Comment by trevelyan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trevelyan | Hacker News Reader

This was a sticking point for me in my last job as a programmer, where the owners had actually instituted a punchcard system I routinely ignored. I'm more sensitive to it now that I'm running my own business and hiring people though. The problem isn't generally having a single person come in late. It's that this can affect social perceptions of what general work effort should be. Especially in a small office it is easy for working hours to creep down and soon everyone is starting work an hour late and leaving half an hour early.

It is easy to say, "I'm only going to hire self-motivated people and if they can't get the work done they're fired." But the reality is most people aren't like that. And it's a hassle to have to fire people if they can be productive with more management.

So I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is, but I think HN would be better served by an actual discussion of practical solutions rather than rants by disaffected programmers howling with rage at being asked to keep regular hours. On the employee side, I still believe doing really good work solves pretty much all of your problems if you can effectively communicate what you're doing to the manager (and put in the required time). On the employer side, giving people a bit of slack (30 minutes), a fair degree of autonomy and coming down on them hard if/when they miss their deadlines is the best I've been able to come up with. I'd welcome a better discussion of this since as a manager I don't want to have to waste my time micromanaging this stuff either.

One thing I've seen work is to make it clear that, while you have the liberty of working odd hours if you so please, your work product will be under greater scrutiny to make sure you can "handle it".

Make it clear that it is a privilege which can be revoked. This lets your alpha programmers who like to work odd hours excel and keeps your mediocre programmers who might be tempted to mail it in from even trying it (because there's nothing mediocre devs loath more than heightened scrutiny).

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

When I managed a team of people who had "unusual" working hours I made a point of trying to subtly communicate to people who might get upset what was going on in the team:

"Thanks to Bob working to 3am this morning we are all set to give the demo to XYZ"

Do that before Bob comes in at lunchtime an he get treated like a hero rather than being resented. If Bob is always working funny hours then after a while people accept it and assume that he has always been doing something heroic when he comes in at lunchtime.

Of course, being the manager of such folks you actually do have to be able to know that all this is actually worth it from a business perspective.

Especially in a small office it is easy for working hours to creep down and soon everyone is starting work an hour late and leaving half an hour early.

This illustrates one of the attitudes I believe the OP is satirizing: that butt-in-seat time is equal to work time.

Programming[1] isn't a profession where one stops being productive just because the keyboard isn't under the fingers. Even if it were, the office is far from being the only place a keyboard is located.

[1] and perhaps all creative endeavors

Programmers aren't the only people in an office and there are social norms which affect general productivity. I don't give people deathmarches and don't ask people to work overtime (a social norm!). But I will get rid of someone if their behavior leads the rest of the team to slack off or miss targets.

Personally, I think the poster is wrong to complain about not being allowed to work 30 hours a week when he has a fulltime job, but that's his issue with his employer. In my experience, if you want to rock the boat, you've got to be able to manage the communication and signaling problems that creates in the workplace. This guy is offloading that problem to his manager and doesn't seem to understand the issues he might be creating. So it isn't that I don't understand his point. It's that I don't think his sarcasm offers any practical advice for the people he's complaining about other than "let me do it my way".

"I will get rid of someone if their behavior leads the rest of the team to slack off or miss targets."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you allow the team to use an individual as a scapegoat and not take responsibility for their own actions.

Could you elaborate on this? Why do you think this is the best course of action rather than dealing with the people that are not being responsible for their own work? If you let people get away with not taking responsibility once, won't they continue to do it in the future?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you allow the team to use an individual as a scapegoat and not take responsibility for their own actions.

Despite disagreeing in principle with the OC, I don't think this is at all what he was suggesting.

Rather, he was presenting a "view from the top," where if he were to perceive a negative influence (whether or not the influenced parties were, themselves, aware), he would eliminate it.

> I could easily imagine a situation, however, where this is not the > desired outcome, such as in a company where software is only a > minor component.

Perceptive point by mmt - I do most of the programming work myself. I don't know if I'd feel the same way if a critical employee doing coding for a major system behaved this way.

I wouldn't knowingly hire someone like that though, and unless someone was truly critical, I'd rather send them on their way than have them create a situation in which their behavior negatively affected office norms, yes. My business is quite small and doesn't have professional managers, so mmt's expectation that there is a level there to deal with this stuff is wrong. Problems are just more work on my plate and distract from the things that people pay us for.

I think you're still missing the OP's point: if you, as a manager, think in this way, you'll end up with what he calls "crappy" programmers.

I didn't find him to be complaining about anything per se, nor mentioning "fulltime job":

Never mind that a good programmer can produce more valuable work in a 30-hour workweek from home than a crappy programmer can toiling 60 hours in the office.

Rather, he's pointing out a contrast between two extreme, but plausible, situations.

This guy is offloading that problem to his manager

What's the manager's job if not, as you put it, to manage the communication and signaling problems that creates in the workplace? Still, I come back to the impression that you're thinking about this out of context:

doesn't seem to understand the problems he might be creating.

Again, I allege that's not the programmer's job. The programmer's job is to create, and the manager's job is to maximize the creativity while minimizing problems.

It's that I don't think his sarcasm offers any practical advice.

I agree that the practical advice may be masked by the tone or form.

This is the advice as I interpret it:

If you want to maximize the productivity of your programmers and ensure the most talented and most producive ones stay, avoid the listed behaviors, even if there are some negative consequences. If your business is software, I have a hard time believing that "general productivity" among the others in the office would improve enough to offset getting rid of someone working on the core competency.

On the other hand, I could easily imagine a situation, however, where this is not the desired outcome, such as in a company where software is only a minor component. In that case, your firmer hand on scheduling seems far more beneficial.

On the other hand, I could easily imagine a situation, however, where this is not the desired outcome, such as in a company where software is only a minor component. In that case, your firmer hand on scheduling seems far more beneficial.

The problem I think people will have with this article is that he doesn't acknowledge this point.

Programming is a very wide field. In some cases creativity is a priority; the stereotype of the genius rock star developer hacking a business defining solution. For the majority of cases however, programming is all about communication with your team and with your stakeholders which is why core business hours are useful.

That's the problem with articles like these that they treat all programming equally. What's appropriate in one setting or for a particular developer is not appropriate for everyone.

That being said, if you can't allow your developers some flexibility and rely on them to behave like responsible individuals (re: internet access or time keeping) then the problem is with your staff and no amount of strict policies will fix that.

I still laughed at the article though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com