Hacker News Reader

Comment by sagichmal | Hacker News Reader

> I got dinged on a performance review for ignoring slack messages sent at 6pm.

Ugh, that's not reasonable on your manager's part.

> I have to refuse meeting requests after 3pm, and if I get pushback, I offer to reschedule for 5am.

That's also not really reasonable on your part. Of course it all depends on dynamics and mutual understanding, but 3pm is certainly well within "core hours" of a normal working day, and 5am certainly isn't.

View on HN

> but 3pm is certainly well within "core hours" of a normal working day, and 5am certainly isn't.

So I get that, but how else can I approach the situation when I have to leave the office at 3pm in order to get to the daycare in time? I'm not truly expecting the rest of the world to adopt my schedule, but the reason I start working at 4 is precisely to compensate for not being available in the late afternoon. If anything I'm over-compensating because as I said, I usually end up working 11 hours a day.

It's sad that people who stay late are routinely lauded as committed heroes, but I get no points for getting 5 or 6 hours of solid work done before most of the company even gets started!

Again, I understand that 9-6 (used to be 9-5) is conventional core hours, so how can I defray negative perceptions when I'm physically unable to join meetings or respond to slack messages? Seriously I would love some advice on how to handle this, it's highly stressful and I'm always coming off sounding defensive :(

Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege. I think it's a great thing and I think that it's totally fine to work non-standard hours, but I also think that if you are going to make the choice to not be in the office during core hours (I'd consider 9-5 "core" but I think companies should define this) then it's also your responsibility to be available during those core hours when it's necessary. If a meeting needs to be held at 3 (which is a completely reasonable meeting time within core hours) and you need to be at that meeting then I think it's on you to make accommodations for that by having someone else pick up your kids that day or making some other arrangements since it's your choice to work a nonstandard schedule. Same goes for a 9am meeting and someone who comes in at 11am. In a work environment where employees can make their own schedule I think having "core hours" where every employee is expected to be available at least sometimes is totally reasonable since otherwise your personal schedule is going to be negatively affecting your job performance, and that's a personal responsibility issue, not a job issue.

> Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege.

I'd like to challenge this, if you'll bear with me. I am not a cog in a machine, I'm not performing mindless repetitive tasks. My work requires exacting concentration and the liberty to set aside large blocks of uninterrupted time in order to be fully productive. I will spin this around: personally, I believe my company should feel privileged to have me work for them. Don't dare tell me I should grovel and feel grateful to my masters allowing me the privilege of a flexible work schedule. Why would they purposely enact counter-productive tactics that would not enable me to perform this work most efficiently?

In full disclosure, I do have one standing meeting one day a week at 4pm. On that day my partner will handle the daycare pickup. So I am not categorically opposed to later meetings. What I get upset about is being asked at noon to join a meeting at 4pm on the same day. It is impossible to make the necessary arrangements with such short notice. That's when I get snarky and say how about 5am tomorrow.

I understand that by convention it's reasonable to expect people to available during usual 9-5 hours. But don't use the language of "personal responsibility issue" with me about this. I will not allow any implication that I am being irresponsible or slacking off work simply because my schedule demands that I typically leave work at 3pm. It is deeply offensive to me because as I already said, I work my ass off and am far more productive than I used to be when I worked 10-7.

In principle I agree with you (see my other comment), but would also suggest that what you're doing requires a bit more communication.

For example, making sure all of your managers are totally bought in. If you were dinged as unresponsive, probably at least one person wasn't fully bought in or clear on the terms, right?

Same with your team, they should be able to see clearly on your calendar what times are blocked out. And there should be a note taped near your desk. And maybe an auto responder during off hours explaining how you can best help them.

Did I mention that even after syncing with managers on this, you'll probably have to periodically refresh their memory for as long as you work there?

Nothing at all wrong with what you're doing, but setting expectations is so important and requires diligence.

Thank you, that is excellent advice. I didn't consider the utility of ongoing communication and you're absolutely right about setting appropriate expectations with everyone, especially those I may not deal with on a daily basis.

Diplomacy is better than defensiveness. I do want people to know that I'm accessible, and should do a better job of spreading that message.

I'm with czep on this one.

I think this is good advice in the context of the OP's current situation. However, the concept of "core hours" is a somewhat outdated legacy of industrialization, and is of questionable value in the knowledge economy, with all of the innovations in communication available to us now. For example, many companies employ foreign workers who are not around during "core hours", and while it presents challenges for communication, companies that are motivated find ways to make it work. I suspect that companies able to be flexible about where, when and how much employees work will have a competitive advantage in the next decade.

I call bullshit - This sounds like you are defining artificial constraints based on what fits your personal experiences and preferences.

The imperative is to hire and retain superior talent. If you're going after a top performer and they say right up front "I'm interested but can you work with me on a bit on scheduling?", usually the correct answer is yes.

Even if it were an easy to fill a position my inclination would be to try and accommodate the person. It gives you a chance to pay it forward at very little cost to you.

This is what good leaders do - they find ways to attract great people and motivate them by building a foundation of goodwill.

If your hours are 4a-3p then those are your hours and you shouldn't be put in the position of having to defend them. Anyone who interacts with you should know that, should schedule meetings accordingly, and that's kind of it. If people are expecting you to do things after 3p then you remind them that you work a different schedule. If they still press you then that's on them for being unprofessional and you can escalate up the power chain as you see fit.

Scheduling a meeting for 5am does not overlap with most people, while scheduling a meeting at 3pm does. You understood that when you scheduled it for a time that you were available and your coworkers weren't.

They're not wrong for wanting what they want, and you're not wrong for wanting something else. Find a job where you don't have to be online at 3pm sometimes or 6pm anytime. There are good jobs out there that will accommodate that.

While you are right that 5am is well outside of normal working hours, I have been at places that will do a 4pm meeting but won't do a 11am meeting because "a number of people won't be in, or won't be ready," and so on. I like the point that was trying to be made. This is why in organizations I run I actually restrict meetings to no more than 60 minutes per day as must be better 10am and 2pm. It's amazing how few meetings organizations really need to get work done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com