Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace • Hacker News Board

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#41

Post by 0xcde4c3db » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #36

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance is largely relative I think. You could have a crank that spits out pennies so long as you crank it. Invariably we will tire of turning the crank because it's monotonous uninspiring unfulfilling work. The argument could be made that someone somewhere does not have the opportunity to so easily spin a crank for money so we ought to be grateful, but the mind's adaptability is a double edged sword. You exalt the…

At the same time crank turning is a job where you need to do little else than show up, freeing your mind to think about things other than work.

There's also a lot of variation in how that job could satisfy various psychological needs.

Is the crank well-maintained, or is it continually catching, grinding, or breaking down?

Are you rewarded for turning the crank more and provided with high-quality feedback about that reward, or is there merely an unceasing open-loop demand that you turn the crank "as fast as possible"?

Do you know the function of the crank and see value in it, or is it an opaque component of an inscrutable black box?

I'll bet one set of answers leads to a lot more burnout than the other.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#42

Post by BurningFrog » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

a-saleh wrote: post #21

ams6110 wrote: post #2

I quit a job when I felt burnout developing. The cause? Pair programming. I just cannot that close to someone for the majority of the workday without feeling constant low-level stress and annoyance, and I can't focus and think about problems in that setting. When you have to sit in your car for 15 minutes every morning just to summon the resolve to get out and go into the office, something's wrong with your work envi…

It seems weird to me that some workplace would mandate physical(?) pair-programming as a default. And I actually like pair-programming, some of my best code was written with somebody sitting besides me and we have solved some really tricky bugs like this. But we tend to do this only rarely. Most of my day is spent organizing stuff and reading emails anyway :-)

I love pair programming teams, and would not want to work anywhere else.

Of course, a team like that needs to only hire people who are up for that lifestyle.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#43

Post by wott » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #37

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I 'pair program' with my consulting partner. That is, we sit in the same lab and do our own thing, coming up for air to discuss an approach or algorithm, or even to review code. But 99% of the time is spent at our own tasks. This kind of 'pair programming' works best for us.

That sounds like a nice, collaborative work environment, but I would not file it under any definition of "pair programming". Edit: 99%? So you spend less than five minutes collaborating per 8-hour workday?

> 99%? So you spend less than five minutes collaborating per 8-hour workday?

It sounds reasonable: 0 minute on a day, 10 mn on the next one. You can double it because the "99%" figure was dropped randomly, but that seems fair.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#44

Post by wott » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #17

ams6110 wrote: post #2

I quit a job when I felt burnout developing. The cause? Pair programming. I just cannot that close to someone for the majority of the workday without feeling constant low-level stress and annoyance, and I can't focus and think about problems in that setting. When you have to sit in your car for 15 minutes every morning just to summon the resolve to get out and go into the office, something's wrong with your work envi…

I may be wrong, but my unresearched feeling is that extroverts promote these kinds of things, and introverts (like myself) are made to look bad for not liking and thriving in these imposed environments. Not team players. One size doesn't fit all.

> Not team players.

For that kind of team, and that kind of play. But if you're like me, you can deal with workmates, it is just that a small amount of interaction with a small number of people is enough to be productive and yet not waste people's time.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#45

Post by wott » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

dasmoth wrote: post #40

jMyles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This phenomenon is one of the distinct situations where I have found that the effects of cannabis are helpful. Smoke a bit with your partner, go for a walk, maybe apologize or retract some things if necessary. Maybe stop being such a perfectionist and just merge what does work now.

I have no objection to canabis or those who choose to enjoy it, but the idea that I might need psychoactives to handle the work environment -- even when I'm doing something I'm widely considered to be pretty decent at -- is repellant.

Well, most people build up their own ritual while getting to the work place and starting their work day. It is not much different as a psychoactive mean, it is just one step further, with a substance (this being said, most people already include tea or coffee in their ceremonial).

It is just that a good part of them don't even notice what they do and why they do it.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#46

Post by billmalarky » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

city41 wrote: post #3

ams6110 wrote: post #2

I quit a job when I felt burnout developing. The cause? Pair programming. I just cannot that close to someone for the majority of the workday without feeling constant low-level stress and annoyance, and I can't focus and think about problems in that setting. When you have to sit in your car for 15 minutes every morning just to summon the resolve to get out and go into the office, something's wrong with your work envi…

I also left a job due to pair programming. That company pair programmed 100% of the time. It concerns me that might become a norm. I wrote a blog post on why I think that's a bad idea: http://www.mattgreer.org/articles/pair-programming-is-not-a-...

>It concerns me that might become a norm.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Most companies see pair programming as paying 2X for the same amount of programming output.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#47

Post by quotemstr » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #41

brightball wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time crank turning is a job where you need to do little else than show up, freeing your mind to think about things other than work.

There's also a lot of variation in how that job could satisfy various psychological needs. Is the crank well-maintained, or is it continually catching, grinding, or breaking down? Are you rewarded for turning the crank more and provided with high-quality feedback about that reward, or is there merely an unceasing open-loop demand that you turn the crank "as fast as possible"? Do you know the function of the crank and…

And: are you able to build a machine to turn the crank for you? A large part of the software development profession is building crank-turning machines.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#48

Post by hughperkins » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #35

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance is largely relative I think. You could have a crank that spits out pennies so long as you crank it. Invariably we will tire of turning the crank because it's monotonous uninspiring unfulfilling work. The argument could be made that someone somewhere does not have the opportunity to so easily spin a crank for money so we ought to be grateful, but the mind's adaptability is a double edged sword. You exalt the…

Inspiring fulfilling work is a luxury not everyone can afford, and it is a conceit of the modern world that meaning and fulfillment in your life should come from your employment.

Not really. Computers let us create any virtual environment we want, fulfill all of our fantasies. so what do we use it for? Play cs: simulate approximately tribal warfare, and hunting for food. Genetically this is what millions of years of evolution programmed us to enjoy.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#49

Post by hughperkins » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #47

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a lot of variation in how that job could satisfy various psychological needs. Is the crank well-maintained, or is it continually catching, grinding, or breaking down? Are you rewarded for turning the crank more and provided with high-quality feedback about that reward, or is there merely an unceasing open-loop demand that you turn the crank "as fast as possible"? Do you know the function of the crank and…

And: are you able to build a machine to turn the crank for you? A large part of the software development profession is building crank-turning machines.

Well, recently we are creating machines to build crank turning machines.

Re: Motivational Incongruence and Well-Being at the Workplace

#50

Post by quotemstr » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #42

a-saleh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems weird to me that some workplace would mandate physical(?) pair-programming as a default. And I actually like pair-programming, some of my best code was written with somebody sitting besides me and we have solved some really tricky bugs like this. But we tend to do this only rarely. Most of my day is spent organizing stuff and reading emails anyway :-)

I love pair programming teams, and would not want to work anywhere else. Of course, a team like that needs to only hire people who are up for that lifestyle.

It takes all types, I guess. I would sooner quit a job than pair program 20% of the time, much less 100%. I do my best work alone, in the dark, in the middle of the night. I don't think there's a tech company on earth that could pay me enough to spend dozens of hours each week sharing a keyboard and monitor with someone.