Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What “work” looks like

blog.jim-nielsen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 236 posts

Re: What “work” looks like

#91

Post by evrydayhustling »

These ideas are intuitive, but I can't find the research backing them. The blog quotes another blog [1] which claims research but doesn't reference it. That one uses a quote from an MIT article [2], which is a perspective piece with no actual experiments.

People use "research says" to add gravity to ideas, but it's important to share (and check) the sources.

[1] https://paulitaylor.com/2022/05/06/the-case-against-collabor...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226279557_A_Complex...

Re: What “work” looks like

#92

Post by _trampeltier »

I also used to say I have to sleep over it, and had the best ideas when I was in the shower in the morning. But since I had almost a burnout I really seperate work and life. So I never think about work things bevor I start to work, so I need a lot more time on work for solutions and they are never as good as the solutions from the morning shower. But yeah, my private life is sooo much better now.

Re: What “work” looks like

#93

Post by mschuster91 »

largepeepee wrote: post #44
FriedrichN wrote: post #33

Because humans are social beings, we need to signal to the others that we belong to the group and are doing our part. Our loyalty is prized more than our effectiveness or efficiency. It doesn't matter how productive you are, the feelings of the group are more important. You can see this in many places in our society. The security theater in airports don't make air travel that much safer, but it does send a signal to…

While I agree with the overall point, that view of airport security and drug control being ineffective shows the power of Hollywood propaganda than valid points supporting the issue of the human condition. One only has to look at places that value such measures to see they DO work. Israeli airports for example or Singapore's drug policies. Both of which employ draconians measures to ensure effectiveness but they do b…

The thing is, Israel legitimately has to fear terrorism. Western countries only keep that ridiculous security theatre because it's politically very hard to get rid of something that got introduced for "safety" even if it has proven to be pointless.

Re: What “work” looks like

#94

Post by ljf »

hrbf wrote: post #42

Back when I started as a freelancer, I initially copied the 9-to-5 rhythm of „working“. That, despite having viewed this forced window of work as one of the biggest annoyances that come with a job. Over time, I could overcome this „weird“ feeling of not sitting at my desk while working. It went quite a bit like the author describes: - Load up on context and information. - Start outlining the problem. - When stuck, tr…

I was very lucky at a previous company to be able to do this - I had weekly or fortnightly meetings with the CTA, Snr Dev Manager and a few others where we would meet to agree strategies and issues.

Due to limited office space, very quickly these turned into 30mins to 1 hour walks - so each week I'd get 5 really impactful conversations with my peers, through the medium of a walk.

Sometimes the focus would be on connecting as two humans (which helped our working life massively) other times it would be totally work/problem focused. But the space away from the office, and with the privacy that came from being away from everyone else, we got loads done.

Really valued that way of working, I've tried to get it going in my current role, and had some success with Teams 'remote' walks with my last manager (each of us took our phone for a walk in our local areas) but for various reasons this didn't work out well for us.

Re: What “work” looks like

#95

Post by lkrubner »

usrme wrote: post #70
lkrubner wrote: post #51

I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…

I, personally, feel that instead of two it would need to be three to have a more diverse set of opinions and to break any stalemates. I've worked for many years with just one other person and the number of times where we had ideological differences and not enough exposure to alternatives are innumerable.

Yes, to be sure, I need to be more careful how I phrase this. I recently consulted with a VP of engineering who liked to bring 9 engineers together to review a database schema. I suggested more one-on-one meetings. He said, "Yes, I know you like less chefs in the kitchen." But that was not true, so I clarified with him: "I think it is great that you meet with those 9 engineers, but you should consider meeting with them either one at a time or maybe in groups of twos. The problem is that with nine people, on one video call, the conversation will either last 6 hours or some people won't be able to voice their concerns. There is a risk that the comments will remain at a general level. If you want to dive into the details, and surface the real risks of a given model, then hold smaller meetings. And really, the only purpose of those meetings is to surface the risks you face, so there is really no point to those larger meetings. Hold smaller meetings and surface the risk. But I am 100% okay with the idea of meeting with all 9 engineers, if you have the time to do that. Just meet with them in small groups. (And if you don't have the time to hold 7 or 8 or 9 separate meetings, then be strategic about who you meet with --- that is one of the most basic skills of leadership, knowing how to invest your time."

Re: What “work” looks like

#96

Post by pSYoniK »

A few years back I was doing work for a university course and working full time. I was burned out and exhausted mentally. The problem was staring me in the face for weeks and I felt powerless and unable to progress at all.

I then decided that I won't be progressing with it at this rate (I would wake up at 5, study for 3 hours, go to work, work for 8 hrs, come home, eat, study another hour or two). So I just decided to not study for a week (it felt extremely stressful at the time because it felt like I won't be progressing with the coursework unless I'm staring at the screen figuring it out).

I came back and finished the entire coursework a week after that in one day. I went on to complete the remainder work within a couple more days for the other courses. Since then I've been trying to remind myself that trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results is very much the definition of insanity. I also understood that sometimes the problem needs a different angle, maybe you need to just wipe the slate clean and go for a walk/run. You need to switch the context and let your brain wonder a bit.

Once you do that, you might open yourself up and become more receptive to new approaches and new ideas. Sometimes it's better to map out a problem in your head, twist and turn it on all of its facets and then decide how to proceed. This idea that you're not productive unless your Teams activity icon is green and you're moving your mouse and typing away furiously, is ludicrous.

For those who play games, I used to play Warcraft 3 (semi competitively). A friend said that APM (actions per minute) = skill, so the higher the APM the higher the skill level of the player. And that to reach level 50 (the max at a point on the ladder) you need APM 300-350+. I said that it doesn't matter if you have 500 or 100, how you spend those actions is more important. We played a series of games, he ended up averaging 380-390 APM and I averaged (on purpose below my average) 180 APM. I won 5 games in a row and we left it at that. Looking busy does not equal being productive. Seeing "stuff happen" doesn't mean its useful stuff.

Re: What “work” looks like

#97

Post by bstpierre »

lkrubner wrote: post #51

I strongly agree: "The mantra of sharing your work and involving everyone in decisions naturally leads to inviting and copying people into things that add no value to them, or you." Fred Brooks, in his book The Design Of Design, includes a section on "The Magic Power of Teams Of Two". In his opinion, large teams cannot get anything done, and most innovation comes from individuals, but Brooks feels that teams of two p…

It often feels like “teams” of 1.5 work really well. Basically this is one person doing the work, with one other person who is very much in the loop but not actually on the hook. The worker is getting the job done, and the consultant is offering ideas, questioning some decisions, reviewing WIP, and generally supporting the worker. Having been on both sides of this, I think that the little bit of distance that the consultant has from the immediate problems of the job, while still having awareness of a lot of the context, can really accelerate the work.

Re: What “work” looks like

#99

Post by swayvil »

FriedrichN wrote: post #33

Because humans are social beings, we need to signal to the others that we belong to the group and are doing our part. Our loyalty is prized more than our effectiveness or efficiency. It doesn't matter how productive you are, the feelings of the group are more important. You can see this in many places in our society. The security theater in airports don't make air travel that much safer, but it does send a signal to…

This puts the independent operator (lone contractor, entrepreneur...) in an interesting position. For him , effectiveness matters more than loyalty displays. His world is different from that of the "solid tribe member".

Re: What “work” looks like

#100

Post by d0m3 »

That's why remote work is so liberating. You don't have to stay at your desk but you can move your body and free your mind as much as you like. When I get back to the office I feel stuck. Physically and mentally.
Post reply on HN