zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
I tend to consider bullshit any point that finds somehow acceptable thinking that people is lazy, in this society, in this world, on this planet, ffs we have to work 40 hrs per week per decades and rest after reincarnation, and you want to talk about laziness? Let's talk about how any bit of mental energy is extracted to built other's wealth and then when you are too old to do nothing other than watching work in progress they just spit you out

when I am supposed to fix tech debt? if every week there is another functionality going out that needs to be done yesterday? Do you think that I have to do it in my free time? Why should I even bother existing

>>lnxg33+h1
That's how I burned out of software.

On a mature project in a small team, the only tickets left were hard bugs that nobody wanted. The kind of bugs where you can invest days and have nothing really to show for it except crossing out some suspicions. Or maybe incorrectly crossing one out and then going on a wild goose chase until you circle back to it in a week, flustered.

You're expected to commit all of your mental energy to these tickets day after day, and then once you finally triumph and solve the bug after coffee or amphetamine binges, you turn in the code, close the ticket, and you're expected to immediately work on the next ticket.

You don't get a real break. But you can mentally rest at the start of the next ticket since nobody expects instant results. But now it's been a couple days and people are asking you what you've been doing so far—you must be blocked, right?—but you've barely started and you're pressured to invent small lies and excuses about why you're behind, each one risking yet another slip of the mask.

And when you need some time off the most, it's when you're the most behind of all and people have begun to notice, so taking the time off doesn't even seem like an option.

>>hombre+U4
I hope that people who suffer from exhaustion and a lack of breaks are setting realistic expectations for themselves, and not simply assuming that they need to push themselves to (or past) their limit. It is a rare manager who encourages you to work less, but it is (in my experience) a common manager who understands that breaks and self care are important. They just need to be reminded sometimes. You can push back, and a healthy organization will respect you for it.

>>stiiv+va
Crazy enough, I'm from the management school that believes the work is only the tool to develop the person and pay the bills. I will always sacrifice the work for the worker. It's sad that the majority of managers see this in reverse.

>>lamber+Mz
> I will always sacrifice the work for the worker.

The attitude I see most often is: "the worker is replaceable and therefore expendable, but the work will always be there until someone takes care of it so burn through as many workers as it takes to get it done"

>>autoex+WZ
I like to call this zero sum management, and the parent to your post is a good example of positive sum management.

As long as the business is making money, the prospect of it continuing to make money in the near and medium term future is not in jeopardy, and the actors involved are rational, capable and trustworthy, you should always favor the worker over the work.

IME, zero sum management is an emergent symptom of a poorly performing business (maybe if we make everybody work 150% harder we’ll hit our targets this quarter), insecure executives (who don’t understand the work they manage), or poor hiring/firing practices (the only way to let somebody go is by overloading them and rewarding it with a poor performance review, or you’re hiring people who aren’t capable or don’t care).

If you’re a manager forced to make zero sum decisions and don’t feel empowered to change the root of that problem, you should probably consider leaving — good environments grow people instead of expending people.