1912
I'm so good at time management that I hardly work at all
(media.kbin.run)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
1912 points (98.4% liked)
Memes
45544 readers
657 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Here's my view as an executive, if my folks regularly add hours to their day/week to get their job done they're not good at their job. If they're good at their job they know how to prioritize and they also know how to optimize and automate constantly so they can do more with less. They also do their form of zero base reporting or zero base budgeting constantly to get rid of what was once important that no longer is.
To be fair in senior leadership a 40 hour week probably isn't going to happen but you should swing between 55 hours and 30 hours depending on the week and average it to the mid to high 40s.
I suspect this isn't going to be a popular post, and I accept your down votes but would also like to hear your contrary view along with it if you don't mind.
I'd say there's also something to be said about an overbearing workload. If everyone is constantly struggling to get things done in time then more staff could be needed. But yeah, if it's the same ones over and over and only them, then investigating why makes sense.
If the majority of the people the majority of the time have the same result then it's the system not the people.
So yeah it could be a systemic issue, it's my job to prevent or correct that.
Look to the managers. They often suck, and shit rolls downhill.
Agreed! Luckily they're fairly easy to replace as long as you don't build systems that won't allow them to fail.
A decade or more before COVID my favorite tool was to let everyone work from home. Those that sucked at their job wouldn't get anything done. HR would just ask we bring them all in and I'd refuse. If they can't be trusted to work without supervision they can't be trusted to work with it.
Now keep in mind we have to be reasonable people and not driving our people beyond reasonableness.
Ditch your suite, and go into executive exclusive consultancy.
Just paraphrase the quoted section for each individual thick skull, and maybe teach them that softening the skin around your eyes and giving the beleaguered high performers bringing feedback a knowing look doesn't violate business needs.
Then you won't have to worry about posts starting with "as an executive" going wrong.
Well, no not really, but I know a board that needs to internalize that sentiment.
The problem is you need a executive body that already agrees with you to select you from their choices of consultant. We're not rational creatures and are our personal biases make it so we're more likely to hire the consultant that reflects our preconceived ideas
I'm not sure why you got a down vote for saying someone should help change the whole system but here is an up vote to help fix it.
And bottom line that won't work. It won't because American organizations are dictatorships and dictatorships always end up that way. I do what I can to fight it but I know my efforts have limited impact outside of my departments.
For some "light" reading, try The Doctors Handbook and Cultish. Both amazing books that do a great job outlining why the systems work the way they do and changing the system is what's needed to change the default output.
Germany to an extent and some Nordic countries do a good job of this on paper. I can't say I've read enough to speak intelligently about their solutions though.
Or they have too much work
In a broken or toxic system, yup that very much could be it.
I can see that you're engaging thoughtfully and in good faith, but that's a pretty glaring omission from your original post.
Even in organizations that are healthy in many ways for most people, there can still be people who are stretched thin and don't feel empowered to throttle their workload for whatever reason.
Culture for most people begins and ends at their boss. And if they don't feel empowered it's often because of their boss and the culture their boss creates.
This topic like most are more nuanced than this, sometimes it's that person's own history and issues and not the bosses, like maybe past locations are childhood and so on. But this things aren't really something a boss can do anything about. The boss is responsible for creating a healthy environment that encourages healthy boundaries and the measurement is that they are getting the results from the majority of the people the majority of the time.
Is the measurement that they're getting the results, or is it that they aren't working extra hours? "Getting the results from the majority of the people the majority of the time" is exactly how I'd expect an executive to handwave employees burning out due to the kind of environment we're talking about. Not everybody is going to manifest visible problems at the same time, so it will just look like a handful "not working out" every once in awhile, which is to be expected.
It could describe a healthy environment equally well... But my point is just that your formulation ("Results from the majority of the people the majority of the time") doesn't seem to me to have the ability to distinguish between a healthy and a toxic environment.
The phrase applies to negative results not positive ones because the rest of the phrase is it's not the people it's the system which implies a problem not a good result. Going through all the details of the system is more than I'm willing to type. If you'd like to know more these are a few of my favorite resources.
