> So in my opinion, the author is a little bit selfish too. The company cannot 100% align with what best works for you. No, of course not. It is a scale/grade

> So in my opinion, the author is a little bit selfish too. The company cannot 100% align with what best works for you. No, of course not. It is a scale/grade where balance needs to be found. Unfortunately, in some companies the balance is really off where in order to maintain your sanity you do need to set clear boundaries like this. If not you will not even be able to think clearly as you are in a constant state of being interrupted. There is also a big difference in the quality of quick questions. For example. 1. Bad, no context: Hey, quick question. 2. Still not good: Hey, quick question about why Y is part of X (where the reasoning is clearly documented). 3. Better: Hey, I was looking at Y and X and see the reasoning for doing it like this, but I still have some questions about the details. As far as why I rate these the way I do: 1. certainly is bad because it just means I get a ping, need to respond, need to wait for the answer (being distracted again from what I was doing), etc. 2. Is just a waste of time but is okay enough as I can just point to the documentation and ask to follow up if the question is not covered. 3. Is much better as I know what it is about, you have the right knowledge as well, and now we can actually answer your question in a meaningful way. Having typed this out I realize I am just repeating the article. Which also does not say that everything needs to be a meeting with a clear agenda. It basically boils down to one thing if you want something from someone make sure to include enough context. It really is not that difficult :)