2 ms·

I turn my IM app off when I need to focus. When we were all in one office, I would keep it off for days at a time. The worst was when a manager insisted I have

I turn my IM app off when I need to focus. When we were all in one office, I would keep it off for days at a time. The worst was when a manager insisted I have it on. He was literally 3 cubes away from me (and always present). Why does he need to IM with me?! He was in his 50's, and had spent most of his career without such tools. Another solution I now use since we're no longer in the office: If you ping me, I'll initiate a voice call. Async with constant notifications is a productivity killer. With a call, there is a fixed end point to the interruption.

morkalork 3y ago
You and me are like the complete opposite. You'd rather your boss waltz on over to your cube and interrupt you instead of a message notification you can put off a while?
- BeetleB 3y ago
  Absolutely. Because: 1. When they waltz over to my cube, they are also interrupting themselves, so they are an order less likely to do it (i.e. do it only when important). 2. IM notifications every few minutes is far more disruptive than a quick 1-5 minute conversation. When he leaves the cube, I can focus. With IM, if I respond, I don't know when, or even if, he will respond. That consumes some of the focus. And an IM session can last 30+ minutes because of the async nature. 3. It's my manager. If he IMs me and I don't respond, and it's important enough, he'll come to my cube anyway (and be annoyed/upset). I can't always know what is important to him or not. So async doesn't really work that well. 4. I don't need the mental burden of tracking which IM sessions have pending responses. Email is much easier to manage. So my policy tends to be: "If I don't respond soon after seeing it, assume it is forgotten and ping me again."
- quad_eye_oh 3y ago
  Seems like it's about symmetric costs and overall efficiency. To get up and walk over costs the Boss time and physical effort, so it won't take happen frequently, and it will likely happen on a predictable schedule (e.g. as boss goes to lunch). Context cues are available, and clarification is instant, which minimizes time-wasting rabbit holes. In contrast, for the Boss to rattle some misguided text into Slack takes much less effort on the Boss's part and doesn't break the Boss's concentration, but the misunderstanding will be harder to clear up. If there is a back and forth it will take longer and be more distracting and stressful to the engineer, and if there isn't a back and forth the engineer is more likely wondering wtf the Boss is on about.

morkalork 3y ago

You and me are like the complete opposite. You'd rather your boss waltz on over to your cube and interrupt you instead of a message notification you can put off a while?

BeetleB 3y ago
Absolutely. Because: 1. When they waltz over to my cube, they are also interrupting themselves, so they are an order less likely to do it (i.e. do it only when important). 2. IM notifications every few minutes is far more disruptive than a quick 1-5 minute conversation. When he leaves the cube, I can focus. With IM, if I respond, I don't know when, or even if, he will respond. That consumes some of the focus. And an IM session can last 30+ minutes because of the async nature. 3. It's my manager. If he IMs me and I don't respond, and it's important enough, he'll come to my cube anyway (and be annoyed/upset). I can't always know what is important to him or not. So async doesn't really work that well. 4. I don't need the mental burden of tracking which IM sessions have pending responses. Email is much easier to manage. So my policy tends to be: "If I don't respond soon after seeing it, assume it is forgotten and ping me again."
quad_eye_oh 3y ago
Seems like it's about symmetric costs and overall efficiency. To get up and walk over costs the Boss time and physical effort, so it won't take happen frequently, and it will likely happen on a predictable schedule (e.g. as boss goes to lunch). Context cues are available, and clarification is instant, which minimizes time-wasting rabbit holes. In contrast, for the Boss to rattle some misguided text into Slack takes much less effort on the Boss's part and doesn't break the Boss's concentration, but the misunderstanding will be harder to clear up. If there is a back and forth it will take longer and be more distracting and stressful to the engineer, and if there isn't a back and forth the engineer is more likely wondering wtf the Boss is on about.