But what to do if you really love what you do and can achieve really good results in your work, better than anyone else? It's a source of pride and recognition, no wonder it becomes part of your identity. Now imagine working out instead -everyone can do that, you won't achieve anything interesting this way. Same with bike riding or hobby woodworking - want some results you have to work long hours for that. No point in feeling guilty because you love your job, just don't neglect other responsibilities in life.
Yeah, I identify with that. It makes it harder that’s for sure.
The article linked to one of the author’s other articles which talked about how even if you love it, you start to be fueled by different energy.
> After working at high intensity for more than 90 minutes, we begin to draw on these emergency reserves to keep us going. In the process, we move from parasympathetic to a sympathetic arousal — a physiological state more commonly known as “fight or flight.”
> One consequence of relying on stress hormones for energy is that the prefrontal cortex begins to shut down. We become more reactive and less capable of thinking clearly and reflectively, or seeing the big picture.
I recognize that. Ive also noticed those stress hormones coming more often outside of work and affecting the rest of my life.
Add in children and you have yourself a time sink. And the big thing is children are wonderful as long as you can live to enjoy them rather than live to handle them as an obligation.
You're rationalizing. You don't think anyone gets into the position in the article without rationalizing do you? A huge chunk of the article was spent on rationalization.
You really think that you can do anything "better than anyone else"? Also, what is your basis of comparison for "you won't achieve anything interesting"? You have to have a very small world view to believe either of these; in the large scale we don't know what's important or what others are capable of.
Twiddling your thumbs may be the most important task in the universe, we simply do not know.
I think that what you do is work in the way that is best for you and brings you the most happiness and fulfillment.
The article isn't saying that you shouldn't, or can't, work as you prefer. It's pointing out that work culture, particularly in the US, strongly pressures people to give up as much as possible for the workplace, and that's not a good thing.
I prefer being busy while at work, and I prefer working fewer hours but there’s not really an avenue to make that happen except for ambiguous policies like “unlimited vacation” that just make me perpetually anxious.
Work from home prevents the need to "look busy" and instead allows you to do your tasks and take the rest of your time back for yourself. In a properly managed remote workplace, managers will not focus on how you spend your days and will reward your for the results you produce (which are usually higher quality since you're not stressed from commute, office noise/smells/gossip, and having to look busy when you're not).
I don’t really agree. I prefer WFH most days but it’s no panacea: WFH has expectations of availability during working hours and expectations of 40 hours ish of time commitment.
If I finish work in 2 hours and go do personal stuff for the rest of the day I don’t feel relaxed, I feel anxious like I’m in a gray zone in the employment contract and I’m going to be sniffed out and given more work to do.
> WFH has expectations of availability during working hours and expectations of 40 hours ish of time commitment.
Not when done right. I run my remote teams async and definitely don't expect them to get back to me instantly at any point other than the very few prearranged meetings we have. I also want them to take time throughout their day to do what makes them content/relaxed/happy. Coding is a creative profession and getting people into a relaxed state creates far better software than deathmarching a scrum team.
> If I finish work in 2 hours and go do personal stuff for the rest of the day I don’t feel relaxed, I feel anxious like I’m in a gray zone in the employment contract and I’m going to be sniffed out and given more work to do.
This is due to poor management. Strong management makes employees feel secure and not-surveillanced.
> This is due to poor management. Strong management makes employees feel secure and not-surveillanced.
Maybe that’s true, but having trustworthy async workloads is dependent on having really good planning methodology (eg sizing tickets fairly accurately with 2 week sprint planning)
In my experience this is very difficult. The moment you start working on a more novel feature/project, ticket sizing gets wacky. When ticket sizing is wacky, you get the dreaded gray area: we planned this thing to take 3 days. It took me 1 day because the team didn’t understand how small the ticket was during ticket grooming. Do I take days off or create new work for myself? Am I responsible for post hoc fixing planning failures? If so, am I not just emulating the “spend 40 hours working” mindset via points? If not, am I not taking advantage of the teams planning mistake?
