Employee Burnout Is a Problem with the Company, Not the Person (hbr.org)

Employee burnout is a common phenomenon, but it is one that companies tend to treat as a talent management or personal issue rather than a broader organizational challenge. That's a mistake, reads an article on HBR. From the article: The psychological and physical problems of burned-out employees, which cost an estimated $125 billion to $190 billion a year in healthcare spending in the U.S., are just the most obvious impacts. The true cost to business can be far greater, thanks to low productivity across organizations, high turnover, and the loss of the most capable talent. [...] When employees aren't as productive as they could be, it's usually the organization, not its employees, that is to blame. The same is true for employee burnout. When we looked inside companies with high burnout rates, we saw three common culprits: excessive collaboration, weak time management disciplines, and a tendency to overload the most capable with too much work. These forces not only rob employees of time to concentrate on completing complex tasks or for idea generation, they also crunch the downtime that is necessary for restoration.

Comments

Hate tha game, not tha playah

[Anonymous Coward]

word up

Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers are so expensive and so hard to find that companies have to work the ones they have pretty hard and not allow them time off. I haven't had a full week off since 1993, and it sucks. Also, I typically lose two and a half weeks of vacation each year since I hit the accrual max. It gets old, but until there's enough developers, things are going to stay bad.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

To hell with losing your vacation time. I'd say, you either cut me a check for the time, give me the time off or you can go f**k yourself!

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Quirkz]

I see one anonymous post like this in every single discussion of employee benefits. I have to assume there's one guy in a cage, but with internet access, posting it the same thing repeatedly. (Often there's a jab that Asian co-workers are granted time but the anglo Americans can't get it, that I don't see here, so maybe there are two such people.)

But seriously? You've been at the same company for 24 years, and never had a full week? In the past two and a half decades you have thrown away 2.5 * 24 = 60 weeks = more than an entire year's worth of vacation? Why?????

Honestly, I find it more believable that there's some insane HR evil genius or gaslighting manager trying to convince all of Slashdot that vacations are disposable, than I do there's a person out there who forewent benefits for approximately as long as it's been since the Cubs last won the world series.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

Take your vacation. You will be more productive after. Crispy devs not only get less done, but they make more mistakes, resulting in more rework and even worse, more crap in the live codebase to workaround.

I'll believe their is an actual dev shortage when they stop wasting so much of my time. Every goddamn day they burn hours on useless meetings. Email me the minutes and leave me to do actual work.

Daily 'standups'...just no. Daily email status reports to the project manager...takes 5 minutes.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[thegarbz]

and not allow them time off

So, a practice illegal in the rest of the western world.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers are so expensive and so hard to find that companies have to work the ones they have pretty hard and not allow them time off. I haven't had a full week off since 1993, and it sucks. Also, I typically lose two and a half weeks of vacation each year since I hit the accrual max. It gets old, but until there's enough developers, things are going to stay bad.

If you're good enough, when you say, "I'm taking two weeks off!" your boss says OK.

If he says, "You're too important to take that time off." then you need to reply with, "Then I need a raise. Right now."

If you're so important they can't afford to let you take time off, you're underpaid.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[un1nsp1red]

...there's a person out there who forewent benefits for approximately as long as it's been since the Cubs last won the world series.

Since November 2016?

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[JonnyCalcutta]

I'm with you on that. I live in the UK, so its a bit different, but there are TV companies crying out to do an expose on the evil company that has worked an employee for 24 years without a week off.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[networkBoy]

Cut me a check for the *overtime* value of the lost vacation.
Pretty simple.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

What if your afraid the boss will learn how little work you actually do?

It would suck to be gone for 4 weeks, and nobody noticed you were gone. Except you weren't there to complain all the time.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[fluffernutter]

... Or maternity leave ...

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[jellomizer]

If that is the case. Find a new job and quit. Developers are not expensive but they are paid middle class pay. While most places are used to pay people at poverty rates.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

The key lie that bosses at hellholes convince their employees is: It's like this everywhere.

