11–20 of 183 posts
The problem I have with discussions about “productivity” (including 10x engineer chest-beating) is that no one ever defines what they mean by the word. Is it lots of lines of code? Is it clean design and architecture that’s easy to maintain and extend? Responding quickly to business needs? Making a lot of money in a short time? Too often, people arbitrarily choose what they’re good at, or what someone else they admir…
The problem I have with discussions about “productivity” (including 10x engineer chest-beating) is that no one ever defines what they mean by the word. Is it lots of lines of code? Is it clean design and architecture that’s easy to maintain and extend? Responding quickly to business needs? Making a lot of money in a short time? Too often, people arbitrarily choose what they’re good at, or what someone else they admir…
Identifying what is high impact, or what’s it’s important to focus on continuously is a form of autonomy that is oddly not offered too much to most of us.
If you want to go fast and call that being productive, go fast and be productive. But don't gate-keep and turn personal preferences into "should" and "ought". There's a lot of world out there and not everyone wants to organize their lives around work.
> The top reasons I see people say that productivity doesn't matter (or is actually bad) fall into one of three buckets: 1. Working on the right thing is more important than working quickly 2. Speed at X doesn't matter because you don't spend much time doing X 3. Thinking about productivity is bad and you should "live life"
Here's his argument for your last point:
> The last major argument I see against working on velocity assigns negative moral weight to the idea of thinking about productivity and working on velocity at all. This kind of comment often assigns positive moral weight to various kinds of leisure, such as spending time with friends and family. I find this argument to be backwards. If someone thinks it's important to spend time with friends and family, an easy way to do that is to be more productive at work and spend less time working.
Personally, I deliberately avoid working long hours and I suspect I don't work more than the median person at my company, which is a company where I think work-life balance is pretty good overall. A lot of my productivity gains have gone to leisure and not work. Furthermore, deliberately working on velocity has allowed me to get promoted relatively quickly4, which means that I make more money than I would've made if I didn't get promoted, which gives me more freedom to spend time on things that I value.
The problem I have with discussions about “productivity” (including 10x engineer chest-beating) is that no one ever defines what they mean by the word. Is it lots of lines of code? Is it clean design and architecture that’s easy to maintain and extend? Responding quickly to business needs? Making a lot of money in a short time? Too often, people arbitrarily choose what they’re good at, or what someone else they admir…
If your product manager asks for a new widget or api, can you implement it without any major bugs in 1 hour? Or will you take three days because you don't understand your programming language, your codebase and your requirements?
Will the widget/api be free of major bugs, or will it fail on a variety of edge cases that could have been solved ahead of time?
Productivity may not have crisp, clear lines. There's always context. But it comes down to: if you can do X in half the time at the same level of quality, you're twice as productive.
I admire Dan Luu's work and this article in particular really resonated with me.
If you want to go fast and call that being productive, go fast and be productive. But don't gate-keep and turn personal preferences into "should" and "ought". There's a lot of world out there and not everyone wants to organize their lives around work.
The entire point of TFA is that the ability to go fast is a force multiplier for being productive in the first place.
If you really are not comfortable with the consequences of your personal labor you should probably leave your job or not take it in the first place. This sounds like a decadent rationalization for highly compensated people that want to feel moral while being lazy.
> An idea that's become increasingly popular in my extended social circles at major tech companies is that one should avoid doing work and waste as much time as possible, often called "antiwork", which seems like a natural extension of "tryhard" becoming an insult. The reason given is often something like, work mainly enriches upper management at your employer and/or shareholders, who are generally richer than you. I…
sounds like a decadent rationalization of some kind.
For me at least coding seems to take less time objectively than subjectively, but it's also quite obvious that most of my time is not spent on coding, sadly. A good chunk of it is completely unproductive bullshit that simply has to happen because that's how the company chooses to operate. I tell them it's not the only way to do things, but they insist on wasting ~1.5 person days a week on "standups" and "scrum" (the team is 12 people, excluding me). They could _easily_ move 50% faster if they shed that bullshit and just gave people sizable tasks and some degree of autonomy and personal responsibility. Instead it's down to who can _appear_ the busiest during standup.