https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYUB3tQs80
(Can be good film to watch after a shit day at the office...)
11–20 of 29 posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYUB3tQs80
(Can be good film to watch after a shit day at the office...)
What is this idea that every job you do has to be brilliant and engaging? There's an endless amount of dull, tedious, and repetitive work required to make many things possible. That's why it's called work.
Spot on. Stop ignoring human psychology. There is a big importance in specialization and separation of tasks. We know that since the industrial revolution. But especially in knowledge jobs boredom can lead to less than stellar quality, which again brings down efficiency.
Humans are animals that evolved in a highly complex environment. To keep people engaged their task should be varied and contain some newness every now and then.
Specialization has driven us into these niches where most people don't perform as well as they could. Jack of all trades master of none is the usual adage. I see the people in software who know something about the OS, something about drivers, something about application software, something about web design, usually designing the best software. They are masters of a lot of categories, because they are jacks of all trades. Because a lot of knowledge in one category leads you to be better in another category.
In management speak synergy.
Each task doesn't even have to be particularly exciting. But let people choose from your boring tasks. Maybe something you find boring they find exciting. And even if they do, don't say they have to do this forever. Maybe they find it exciting because they didn't do it before.
People who don't practice being fun and having fun at work won't make work that's fun.
Sounds reasonable.
What is this idea that every job you do has to be brilliant and engaging? There's an endless amount of dull, tedious, and repetitive work required to make many things possible. That's why it's called work.
What is this idea that every job you do has to be brilliant and engaging? There's an endless amount of dull, tedious, and repetitive work required to make many things possible. That's why it's called work.
Software engineers with the right personality have a better chance of genuinely enjoying our work than the average person, so it’s on our minds. Coding isn’t something you automatically have to drag yourself through kicking and screaming like some other jobs.
What is this idea that every job you do has to be brilliant and engaging? There's an endless amount of dull, tedious, and repetitive work required to make many things possible. That's why it's called work.
Liking what you do for at least half of your waking hours is a pretty significant input to happiness. You may as well ask why people try to find jobs that pay them well, or partners whose company they enjoy. Software engineers with the right personality have a better chance of genuinely enjoying our work than the average person, so it’s on our minds. Coding isn’t something you automatically have to drag yourself thro…
I guess what I'm saying is that, just because you don't like doing it doesn't mean it isn't contributing to your satisfaction with life in the aggregate.
What is this idea that every job you do has to be brilliant and engaging? There's an endless amount of dull, tedious, and repetitive work required to make many things possible. That's why it's called work.
My knee-jerk reaction is that this is sort-of a tautology: If there was interesting work available at their job, the people with boring jobs would not have boring jobs. Nobody is going to do the boring work first and leave the interesting stuff sitting around just waiting for a new hire! Where there is a surplus of interesting work, people with interesting jobs will design interesting jobs for their colleagues. Dunno…
I don't know about this... we usually give the exciting stuff to the more junior or co-op/intern hires. The boring work has usually been the most important work from my experience. There is an inherent risk with the exciting and unknown ending in a flop.
My knee-jerk reaction is that this is sort-of a tautology: If there was interesting work available at their job, the people with boring jobs would not have boring jobs. Nobody is going to do the boring work first and leave the interesting stuff sitting around just waiting for a new hire! Where there is a surplus of interesting work, people with interesting jobs will design interesting jobs for their colleagues. Dunno…
> Nobody is going to do the boring work first and leave the interesting stuff sitting around just waiting for a new hire! I don't know about this... we usually give the exciting stuff to the more junior or co-op/intern hires. The boring work has usually been the most important work from my experience. There is an inherent risk with the exciting and unknown ending in a flop.