It's just not true.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[__aaclcg7560]

This is why I'm in IT support. My employment contracts for 10+ years have prohibited me from working overtime. My current job gives me 20 days of PTO (Paid Time Off) per year, and last year I got an extra month of pay as a Christmas bonus.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Daemonik]

Most workers have been brainwashed that their benefits are on paper only. Sure you've got 4 weeks of vacation, but if you actually use them your team lead will start noting that you're falling behind the team, not meeting performance reviews, oh we're having a round of layoffs and Bill over here invented a new form of physics that let him work quadruple time, sorry not sorry the door is over there help yourself out.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Cut me a check for the *overtime* value of the lost vacation.
Pretty simple.

No. There is no federal law requiring compensation for forfeited vacation time. Some states require that employees be compensated. None require it to be at "overtime" rate.

My company has a "use it or lose it" policy ... which is how it should be. Vacation exists for a reason and "extra pay" is not a substitute.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[__aaclcg7560]

Fortunately when the mandate to fill the toxic troll quota was handed down, it included mandatory time off for toxic trolls, otherwise everyone else would resign.

Why aren't you're taking your mandatory time off then?

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My company is that same way but then if you do try to use it they whine and bitch but that hasn't stopped me or a number of others. The worst was several years ago with a manager who absolutely insisted that he had to be able to contact me of a 2 week vacation. Eventually I did provided him with instruction on how to contact me. It started with telling him what road I was going to park my car at the end of and suggesting that he hire a trained tracker and team of dogs. I also cautioned him that since it was deer season I would have my deer rifle with me. When I tell a manager that I will be out of contact I mean it as I can just disappear out into the wilderness and be just fine.

When ever I have had a manager suggest that they could cancel my vacation I also remind them that I can easily go and find a different job likely with one of their competitors or even in a different industry doing the same thing as there aren't many people with my knowledge, skill set, and experience. If I wanted I could start tomorrow at a new job.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[slew]

Legally, at least in the US, if they deny you the opportunity to take your vacation they must pay it out in a use it or lose it system. Just some food for thought.

That is part of the reason for the current HR corporate trend of unlimited vacation... Of course, just like unlimited data, unlimited vacation doesn't mean what you think it means, it means your manager has to agree. As part of this HR fad, my company made this transition to unlimited a many years ago. They dutifully bought off all of our unused vacation and initiated this "unlimited vacation" policy.

Since the company "wins" by not booking future liabilities, it's only fair that the employee gets an equitable benefit otherwise, it's just stealing a benefit (reducing your compensation and padding their bottom line). The problem with this policy (or any other policy) often isn't the company, the HR folks, or the other "suits". The problem is that many of the managers do not understand how to apply policies like unlimited vacation in a way that would make it better than fixed vacation policies for employees because it is not uncommon for managers to only look out for themselves.

I suspect this is generally true with most companies, and is why managers need to be "forced" to do the right thing (by the company, or by the law), because left to their own devices, they are often less than competent at the "management" aspect of their jobs (I'm sure we've all worked for examples of this at one time or another).

Another possible explanation for this misguided manager behavior is that those managers are playing out some weird real-life variant of the Stanford prison experiment, or perhaps they are trying in desperation to please some "god" by sacrificing the lives of their employees (the sad part is generally that such a "god" is totally indifferent either way).

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

Boss: 'You can be replaced.'

Me: 'So can this job! Want to race?'

Boss says nothing...

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Quirkz]

Yeah, yeah. As soon as I hit submit, I realize that "previously" would have been better than "last" but what are you going to do?

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

Not how it worked out.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[ShanghaiBill]

You assume other places are better.

They are. I have worked for 7 companies in the Bay Area over the last 30 years, and I have always taken all my vacation and never been pressured otherwise. I got some emails, and a few phone calls about "critical" issues, but those took just a few minutes to resolve.

I currently get 4 weeks (20 work days) per year. I mostly take just a few days at a time spread over the year, and sometimes a week when my kids are out of school. The most I have taken in one block was two weeks for a trip to Europe.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[sexconker]

I will soon get 2 days per month, plus 1 day of sick/family leave.

The sick leave never maxes out. The vacation maxes out at 2 years of accrual (48 days). Plus I get all the holidays.
I've never had any pushback when trying to use it, and the last couple of times I used it I made it a point to be mostly out of contact and not check emails.

