4y ago
I am often too swamped to get work done effectively. I tell my manager this on a weekly basis. I still get new stuff put on my plate. I have 40 hours a week to work. He's welcome to divide that up how he sees fit. I'm not going to start working any more than 40.
- fezfight 4y ago
  Right? OP is victim blaming here. I'm swamped because my manager manages based on hopes and dreams.
- bluejekyll 4y ago
  When your manager brings you new work and you’re already swamped with work try asking this question: “I have these X other high-priority items on my plate. Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?” Then set expectations on when you think you can get to that new thing, also, it can be helpful to offer reasons why you believe certain things are higher priority. Prioritizing work is important when your feeling like there is too much. Change the conversation from how much to when.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    > Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?” At most places, the answer is going to be “you need to prioritize all of it. Oh, and by the way, here is even more work to put on your plate!”
    - LargeWu 4y ago
      There are occasionally times when everything is critical. Often this is in the early stages of survival for a company. If this is a chronic problem, or it's an established company, though, you realistically have two solutions that don't lead to burnout: 1. Don't deliver everything you're asked for 2. Find a new job Once that culture is established it's extremely hard to change. It certainly will not fix itself.
taylodl 4y ago
These are the worst kind of employee, yet so many managers who appear too incompetent to find their rear end even when using both hands seem to love these people. These employees serve as a red flag to everybody else - if these employees are rewarded or otherwise encouraged to maintain this behavior then that's your sign your work culture is poor and it's time to go. On your exit interview don't be bashful to state the actual reason you're leaving. I worked at a place once where they had an employee like that and many people were leaving as a result. Someone in upper management got the message loud and clear and the problem was taken care of. I was about to leave when that happened and the place turned out to be awesome once that problem was resolved. A couple of the people who had previously left even came back. Life is too short to tolerate working in a culture like that and these people are very draining to have to interact with.
- brightball 4y ago
  Yea it's tough. As a manager I dealt with this recently. Had a guy who was an absolute star. Technically very sound. Committed to doing things properly. Managed his time diligently and productively. Tried to help everybody. Reacted badly to every attempt I made to find somebody to assist him. I wanted to make sure he could take a vacation and not get a phone call. Also wanted to make sure the company had somebody in place who knew the work in case he decided to leave for some reason.
random_kris 4y ago
I see myself in this. I am being labeled as superstar. The thing is that I am very quick to understand things and can get a prototype working from a new thing we want to do in a week or two. This way I know a little of of everything that goes on and when something breaks I am the one who can effectively debug and solve things. Others can too of course but for me it is usually <1 hour while for others it would take at least the whole day. I am passionate about my work and proffesion but on other hand don't want to be the albatross you are talking about
- jkaptur 4y ago
  Then you need to bring your talents to bear on how to make others as good as you are at these things. Mentor, pair, teach, write, etc.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    This would imply that everyone has a similar capacity and willingness to learn, and that a capable IC's time is best-spent mentoring and documenting. I'm not sure these things hold true all the time.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      Not all the time, but often enough to be good advice for the large majority of the time. If the place is on fire? Maybe not. The rest of the time? Spreading that knowledge is a force multiplier.
- alex_suzuki 4y ago
  Maybe consider freelancing or launching your own company. It sounds like you’re cut out for it. It’s riskier than a steady job of course, but it sounds like you might be getting a bit too comfortable.
roflyear 4y ago
True! But not every highly-productive person is this. If you keep complexity low, you can have a "single point" without it being high risk. Recently I was really proud of being able to take a half of a day to document all my systems to have a reasonable assurance that the documentation would contain all the info needed for someone else to step in if they need to and get something done. And, it is a lot of systems! But we kept the complexity WAY down. And while the engineering is not perfect (is it ever?) I feel confident that someone can step in and work on these systems if I'm not here.
- singlow 4y ago
  Seems like a contradiction. If someone can step in when you are not there then you are not a single point of failure.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Probably true. I think my point is more if you are good at your job, you won't become a single point of failure. It is part of being good at your job to avoid that.
e_i_pi_2 4y ago
Just to add - this can even be a career advancement hurdle. My mom told her about a meeting she had with her boss where she asked for a promotion because she was doing so well at her current role and the boss basically said "yes you're doing more than we've seen before and that's why we're going to keep you right where you are". I'm a bit wary of the "peter principle" where people generally get promoted until they can't do their job well - but that's an institutional concern. From the perspective of an employee it might make sense to not excel because it could make you too valuable to promote. One of those annoying contradictions where you might have to look out for yourself at the cost of the company you're also trying to help succeed

by adra 4y ago

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

You're also making yourself too vital to whatever you're doing now - if the conceit is that the team/division/practice/company can't function without you doing your job you'll never be able to be promoted out of it.

