Hacker News Reader

It's industry, role, and company dependent more than country dependent.

A lot depends upon what you are paid to deliver. If you're a software engineer, you are paid to deliver working software. You can deliver that software more efficiently if you do not let yourself be interrupted; hence, most good bosses will be okay with a "Shhh, not right now, send me an e-mail" if it's clear you're in the zone on a hard problem. And if you have a bad boss that cares more about attention than results, you should look for a new job anyway.

Same goes for traders, fund managers, and quants in finance - you are paid to make money, and it doesn't matter how rude you are as long as you deliver that.

It most certainly won't work for an administrative assistant, where you are paid to save time for your executive. It won't work for an advertising or marketing exec or salesperson, where you are paid for collaborative, face-to-face interactions. It probably won't even work for a lawyer or investment banking associate, where you are paid to be a partner's bitch.

> If you're a software engineer, you are paid to deliver working software.

No, you're paid to deliver solutions. Often the best way to get the solution you need is to make sure the N engineers around you are being productive.

Again, that depends on your role. Very often (usually depending on seniority) you actually are paid to deliver working code.

There've been times where the most productive use of my time was to answer questions all day long and not write a single line of code. There've also been times where my job was to shield the engineers on my team and intercept anyone who tried to talk to them. But a lot of the time - I am writing the code. If I don't write the code, it won't get written. The guy being paid to deliver solutions is an executive several levels above me on the org chart who's been with the company since he was the one heads-down writing code, and then it's my manager's job to shield me from everyone who wants to talk to me.

This is company dependent rather than country. When I was early in my career as a software dev I felt like I could never say no. I would continue to take on additional work which translated to more hours.

Eventually my manager at the time did the best thing he could for me. He asked me into his office for a "talk". Then he told me that he didn't want to lose me because I burned out. He said, "Look, you have to learn to say no to people. If you aren't comfortable doing that then tell them to run it by me; and then I'll say no."

This is the solution. Your manager understood his job, and its impact on yours. Everyone should be so lucky. So far, I have been! At my first job, my boss told me right off not to let everyone who comes by add work to my pile. It's hard to do at first. After all, your first reaction is to be helpful. But after a while you see the benefit of being able to to deflect things to your manager and have him prioritize the workload.

It's not even company dependent.

Where I work, the entire culture changed from "let's work together to make everything better" to "you drop everything RIGHT NOW if the boss decides that they have a personal project" when a new one took over.

...and so I will be starting my new job in a couple of weeks.

Your suggested solution makes sense to me. I find myself doing this more and more. The place where I get the least amount of work (at least my work) done is the office, so I tend to work at nights or sometimes simply work from home the entire day.

Some people get personally offended if you don't stop what you are doing to talk to them. I have a feeling that this is harder for people that work for IT departments, because people in other departments don't understand the cost associated to an interruption like that.

This cartoon says it all: http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-...

I agree with the above.

Forgive me for being cynical about the whole premise.

Saying no like this can also be used by people that fake being busy. The same way they always walk with a notepad and pens, and other such tricks.

So Dustin said "Not now!", and the author extrapolated this to a parable about how people at Facebook are so dedicated and productive that they are willing to be borderline rude to serve the company.

Dustin said "Not now", and that's it. It does not mean much.

Behind every moral and lesson is an extrapolated story

Yes, but it does not mean that any event can or should be extrapolated into a lesson or moral.

In summary: I'd love to say "no", but the person who hired and can fire me demands I say "yes"

There's two sides to that: you can always quit.

A can also choose not to eat, but that's not a real choice. Not even a Sophie's choice.

In this hiring climate, you can always eat (work) elsewhere.

Even though it might be difficult, it is some extremely useful and accurate advice.

The overarching point is that you need to focus on what's truly important.

This does not mean you need to be rude or outright say "no" in a blunt or un-tactful way. You can come up with any way you like to manage those interruptions and distractions. The point is that people who truly get things completed usually keep their focus and know how to say no to things that aren't truly important.

It's extremely useful to me at this point in my career, and I can think of others who have the same issue, being constantly busy with less important "now" items and being unable to focus on what I believe is really important. Part of it is the company, the people, and that I'm able to do many things; but most of the problem is in how I manage those inputs, and what I train people to do. It's my responsibility to manage my own time to reach the greatest impact, and in doing that, the company will improve; even for the people who think they needed my time urgently.

I'm a huge systems thinker and I generally try not to blame individuals for problems, but this is something I recognize as being almost totally on me.

It doesn't have to be demoralizing. I oftentimes say not now, shoot me an email, Skype or ask me after lunch. It has created a culture where they interrupt me only if it is urgent enough to warrent I get out of my workflow and have to restart it.

I believe this is what the article is all about.

He said "no" because it is normal to assume that what the author was about to say had no contribution toward his priorities. Had it been important enough, he would've know about it. This is a sign that the person say "no" is a great time and resource manager.