I'm flexible about scheduling time off in advance, but if someone ever told me I couldn't use my vacation time to the point where I stopped accruing I'd send my employer a bill and go on strike immediately. What the fuck would your employer do if you got a summons for jury duty?

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Legally, at least in the US, if they deny you the opportunity to take your vacation they must pay it out in a use it or lose it system.

This is incorrect. There is no such requirement.

Some individual states require compensation for forfeited vacation, but there is no federal requirement.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[buchanmilne]

"So you want to take our rights to negotiate pay?"

No, you can negotiate. The employer just shouldn't make an offer on the assumption ypu won't take leave that is guaranteed to you in labour legislation.

  "We pay about 15% more than average with the expectation that you will be dependable rather than lazy and/or unavailable."

I am dependable, productive and available during office hours or any time on an on-call rotation, except when I take my planned leave.

At 15%, your employer is really over-paying, and probably actually getting less productivity than if employees took their full leave.

"Not being able to take time off is a trade-off I'm willing to make for what I'm paid. You are demanding laws that take our rights."

Alternatively, it's protecting people like me from being abused by people like you who seem to not care about anything but work and money, and who believe that anyone who doesn't work more than 3200 hours a year is "lazy".

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[computational super]

Me: 'So can this job!

Yeah, but be careful... replace too many jobs, and you'll be flagged as a "job hopper" and suddenly find it way harder to replace a job. The system will squeeze you every way it can.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Altus]

A year+ long death march is a really good way to end up with a shite product. Of the companies I have worked for none of the ones that had extended death marches is still around.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[computational super]

Well, the can't pay you in money, but you should see the stock options they offer!

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

When ever I have had a manager suggest that they could cancel my vacation I also remind them that I can easily go and find a different job likely with one of their competitors or even in a different industry doing the same thing as there aren't many people with my knowledge, skill set, and experience. If I wanted I could start tomorrow at a new job.

I've had a lot of vacations cancelled. Never cancelled anyone else's, but seriously, if you issued an ultimatum or threat to me you would have to take it. I'm certain you are the only irreplaceable person on the planet, but I can get people with attitudes anywhere.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

Not how it worked out.

Irreplaceable people like you are hard to come by though.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Penguinisto]

You assume other places are better.

Oh, there are better places than most. My last gig was a shithole boiler-room (a non-profit), full of hipster kids who didn't like the 'old man' (me) telling them that maybe they should think about maintainability and long-term stability in their code, and not just push for latest/greatest w/o even doing a POC first. I was informed by my (now-ex) boss that maybe I didn't fit in with the culture, and that maybe I should be like the cool kids lest I find myself unemployed.

I found a better position within a week of that little chat (including interview and offer negotiation), and happily informed him at the next standup that this would be my last week... and by the way, my new employer gave me 27,500 additional reasons why I should leave, on top of the ones previously discussed. The look on his and my former team's collective face was priceless.

Been at my current gig for 2+ years, it's a great company to work for, I've moved up a *lot* since I started there, and I don't give the previous one much thought these days, if at all.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Altus]

you sure as shit aren't going to edit a comment on slashdot

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[networkBoy]

You are correct. My statement was more along the lines of how I feel about being asked to forfeit my vacation.

If you're only going to offer me straight pay if I am giving up vacation time, then I'll just take the vacation. Obviously the same goes for if I lose it outright.

If, however, you're going to compensate me at time and a half then I'm much more amenable to not taking every day of vacation I've earned.
-nB

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[networkBoy]

Longest death march I've had was 36 days.
zero days off, 12 to 16 hours per day.

I took two (comped) weeks off after that.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[BlackHawk-666]

That sounds like total incompetence from the people responsible for managing the project. Either your deadlines were ridiculous to begin with, you didn't re-negotiate smarter deadlines and more money from the client like you should have, or your company wants to work you to death then quickly replace you with another zombie.

Any death march that lasts more than a few weeks is a red flag you are working at a terrible company and need to switch jobs.

