3 ms·

Seems to me you underestimate the value of reliability and overestimate the value of creativity.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Humans are naturally unreliable. Everyone has a breaking point. If you need reliability, build it into your systems. I agree with you this far: reliability in systems is very valuable. That's a design problem, which requires (a form of) creativity. The difference between the "weak" person who shatters at a 60 hour-per-week effort (over 12 weeks) and the "strong" one who can stretch to 85 is unimportant, because if you're smart, you don't push people to the rightward side of the decline curve unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Reliance on differences is human reliability is like having a 50% faster processer but implementing an O(n^3) algorithm when an O(n) exists. It made sense in a few pre-technological professional contexts, but no more in the typical white-collar world. You want the creative people who'll automate away the need for human reliability, which is limited even in the most stable people.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  That is all true, but it doesn't change what I said. And I don't consider a person weak if 60 hour weeks exhaust them, this is called "normal." If your employer pushes more than 40 on a regular basis, find a better job, that one sucks.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Whether a 40- or 60-hour load is a normal person's limit is beside the point. My point is that the white-collar office regime measures people based on their decline curves rather than their performance under good conditions, and that may have worked at one time, but now it selects for the wrong traits and, additionally, makes typical institutional work inhospitable for people like the OP's wife. Obviously, there are exceptions. You want an uber-reliable person for U.S. President. For a software engineer, you care about overall ability and performance, not worst-case.
    - mtrimpe 14y ago
      I knew some truly great programmers who wrote great code most of the year, but occasionally were suddenly absent for a week because the police picked them up dancing naked in a garden. Even though there are many companies who would immediately fire that person; they are missing out on a lot of potential by doing do.
      - javajosh 14y ago
        If more people danced naked in a garden the world would be a better place.
        andrewflnr 14y ago
        It depends on whose garden it is.
        michaelochurch 14y ago
        As long as they don't listen to talking snakes, I agree.
    - jakejake 14y ago
      I think the average employer favors reliability because it's not acceptable for an employee to ever freak out co-workers or clients or just disappear - even if 99% of the time they are fine. There are people who have odd personalities, but that is not the same as a person who has psychotic episodes. I have been around the latter and it tends to make people very uncomfortable, which is just not acceptable for certain jobs unfortunately. There is a gray area as well where some people are socially awkward or just enjoy being "weird." But it's not the same thing. As for jobs like programming where some degree of eccentricity is acceptable - I think it depends on how amazing that person is. If you're a genius you probably will find opportunities that will accept a decent amount of erratic behavior. If you are a below-average programmer, your employers are not likely to be as accommodating.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
illuminate 14y ago
Or you undervalue the potential of people who are capable of giving back in some manner and don't want to remain, unproductive, on the dole for the rest of their lives? I understand why this occurs, but it'd be nice if the moments of brilliance were better harnessed. In the larger tech companies, the people I've known who have these sorts of problems seem to take hiatuses and come back when whatever episode is complete and they're ready to begin work again. I don't really know how it works on the HR back-end, though.

Humans are naturally unreliable. Everyone has a breaking point. If you need reliability, build it into your systems. I agree with you this far: reliability in systems is very valuable. That's a design problem, which requires (a form of) creativity. The difference between the "weak" person who shatters at a 60 hour-per-week effort (over 12 weeks) and the "strong" one who can stretch to 85 is unimportant, because if you're smart, you don't push people to the rightward side of the decline curve unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Reliance on differences is human reliability is like having a 50% faster processer but implementing an O(n^3) algorithm when an O(n) exists. It made sense in a few pre-technological professional contexts, but no more in the typical white-collar world. You want the creative people who'll automate away the need for human reliability, which is limited even in the most stable people.

gnaritas 14y ago
That is all true, but it doesn't change what I said. And I don't consider a person weak if 60 hour weeks exhaust them, this is called "normal." If your employer pushes more than 40 on a regular basis, find a better job, that one sucks.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Whether a 40- or 60-hour load is a normal person's limit is beside the point. My point is that the white-collar office regime measures people based on their decline curves rather than their performance under good conditions, and that may have worked at one time, but now it selects for the wrong traits and, additionally, makes typical institutional work inhospitable for people like the OP's wife. Obviously, there are exceptions. You want an uber-reliable person for U.S. President. For a software engineer, you care about overall ability and performance, not worst-case.
  - mtrimpe 14y ago
    I knew some truly great programmers who wrote great code most of the year, but occasionally were suddenly absent for a week because the police picked them up dancing naked in a garden. Even though there are many companies who would immediately fire that person; they are missing out on a lot of potential by doing do.
    - javajosh 14y ago
      If more people danced naked in a garden the world would be a better place.
      - andrewflnr 14y ago
        It depends on whose garden it is.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        As long as they don't listen to talking snakes, I agree.
  - jakejake 14y ago
    I think the average employer favors reliability because it's not acceptable for an employee to ever freak out co-workers or clients or just disappear - even if 99% of the time they are fine. There are people who have odd personalities, but that is not the same as a person who has psychotic episodes. I have been around the latter and it tends to make people very uncomfortable, which is just not acceptable for certain jobs unfortunately. There is a gray area as well where some people are socially awkward or just enjoy being "weird." But it's not the same thing. As for jobs like programming where some degree of eccentricity is acceptable - I think it depends on how amazing that person is. If you're a genius you probably will find opportunities that will accept a decent amount of erratic behavior. If you are a below-average programmer, your employers are not likely to be as accommodating.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago

illuminate 14y ago

Or you undervalue the potential of people who are capable of giving back in some manner and don't want to remain, unproductive, on the dole for the rest of their lives? I understand why this occurs, but it'd be nice if the moments of brilliance were better harnessed. In the larger tech companies, the people I've known who have these sorts of problems seem to take hiatuses and come back when whatever episode is complete and they're ready to begin work again. I don't really know how it works on the HR back-end, though.