He doesnt do much other than be available 12-16h 6-7days a week. It's taking more toll than one would expect.
- Why would anyone pick a healer in an MMO group ? What's so great about becoming a healer ? How's that better than playing a DPS, actually contributing to killing the boss and letting someone else worry about your health bar ?
- What is fun about plying support in DOTA ? I mean the fun is being the carry and killing everyone on the other team to win games ? How can anyone willingly waste his gold to buy visibility wards, that is really not fun at all.
The healer/support/manager (="helper") position appeals to people who like to focus less on the pure "productive" task at hand. They like to focus on getting a full picture of everything that is happening, anticipating potential issues, fixing them, and allowing the DPS/carry/engineer (="producers") to be in the best possible position so they can perform their job. This can be fun for some people even if you don't see it that way. This often is really not an easy task. This often is critical for the success of the team.
And just like there are good and bad "producers" there are good and bad "helpers". The skillset is different, the measure of value creation is different, and the fun is different.
I've often struggled to articulate the reasons I enjoy these positions over a "producers" role. This will help - thank you.
I want to know the analogy of healers that rage quit (they do so more than DPSs or Tanks) with the entire manager/subordinate thing ;)
A decade later, you are an expert in the technologies that company uses, are paid well, and have good working conditions. But a recession comes, the company has a couple of bad years, and is taken over by a private equity firm. They decide you are too expensive and you're laid off.
You have 15 years experience as an IC, are a master of your craft, and no one wants to hire you. Principal engineers are promoted from within rather than hire from without. You are willing to start lower down the totem poll at a new place, but hiring managers believe that you'll leave at the first chance, or be disgruntled at the pay/seniority cut, or are just plain intimated by you. Realistically you are looking at a couple of decades of contracting. That's not the worst thing in the world, there are some upsides, but it's not the pure IC work you had been hoping for--it means decades of hustling.
Now look at the other career path. 6-7 years as an IC, 2-3 years as a engineering lead, 4-5 years as a engineering manager. If you get laid off at that point, besides all the engineering manager positions you can go for, you can also position yourself as a engineering VP / CTO of a smaller company. No one is overqualified for that, and the CEO that does the hiring isn't going to be intimated.
I'm not saying that you need to decide that reduced career risk (and probably extra money) are worth moving to the leadership track from the less stressful IC track, but isn't some incomprehensible choice.
I really hope that by the time I get there and get laid off in a recession or restructuring, I'll be retiring. I love software, but not enough to do it for longer than I have to and for someone else.
If you double your hours, raise your pay to 150 units and inflate your lifestyle by 25% (from 80 units to 100 units), you are now making 150, spending 100 (with more luxury), and saving 50 units (250% of what you were saving before).
That might be considered a trade-up (and is more or less the path I chose).
In fact IMHO many prefer availability to productivity. Being available 40-50h a week is rather tiring though and it can affect productivity.
For example I found that I perform better on a 32h/week. The availability problem can be solved by having the team cover the full week (different shifts with overlapping days).
Almost nobody can do more than 3 hours of heavy concentration/flow work regularly. Add another two or three hours for meetings, answering emails, triaging bugs, etc. and you get ~30h per week. When I'm in a position to do so, I tell my team that I'd rather have 3 hours of great work than 6 or 8 hours of mediocre work full of mistakes.
Still, it's an uphill battle culturally. And sometimes even developers don't like it, since they can't hide a lack of output behind hours in the office. I think this is a positive, because as a team lead you notice issues quicker, e.g. if someone is having a rough week. But it's also a good way to "unmask" people who e.g. embellished their skill level during the hiring process and maybe aren't a great fit for the role. That way, you can get them the training they need, or find them a different role.
This is partially true if:
1) you only hire young folks 2) you don't care about long term health of your team
Based on this philosophy I could work 90h/week and get even more done i.e. there is always work to be done but IMHO this way of working is unhealthy and not sustainable.
Personally for me it takes more time than the average to recharge so having a shorter working week helps with recharging and do well next week and be productive. And by that I mean being equally productive to a "full time".
> if you aren't paying 100% attention, that doesn't cost money
I'd argue it can cost you money, in different ways.
I guess it can only go so far because some social time with family and friends have to be focused.
I think "working from home" means something different to different people...
Some of my coworkers view it differently though and it becomes difficult to collaborate because they are running around doing other things during core hours. It is kind of an internal battle because I don't want the privilege taken from me.
"Vacation" travel: Haven't done this myself (outside visiting family) but have had colleagues who did it without issue. Available and worked in the day, did vacation things in the evening presumably.
When they want you to work extra hours, there's no argument. There's the project and the deadline.
Come a slow day or two, though, or the need to take an hour or three for a personal task (see the doctor, for example), and there's no automatic, corresponding flexibility from them.
Oh, your manager may grant you the time, but it's always at their discretion and a "favor" in return for your "good behavior."
Gee, thanks. :-/
By the way, the positions are "exempt", but there's no hour-by-hour management of associates that requires constant attention. The whole definition of "exempt" is skewed to fix labor costs rather than provide (and pay, at a higher fixed level) for real "management of employees". Hell, often I'm not even directly interfacing with anyone who is non-exempt.
Butts in seats. In my mind, it goes along with the "open space" paradigm. It's not actually about being "efficient"; it's about appearances, and control.
Like the one petty tyrant manager who wouldn't let us upgrade woefully outdated and overly expensive process, because he might lose some headcount. His status and "security" were, in his mind -- and perhaps even correctly -- tied to that headcount.
And... I suppose low cube walls helped to "show it off."
P.S. I actually got along pretty well, including with my management. Perhaps too easy-going.
As I've had time to reflect back upon all this, my resentment has grown and hardened. A LOT of wasted time and energy.
If/when you start feeling this way, look around not just at the ostensible work you have to complete, but at the system and environment in which you are expected to complete it.
Which are the real problems?
That's what I've found especially with my current job.
I can sit for a whole long time doing Nothing. I mean literally Nothing. I could tap out to see a 2.5h movie, come back, and nobody would have noticed.
But "I'm available". Oh but of course, I'll press this button for you. Let me refer you to the "subject matter expert". And no, there's nothing explicitly for me to actually do.
I can't wait for this contract to be over.
One thing my colleagues always value that I’m willing to respond at any time. It means most people come to me with their problems and my value to the business has increased (removing blockers from others).