The rest few years I worked, not one single product I was responsible for required a death march. We shipped everything on time and to spec to the client. My team were happy, productive, and motivated because of this. They had a good solid work / leisure balance. People would happily stay late for a few nights if we had some things that needed doing outside business hours - even a few weekends, for the same reason. They were always rewarded with time off or a bonus for going above and beyond their job description.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Altus]

seems pretty reasonable to me... I mean ideally there should never be a death march, but no process is perfect and no estimate is exact so it is almost inevitable, even in the best run places, but a hard limit on how long it lasts and good time based compensation after to let your employees recover before tossing them at the next hard project... it goes a long way.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Sassinak]

I disagree with that. If the workload itself prevents you from taking time off because if you do, you will have triple the work load, then there should be compensation for the fact that you have lost "downtime with your self or your family" . Now, while I would love it to be at overtime rates (from a personal perspective)... I don't believe it should be since it would be compensation at your normal rate typically so I don't any reason why a company would provide extra compensation for that. (I say that as business owner).

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Elfich47]

Schedule for the vacation 4-8 months in advance. So depending upon how much vacation you accrue each year you may have more than one vacation scheduled in advance. When you schedule four months in advance no one thinks about saying "no" to a vacation request. Since it has been approved make sure your vacation is out of town, and preferably without cell phone coverage and has non-secure internet so VPN is not an option.

Two weeks before your vacation, remind your boss about the vacation they had already approved and hold them to it because you have already made plans and spent money on the vacation. If they reneg that is a major breach of trust (and you should be looking right there and then).

If they don't approve a vacation request four months in advance there is a problem there, and you should be looking for another position.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

16*37 - 8*25...
You accepted only 80 hours base pay comp for 400 hours of OT?
On behalf of the industry: Fuck you.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[RenderSeven]

What is this "vacation" thing you speak of?

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

I squeeze back, it's the only solution.

Job hopping has had different meanings over the decades, is always in the eye of the beholder. 20 year, one company chumps would likely call us all 'job hoppers'.

There are bosses who only employ bad negotiators and/or head cases. They are best avoided. Burn that bridge _before_ you cross it.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

I implied a race, which more or less means that I know I will be replaced...it's a question of relative costs and risks. Some employers like to act like they have _all_ the power. Clients are better than employers in that respect.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[networkBoy]

citation?

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Maxo-Texas]

Not sure if you are being subtly sarcastic or are an example of the stockholm syndrome.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Rastl]

Me: 'So can this job!

Yeah, but be careful... replace too many jobs, and you'll be flagged as a "job hopper" and suddenly find it way harder to replace a job. The system will squeeze you every way it can.

Not so much in IT any more. With the decided lack of consideration companies have for retaining staff these days it's quite common to see mid to high level people moving between jobs and consulting with breaks in the middle. As long as you can give a quick summary during the interview they pass it off.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[slashrio]

If you're so 'hard to find', then there must be other companies that actually do value your contribution and give you some more holiday.
No full week since 1993 sounds ridiculous and in fact it is.
Reminds me of the stories of employees abused by the capitalists during the industrial revolution. Child labor 14 hours a day in deplorable circumstances and such...

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Thanatiel]

Who told you it was illegal to negotiate for your pay in countries outside of the US ?
It's simply not true. Or was it a 1st April and you didn't bothered to check both the source and the calendar ?

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Neuronwelder]

Do you have any idea of how rare that kind of job is? Most places require an afternoon meeting of supervisors every day. They scheme on how they can cut back, and squeeze more blood out of an employee.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

I implied a race, which more or less means that I know I will be replaced...it's a question of relative costs and risks. Some employers like to act like they have _all_ the power. Clients are better than employers in that respect.

I just knew I should have put a smiley face on that. I say the same thing about myself. My bad.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Red Flayer]

That's not true. Some states require that, but it is not national law.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[dbIII]

"We pay about 15% more than average with the expectation that you will be dependable rather than lazy and/or unavailable."

It's all relative. If you need to be almost permanently contactable but only get contacted a couple of times every year or so due to exceptional events that's kind of fair (so long as there is some mechanism such as time off in lieu or whatever). If it's something that becomes frequent it isn't.
Some would argue that a requirement to be sober enough to drive into work at all times is a bit much to expect.