Multipliers by Liz Wiseman
Beyond Command and Control by John Seddon
First Break All the Rules by Marcus Buckingham
The Effective Manager by Mark Horstman
Dare to Lead by Brene Brown
The Effective Executive by Peter F. Drucker
You're Not Listening by Kate Murphy
Four Thousand Weeks by Oliver Burkeman
Oh, sorry for misunderstanding you. I'm used to "getting results" as referring to achieving measurable business objectives, but the meaning changes completely if you meant the opposite, and I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in that case.
Thanks for the recommendations. I will look at those.
I know lots of senior management and companies that only do a 40 hour work week. if you are doing 55 there is too much work for the staff employed.
It's a swing, see, 30 - 55. In 2023 I averaged 46 hours a week with a low of 30 hours and a high of 57 hours. That's excluding the 5 partial weeks due to PTO and the full weeks off due to PTO and holiday weeks. I feel this for me is a healthy amount.
If you want to put in more time, thats on you obviously. But I see CEO/CFO and othe4 senior management doing 40, and employees doing the same. it has to be driven top down as a culture. Thankfully I'm in BC so management/salary gets extra hours paid, but I still don't want them.
You're right, for sure.
But also you mention the petty tyrants, keep in mind they demand from us what they voluntarily give. When executives associate dedication with 45 hours week averages they demand we show dedication too.
I think there’s something serious to be said for even executives attempting to move all of our society towards a shorter work week. Though I acknowledge that that doesn’t fall into something any one person can do. I also am not sure whether it’s more likely to arrive top down or bottom up.
I think this is a great point. One thing I haven't mentioned is I'm clear with my folks if it only takes 20 hours to get the job done they can do whatever they want with the rest of the time, they're exempt afterall. I've only had one person fully take me up on it and he was referred to as 7' Jesus. To be clear he was 6'6” but I guess rounding was fine. And he only worked about 25 hours a week for me but killed it with what I needed and was happy.
Most people work about what I do but they know they can take time for themselves wherever and regularly do.
One person has a new born and doing half Fridays for the foreseeable future which I think is great. I encouraged more but that's all she wants.
This seems pretty reasonable IMO. What are biggest reasons 40 hour week won't happen for senior leadership?
Mostly irregularity of what needs to happen. Some weeks everything you can imagine needs to happen now, other weeks not much needs to happen. I've learned not to shove my slow weeks with irrelevant busy work so I can ebb and flow with the work.
Last week with this SaaS implementation I was so busy I couldn't see straight. Right now I'm chilling on Lemmy and thinking about what other famous movie scenes I can enhance with Muppets lol.
american psycho but pat bateman is beaker
This is pretty close. It's hard to get exacts but I'm happy with it!
For this and everything you've said in this thread you are a role model!
Lol you're welcome, and thank you...?
Here is the one that got me started on it, I'm particularly happy with it. Do you know the movie? I may or may not judge you if you get it wrong 😂
Just recently watched for the 10th something time, its funny that Marcellus eventually does look like a bitch with the ballgag in his mouth.
Thx for the laughs!
😂
Free advice: Don't do unpayed overtime and it will regulate itself. I work 36h/week and if there was too much work planned for me in a 2 week sprint I use the overtime to get a free Friday now and then.
Everything above 40h/week is unhealthy, at least for me, it is! In the near future I will ask for 32h/week; had that in a previous job and it was fantastic.
I sort of do that and have most of my career with my people. If I'm aware they've put in a bunch of hours I'll ask them to take time off on me. I'm sure I'm not always aware and I know it's against company policy but I've never been busted for it. But I don't make it an official policy just to stay on the safe side of company policy. I'm sure if someone found out and complained I'd not be able to do it anymore.
Are you hiring!?
Once the hiring freeze is over we should have two positions in one of my departments open. Both requiring heavy automation, AI, analytics skills.
Important question: Pulumi or Terraform?