Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

>And that they probably are also not afraid to use that 'full bandwidth', disrupting everyone workflow, repeatedly, like calling an hour long team status update meeting for a communication that could have perfectly occurred in a 2 line email message.

To be frank, people using IM to communicate with me disrupt my flow a lot more. They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear. You can't do that face to face.

Face to face (or even telephone) forces people to prepare. Rarely do I see people work that way with IM. People tend to realize that they are interrupting someone if it's a face to face. In my experience, many (most?) workers don't view IM as a significant interruption to the other party. So they feel much more free in using it.

View on HN

>They start a thread/conversation/request, and then are slow to respond, or disappear.

That's the primary benefit of qorking remotely IMO. Not having to immediately stop everything im doing allows me to stay in flow state. It also improves the quality of my responses and solutions since i can let the request percolate in my head. Usually, I come up better answers when Im not actively thinking

So what's the benefit over just sending an email? If I do not need to respond immediately, why do I need an immediate notification (sound + popup/flashing window) that you've sent me an IM? Let it go to my email and I'll think about it after reading the email.

>Not having to immediately stop everything im doing allows me to stay in flow state.

So is it OK in remote work for me to turn off IM for 2-4 hours to remain in flow state? If not, then there will be no flow state for me.

That does not strike me as a quality of remote work. That seems to me to be more a cultural issue with the team in question. I have seen plenty of teams have a “heads down” mode where they are effectively on Do Not Disturb despite being in the office.

Conversely, I’ve seen plenty of “mandatory meetings” in remote work as well. Neither paradigm seems particularly advantageous.

And that's exactly why managers aren't interested in people working remotely.

Good managers ask when they actually need something and they expect those working for them to accommodate such requests immediately. That is why, after all, they are managers.

Bad managers IMO. Since their work should be minimize interruptions and facilitate communication inside and across teams.

No, the work of the manager is to do whatever is needed to deliver the result on the task assigned to them, including if necessary decisions to scrap, mothball, reassign, adjust, ignore whatever is happening in the company based on current/future state of the group they manage or based on the situation of the company.

That's why they are managers and not low level developers. Developer does not like it? Well, a developer can migrate to writing less code and caring more about business related stuff. It is not like those who can write serializer cannot figure if a certain fire drill is required based on the amount of $$ coming in from a customer who is affected by a bug/wants something.

>No, the work of the manager is to do whatever is needed to deliver the result on the task assigned to them

You missed the part where the manager has to evaluate and push back if needed. If their primary role is merely to do what their bosses tell them to, then they are not doing any managing.

Fine, call them supervisors.

99% of the companies can replace 75% of the managers with supervisors ( foreman in constructions/manufacturing ) and get a better result. Most of the "teams" inside organizations dont need managers - they need supervisors as organization does not need to have mini fiefdoms.

Except they shouldn't be supervisors, they should be facilitators.

You are missing the point of what a manager is.

That just shows your lack of information on how to manage knowledge workers.

Good managers know how to ship products by knowing how to manage knowledge workers and removing friction in the communication inside and outside the team.

1. Bad managers are a lot more common than good ones.

2. Good managers set direction and exist to acquire resources for the team and eliminate barriers out of the way of the team when they are headed in that direction. Their role is not to interrupt the team so that they can answer a question from upper management.

3. Most of half of urgent manager requests are due to lack of planning either on their part or on their manager's part. They knew they needed this information a few days ago, but felt "it's OK to interrupt the team when I really need it".

4. Most of the other half are due to their inability to push back.

5. There will be times when the managers do need information urgently. It is then their responsibility to accept the hit in productivity that it incurs.

I've worked with both good and bad managers. The good ones have these qualities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com