Of course it's incredibly unprofessional management and as the above poster suggested an on call roster is the way a professional manager would do it.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[dbIII]

It would suck to be gone for 4 weeks, and nobody noticed you were gone. Except you weren't there to complain all the time.

Personally I think that should be a goal for sysadmins. If you can get things to that state you've got the systems running well.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

When ever I have had a manager suggest that they could cancel my vacation I also remind them that I can easily go and find a different job likely with one of their competitors or even in a different industry doing the same thing as there aren't many people with my knowledge, skill set, and experience. If I wanted I could start tomorrow at a new job.

I've had a lot of vacations cancelled. Never cancelled anyone else's, but seriously, if you issued an ultimatum or threat to me you would have to take it. I'm certain you are the only irreplaceable person on the planet, but I can get people with attitudes anywhere.

Since you claim to never have canceled anybody else's vacation I don't understand why the ego issue here... "How DARE he tell me he's going to walk! Just for that, I'll make him walk!" What's with the pissing contest here?

Because I understand how most people are. I know really quickly who will be all pissy. The two issues of what I do and what he mentioned are not completely connected. I just do not put up with ultimatums. Sort of a reflex action. Whenever someone offers me an ultimatum, I automatically do the exact thing they don't want me to do. A sure fire way of getting the opposite of what you want. And you'd be surprised at how quickly people learn about that little quirk.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

It's simple really. A lot of "reasonable people" don't like it when people with "attitude problems" go on the offensive. Because once they get the impression it will work, they will use it over and over and over again. Better to just finish it immediately if possible.

At least, that's why I always force them to pull the trigger anyway.

Exactly. Acquiescing to an ultimatum puts the other person in the position of boss. Homie don't play that game.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Pfhorrest]

Not a developer here, and I basically get to use my vacation time whenever I ask for it, but this is the first job that has ever made taking a vacation stress-inducing. See, the company basically cannot function without me -- which is great for my job security but terrible design for the business, and bad for me in an indirect way. There is no shift after me, nobody else who picks up where I leave off. The buck stops with me in my department. Which means that if I take a week off, I'm coming back to a week's worth of backlog. Since I'm already drowning in work on a normal week anyway, that makes my entire vacation time full of dread of the week of hell that's going to greet me when I get back, and halfway makes me wish I just hadn't taken the vacation at all so as to avoid that.

But aside from constant dread and misery and year after year after year of continuing to function even while burnt out, it's still the best job I've ever had. Work from home with super flexible hours, better pay than any previous job, and regularly scheduled no-argument raises every year. And all it takes to keep that is trading in my previous lifelong routine of being so on top of everything that I have to find way to look busy so as not to get in trouble, for a constant unending rush to keep up with the (figurative) assembly line lest the immediate future become even more rushed and backed up than I already am. :(

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Cederic]

Five years and you can't delay it for two weeks so everybody can actually get a break?

The issue here isn't the lack of resource.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Cederic]

We have to work them as hard as we can with no vacation because we simply can't find people.

Well done, you've just described a closed-loop process.

Treat your staff well, you'll be able to hire more staff.
If developers are so fucking hard to find, why are you treating yours so shittily?

You'll save money too, as your developers will be more productive and you wont have to give them a 10% payrise every year.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[mjwx]

Cut me a check for the *overtime* value of the lost vacation.
Pretty simple.

No. There is no federal law requiring compensation for forfeited vacation time.

And that is just the beginning of what it wrong.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[david_thornley]

If developers are so expensive and so hard to find, it should be easy to leave a job where you're not allowed time off and find one where you are. Alternatively, tell them that you will be taking your vacation, and if they don't like it they can do without you forever.

If developers aren't that hard to find, then your "have to" is bogus.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[david_thornley]

My company puts out a reminder every summer that vacation is for getting away from the office, and not to do any work then.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[david_thornley]

What puzzles me is why anyone would issue an ultimatum.

david:thornley: I'd like to take off these two weeks in July.
Ol Olsoc: Sure.
david_thornley: How dare you? I insist on those two weeks, and I'll resign.