Tracking ticket churn is not good management. Are your employees coming up with novel and effective solutions? Are they successfully implementing them? Can you hire and retain amazing people? Those are the only metrics that matter. If you hire high performers, your job is to keep them happy and clear stuff out of their way, not track them to the nth degree and force them into a bureaucratic project management labyrinth.
We are, but we also do that in a pretty unique way. We exclusively proactively recruit people that we think are the best match for a given role. We don't have an in-bound process. This allows us to find the best possible match and skip all of the technical interviewing theatrics. We simply try to convince the people we see as the best fit for the team to join us. I usually offer the job on the first call with a potential hire.
I always wondered, how do people "finish work" in 2 hours for a day?
Am I the only one swamped in tickets and could generate months worth of work on my own proactively if wanted to?
Most employers don't financially reward you for doing all of that extra work, so finishing work in 2 hours just means you do what you need to to stay employed. I've never seen a place where people were "swamped in tickets" also accurately recognize and reward work that creates value for the business. In fact those places are most likely (in my experience) to have raise caps, onerous review processes and extremely limited room for advancement.
Interesting, are bonuses and/or employee stock options not the norm for most companies? Everywhere I worked these were there in one way or another, exactly to motivate people to do more than their allotted stuff.
> Interesting, are bonuses and/or employee stock options not the norm for most companies?
Not in a meaningful amount to non-executives.
> Everywhere I worked these were there in one way or another, exactly to motivate people to do more than their allotted stuff.
I don't think anyone believes "more tickets" = "more revenue". Most employees work doesn't materially impact the bottom line and definitely doesn't have a linear relationship to revenue (other than maybe sales who are paid on commission).
Tickets never stop. Most places I've worked have had ticket points expected to be completed per week or per sprint. It makes sense to only do that amount of work. You won't be rewarded for doing extra. Put your two years in and leave. Rinse repeat.
If you want to code extra hard then pick up side projects and improve your life. Doing extra work for your employer won't do anything for you beyond raising expectations for you to do more work and thus an elevated standard by which you will be judged. You're not getting a raise worth worrying about by going above and beyond. Be present, helpful, and do the target and nothing more.
Oh I should have also stated that successful remote management is built entirely of trust and humane treatment of the remote workers. The value someone produces may also be pretty intangible (i.e. they make the team work better together). I can see how you could extrapolate those scenarios from my comment, but giving employees affordances to put their life first should be table stakes for all employees, remote or otherwise. No one should be fired or punished for having to deal with personal issues.
I'll do one better. I am strongly opposed to 2023 term : 'career'.
It's a common excuse : "I cannot do <insert fun thing>, or have to do <insert undesirable thing> for my career."
The word is now untethered from all responsibilities and benefits that came from being a career professional, and instead just signifies the constant urge to be working in pursuit of some arbitrary career.
Your career used to be a lifetime job. Your coworkers were your neighbors. Your boss was your mentor. Your company men send their children to the same school and you retired with a hefty pension. Your wife's friends were your coworkers' wives. Work was real work. You made physical products or you worked at your own little shop.
It's all gone now.
Now, 'Career' throws you around the world, destroying your communities. Dual-income households have to choose between career and children. Pensions are dead (For good imo). Most people work on things without clear positive real-life impacts and you own none of it. Your boss is incentivized to abuse you in a capitalistic rat race until you burn out, and your kids get thrown in the same blender at school at an even earlier age.
Overwork is signaling. There is nothing productive about it. I have seen coworkers who literally spends their entire lives in the office; the amount of actual output they create is negligible. They loudly claim how hard they work and put down people who go home at five. It is nothing more than a cult of stupidity.
From the article:
Over time, it leads to diminishing productivity, higher rates of burnout, and even to increased likelihood of mortality. A 2021 World Health Organization study found that working 55 or more hours per week — compared to 35-40 hours — is associated with a 35% higher risk of a stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease. What sets workaholism apart from other forms of addiction — especially in a capitalist economy that reveres money above all else — is that it’s not only socially acceptable, but also materially and socially rewarded.