pydry 4y ago
I've noticed only a few people do this but the ones that did did it out of either ego or anxiety (sometimes a mix). They werent usually angling for a promotion. The anxiety wasnt always unwarranted either. If you're in tons of debt, hate interviewing and work for an organization that doesnt care for people this isnt a wholly irrational strategy.
luckylion 4y ago
That has a pretty simple and effective solution though: just mention that you want to leave. I've just been through getting a healthy amount of equity (as a freelancer no less) because someone else announced they were leaving. If your job is _that_ important, you might not get promoted away, but you'll get the salary as if you were and then some.
- paxprose 4y ago
  Under my own personal belief system, I don't agree with this sentiment. Sure, you might obtain the immediate but you're kind of poisoning the well with an announcement of expected departure. I take it as a rule to not ever mention that you're leaving somewhere until you're leaving and then follow through.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I don't know. If your role is that important, they'll make you an offer to make you stay, which, unless you really, really, really want to leave, you'll take, because it'll be very good. Then they either work on making you not the single point of failure, or they'll accept you being that important and just go on paying you appropriately for it. I see "wanting to leave" as either absolute ("I hate this company, no amount of money can make me stay") or relative ("I could make more money / have less work / do more interesting stuff elsewhere"). The latter can totally be shifted by adding significantly more money, at least for most people.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

I wonder if at-will employment in the US influences this. If I'm bus factor 1, they're less likely to fire me. I have anxiety around losing my job, which makes me more likely to say yes to piling on tasks. It doesn't seem so crazy when you consider my healthcare is directly attached to my employment.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Dang, you can easily draw a connection between unstable work environments and unstable technical products. It's directly in the workers benefit to keep a product reliant on them or else they could just die. That's crazy.
- Test0129 4y ago
  When you're reliant on healthcare and live in America that is first concern before anything else. Not to turn a post political, but the employer-tied healthcare situation in America is borderline a form of slavery. In tech it is simply well-paid slavery. I rarely if ever take vacations, and due to healthcare requirements cannot explore starting my own company or being without an employer to take an extended sabbatical from work. I am well compensated for my role and generally do well but if I lose my health insurance my life can be measured in months. It's a stressor that is hard to describe.
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    Yeah, and it ultimately harms everything. It's so interesting that ultimately this system would produce lower quality products and suppress innovation. I wonder if countries with more flexibility in health-care will have more start-ups?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Almost all other developed countries have more flexibility with healthcare! Certainly it's never been part of any of my career decisions (in Australia). I don't believe it has much bearing on the number of start-ups, even successful ones - the US has too many other factors that overwhelmingly give it the advantage there - but I'm pretty sure it has been shown to affect upward mobility in general (America rates quite low on that compared to other countries with better safety nets and public/single payer healthcare systems, though other factors like cost of education almost certainly come into play).

pphysch 4y ago

If the maverick in question is an IC, then this responsibility is solely on their manager. Enthusiastic contributors are rare and good. Lazy managers who hope reports will self-manage are not.

dnissley 4y ago
It's not solely on the manager if the manager doesn't know because the employee in question is not giving feedback about their workload. Which isn't to say that the manager isn't to blame at all -- there are many things a manager can and should do to proactively suss out such issues.
- pphysch 4y ago
  If you can't tell whether a direct report is being reasonably productive -- that's 99% a management problem. You need to set clearer expectations and indicators. If you identify a concrete issue, then it is the onus of the report to truthfully report on what is holding them back.
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    Makes you wonder what exactly those managers are for if everyone is meant to self manage their own workload anyway
    - creakingstairs 4y ago
      In my previous job they managed engineers workloads. Instead, they mostly “supported” engineers. This meant reaching out to people/ making noise to get roadblocks cleared, attempting to fix any interpersonal grievances and etc. It was great when the manager was an experienced developer, as their sagely advice/insight often made sense and helped me think about my problems in new light. But then we also had managers that never coded in their life who would link me some medium articles about some pop science productivity stuff.
    - orwin 4y ago

vorpalhex 4y ago

I am often too swamped to get work done effectively. I tell my manager this on a weekly basis. I still get new stuff put on my plate. I have 40 hours a week to work. He's welcome to divide that up how he sees fit. I'm not going to start working any more than 40.