In this scene, what's my motivation? I don't have a good grasp of my character.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[david_thornley]

In interviews, when asked about working overtime, I reply that there's always going to be some crunch time, and I'm willing to go along with that. Seems to satisfy people.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[david_thornley]

There's too much work and not enough people unless you pay way above what someone is worth.

That sentence is incompatible with belief in a free market. In a free market, you are worth at least what you're being paid. If the work is that important, and it's necessary to hire more people than are readily available, pay goes up to match. If the developer isn't worth hiring, the work can't be that important.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

It would suck to be gone for 4 weeks, and nobody noticed you were gone. Except you weren't there to complain all the time.

It's even worse when you die at work and no one notices.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[HornWumpus]

The point is you recognize the bad place before you cross the bridge and 'burn it'. You're not going there, never.

You should learn to smell despair in the office during the interviews. Spot the Lumberg. Run the Monty Python management training interview in reverse on the PHB. Get in touch with your inner BOFH.

You've wasted your time interviewing at a place you would never work, have some fun with it.

Re:Lack of vacation is the big problem

[joboss]

I take time off sometimes even though I am in the same situation above.

There's always the hit by a bus scenario.

Then simulate it. The less time you take off the more critical your presence is.

I find that the best way to have people able to cover for me is to have them cover for me. Rule by neglect.

By staying present all the time all you are really doing is depriving anyone the opportunity to fill your shoes.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[Ol Olsoc]

What puzzles me is why anyone would issue an ultimatum.

Darned if I know. I do know a fair number of people do.

david:thornley: I'd like to take off these two weeks in July.

Ol Olsoc: Sure.

david_thornley: How dare you? I insist on those two weeks, and I'll resign.

Hah! Never had that happen, although it isn't all that unlikely with some folk's listening skills.

But listening skills aren't in big supply - or sometimes people just don't care.

Regardless, I've seen plenty of people who won't let anyone take advantage of them come and go over the years. Seems to be a connection with the "going" part and their attitude.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[BlackHawk-666]

The issue here is trying to sell a product you are not actually capable of building. Your company sold them x amount of work over y time, when they only had x/z amount of people to do that work in y time.

It's like a factory capable of making 2000 widgets / hour taking on a contract for 6000 widgets / hour.

Management and the development team need to work hand in glove to be sure they are capable of what the sales team is selling. At those jobs I had enough sway and close enough relationships to both management and sales to ensure we were covered.

If you over-sell your ability to produce, you better hope like hell you can recruit either some good permanents, or fill up the gaps with competent contractors (often a better choice) to make any deadlines you promise.

Again, I am going to state, if you are on a death march lasting five years, or even five weeks - that's not a death march - it's just business as usual for that company. Even if they hired enough people to cover that project, they would have oversold more work and left you all death marching to the next deadline.

Don't work for companies like that. It's not worth your health, or the massive loss of income you incur, because you're working 60-80 hours for a 40 hour wage.

Re: Lack of vacation is the big problem

[BlackHawk-666]

It didn't come without some fight. I made it completely clear in the interview I would not do death marches. I assured them if they needed overtime for a short period to hit a serious deadline I would do that, but I wouldn't death march for weeks on end to fix bad estimates or project management. I wouldn't do it to my team either. There was some friction with middle management, but some things are worth fighting over.

When I moved companies, they accepted that, and as a reward had their most productive and profitable years ever while I was at the helm of their development team.

Now, my examples are small to medium sized companies, working for very large financial companies. YMMV.

Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like sitting through a .25hr scrum daily meeting and it turning into 1.25hr/daily. By the time it's over I could go take a nap!

Re:Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[orasio]

That's not a scrum meeting.
It's probably a daily meeting, but you are not doing scrum.

If you were doing scrum, you would quickly identify that as an obstacle, and get it out of the way. That's what retros are for.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[avandesande]

15 mins are too long my scrums are 5 minutes

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[supremebob]

Yeah, most management people just do not have the discipline to shut up and let people give their scrum status and then ask questions later

A 30 second statement of the defects I worked on that day usually turn into a 5 minute discussion of what the defect actually is and why it's important to fix it and why it might have an impact on the release schedule... blah, blah, blah.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[sconeu]

Then your Scrum Master is not doing it right. He should cut off the discussion and say that's for off-line.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[ShanghaiBill]

We hear that all the time, "you're not doing it right...".

I get annoyed when people say that about little details, but if your daily scrum meetings are lasting 75 minutes then you are doing it so wrong that it is inaccurate to even call it "scrum".

My scrum meetings last 5 minutes. The purpose is to raise issues, not to discuss them. The discussion happens elsewhere.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[Altus]

seriously, if the bug fix wasn't important why did you label it a P1 and put it on top of the fucking backlog, I'm fixing the bug because of how it was prioritized, if you dont like that, do a better job prioritizing.

by the time it is accepted into the sprint that shit should already be figured out

Re:Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[computational super]

a .25hr scrum daily meeting

Wait until you're "matrixed" into multiple projects. Then you can attend three or four daily (one or two hour) "standup" meetings!

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[computational super]

you're not doing it right...

Funny how much "agile" apologists have in common with communism apologists.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[nasch]

The question is, why are so many places "doing scrum wrong"? Are these places that would do a bad job of any process, and scrum is the one they've picked? Is scrum just hard to understand and implement? It doesn't really seem that complicated to me. Is there something about scrum that doesn't fit the culture of a lot of companies but for some reason nobody knows that before trying it? Because it's very unlikely the corporate culture is going to change to fit the new development methodology, more like the methodology will be twisted to fit the culture, even if that breaks it.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[lgw]

MOst places have no one who has ever had any Scrum training at all. They've heard there should be daily meetings, and bi-weekly meeting, so they have those. But all those meetings are manager briefings, organized along team boundaries, not project boundaries. Not even wrong.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[ShanghaiBill]

The question is, why are so many places "doing scrum wrong"?

The GPP is not "doing scrum wrong", he is not doing it at all. He is using the word "scrum" to describe the normal time-wasting "status" meetings that are common at dysfunctional companies. That is not what scrum is.

Is scrum just hard to understand and implement?

No. There are many parts of Agile that are hard, but scrum isn't one of them. Scrum is easy. Just give each person 30 seconds to talk, and they will be forced to focus on the most important issues. If managers interrupt, ignore the scrum master, and hijack the meeting, then YOU ARE NOT DOING SCRUM ANYMORE and you should call it something else.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[nasch]

I'm classifying any failed attempt to do scrum correctly as doing it wrong, whether they end up doing scrum but incorrectly, or not doing scrum at all.

Re: Excessive collaboration is a good one!

[david_thornley]

The question is whether it's possible to do it right. I've been in successful scrum projects. I've never seen a case of communism working in anything larger than a village with a charismatic leader. Agile and scrum can be done right, and are often done wrong. Communism can't be done right (on the scale people usually mean), and is always done wrong.

Sounds like you're the problem

[pteddy]

I take my full 4 weeks every year.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[TechyImmigrant]

Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.

If I didn't take my vacation they would get to try surviving without me around at all.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[HornWumpus]

It lets them see what gets done invisibly the rest of the year.

Most people afraid to take vacation are afraid the boss will learn just how _little_ they actually do. Even worse, that the boss will see the office work much better without them, as they are 'net negative' anti-workers.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[pteddy]

I don't care if I'm critical or not as long as they pay me a fair wage and the work is interesting.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[FictionPimp]

My last employer required all IT staff to take a full 5 continuous working days off in a row at least once a year. They could not be contacted at all during that time. This was to ensure that we had proper documentation and cross training and could function if said individual was hit by a truck.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Archtech]

Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.

Or else - if they're very, very clever indeed - they might have worked out some kind of a rota whereby employees with similar qualifications and expertise cover for one another's absence. Hmmmm... now how would that work... maybe if you need a minimum of four employees, if you possibly had five or six, then one of them at a time could go and have a week or two off. We might call it a "vacation", or a "holiday". Things might even go better when the employees occasionally got some rest & recreation.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to what Tim Lister and Tom De Marco (in their classic book "Peopleware") call the "Spanish theory of management". That's the one where managers vie with one another to extract the maximum value from their employees, and the one whose people suffer the most heart attacks wins. ("*He* didn't leave anything on the table, did he?")