fezfight 4y ago
Right? OP is victim blaming here. I'm swamped because my manager manages based on hopes and dreams.
bluejekyll 4y ago
When your manager brings you new work and you’re already swamped with work try asking this question: “I have these X other high-priority items on my plate. Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?” Then set expectations on when you think you can get to that new thing, also, it can be helpful to offer reasons why you believe certain things are higher priority. Prioritizing work is important when your feeling like there is too much. Change the conversation from how much to when.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?” At most places, the answer is going to be “you need to prioritize all of it. Oh, and by the way, here is even more work to put on your plate!”
  - LargeWu 4y ago
    There are occasionally times when everything is critical. Often this is in the early stages of survival for a company. If this is a chronic problem, or it's an established company, though, you realistically have two solutions that don't lead to burnout: 1. Don't deliver everything you're asked for 2. Find a new job Once that culture is established it's extremely hard to change. It certainly will not fix itself.

taylodl 4y ago

These are the worst kind of employee, yet so many managers who appear too incompetent to find their rear end even when using both hands seem to love these people. These employees serve as a red flag to everybody else - if these employees are rewarded or otherwise encouraged to maintain this behavior then that's your sign your work culture is poor and it's time to go. On your exit interview don't be bashful to state the actual reason you're leaving. I worked at a place once where they had an employee like that and many people were leaving as a result. Someone in upper management got the message loud and clear and the problem was taken care of. I was about to leave when that happened and the place turned out to be awesome once that problem was resolved. A couple of the people who had previously left even came back. Life is too short to tolerate working in a culture like that and these people are very draining to have to interact with.

brightball 4y ago
Yea it's tough. As a manager I dealt with this recently. Had a guy who was an absolute star. Technically very sound. Committed to doing things properly. Managed his time diligently and productively. Tried to help everybody. Reacted badly to every attempt I made to find somebody to assist him. I wanted to make sure he could take a vacation and not get a phone call. Also wanted to make sure the company had somebody in place who knew the work in case he decided to leave for some reason.

random_kris 4y ago

I see myself in this. I am being labeled as superstar. The thing is that I am very quick to understand things and can get a prototype working from a new thing we want to do in a week or two. This way I know a little of of everything that goes on and when something breaks I am the one who can effectively debug and solve things. Others can too of course but for me it is usually <1 hour while for others it would take at least the whole day. I am passionate about my work and proffesion but on other hand don't want to be the albatross you are talking about

jkaptur 4y ago
Then you need to bring your talents to bear on how to make others as good as you are at these things. Mentor, pair, teach, write, etc.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  This would imply that everyone has a similar capacity and willingness to learn, and that a capable IC's time is best-spent mentoring and documenting. I'm not sure these things hold true all the time.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    Not all the time, but often enough to be good advice for the large majority of the time. If the place is on fire? Maybe not. The rest of the time? Spreading that knowledge is a force multiplier.
alex_suzuki 4y ago
Maybe consider freelancing or launching your own company. It sounds like you’re cut out for it. It’s riskier than a steady job of course, but it sounds like you might be getting a bit too comfortable.

roflyear 4y ago

True! But not every highly-productive person is this. If you keep complexity low, you can have a "single point" without it being high risk. Recently I was really proud of being able to take a half of a day to document all my systems to have a reasonable assurance that the documentation would contain all the info needed for someone else to step in if they need to and get something done. And, it is a lot of systems! But we kept the complexity WAY down. And while the engineering is not perfect (is it ever?) I feel confident that someone can step in and work on these systems if I'm not here.

singlow 4y ago
Seems like a contradiction. If someone can step in when you are not there then you are not a single point of failure.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Probably true. I think my point is more if you are good at your job, you won't become a single point of failure. It is part of being good at your job to avoid that.

e_i_pi_2 4y ago

Just to add - this can even be a career advancement hurdle. My mom told her about a meeting she had with her boss where she asked for a promotion because she was doing so well at her current role and the boss basically said "yes you're doing more than we've seen before and that's why we're going to keep you right where you are". I'm a bit wary of the "peter principle" where people generally get promoted until they can't do their job well - but that's an institutional concern. From the perspective of an employee it might make sense to not excel because it could make you too valuable to promote. One of those annoying contradictions where you might have to look out for yourself at the cost of the company you're also trying to help succeed