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Ol Olsoc]

It lets them see what gets done invisibly the rest of the year.

Most people afraid to take vacation are afraid the boss will learn just how _little_ they actually do. Even worse, that the boss will see the office work much better without them, as they are 'net negative' anti-workers.

Well maybe. Problem is, it isn't always fear of taking vacation. I had as much vacation canceled as I took. And those I could take, I spent a lot of time sitting someplace nice on the phone troubleshooting, while the family played in the surf. Almost had to fly back to fix a problem once until a suit caught wind of it and told them they would not do that to me.

Eventually, I "forgot" the company phone and my own to preserve family peace. The upside was when I retired, I had max vacation and sick accumulated, and it made a nice extra check. 30 plus years of accumulated sick leave with only 14 days taken was a fine going away present.

No one is irreplaceable. Some folks are handy to have around though.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Attila Dimedici]

The best piece of advice I have seen for a business owner is this, "If you have an employee who is indispensable, fire them immediately."

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Hadlock]

Finance companies are required by law to make their employees take 5 days in a row off, specifically for this reason, to ensure continuity of business processes in case you get hit by a bus. If you're the only one who knows how things work for day to day processes, there's serious flaws in your organization.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

My organization has two programmers, an accountant, and a boss who specializes in semiweekly 4+hour meetings to bikeshed every last thing we do, then reiterate how none of what we just wasted half a day on is critical and we need to focus on top priorities x, y and z (there's always more top priorities than programmers). This is usually followed up by daily disapproving comments for the next few days about how the bikeshed color has not yet been corrected.

I burned out years ago.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[CastrTroy]

This is just plain good business sense. Getting hit by a truck is somewhat of a rare experience, but there could be any number of reasons why an employee might need to take extended time off or leave the company at a moments notice. Anything from actually being hit by a truck, having to take time off to look after a family member, serious illnesses like cancer, winning 50 million on the lottery, a new lucrative job offer.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Asgard]

I think its less for 'hit by a bus' and more to remove you from the environment long enough that any fraud/embezzlement schemes you might have fall apart.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god yes, fuck this shit. I just opted out of continuing to work on a project like this. They change the fucking goal posts constantly, or make me redo shit they forgot they made me already redo from what they want me to redo it back to. Then when they try to demo the app and they can't do something, it tends to end up that it was some shit I added knowing we needed it but they told me to remove because they didn't think it was useful or "too complex" or something. Sick of idiotic project managers whose entire knowledge of product development or entrepreneurship seems to come from watching some Steve Jobs movies. Fuck this. I'm just going to work in education and do side projects and see if something catches on, but I'm done working for non-technical people who think they can make technical decisions. Then they can bitch about how there aren't any developers. Boohoo, go get an H1B. Unless the guy making decisions has a grad degree in computer science or proven track record of actually shipping products, no money will make me do it.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[networkBoy]

If your fraud scheme falls apart in 5 days you set it up wrong.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Rastl]

I think its less for 'hit by a bus' and more to remove you from the environment long enough that any fraud/embezzlement schemes you might have fall apart.

If your fraud scheme falls apart in 5 days you set it up wrong.

It might sound useless but I worked at a bank where an AVP got called into the office on the 4th day of his mandatory 5 day vacation. Turns out he had been kiting checks for a client and because he wasn't there someone else caught on. He was escorted out again.

For IT this gets a little trickier since we tend to build a LOT of automation and have remote access to systems. So even if we're not in the office there's a very good chance that someone who is doing illegal things would have their bases covered per networkBoy's comment. But the people who handle money all day tend not to have our options.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[HornWumpus]

On consideration, I'll take back 'Most', put in 'Many'. There are a buttload of net negative workers that _never_ take vacation. Been my observation over the years. They guard their little bit of hell.

As far as cancelled vacations. Going to be a long talk about scheduling issues and costs before I cancel anything involved.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[HornWumpus]

Talk to the big boss about his business' 'truck number'. If they won't pay for any redundancy, _extort_ them for more pay. They will pay, one way or another.

Besides: If you don't have someone learning your tasks, how will your boss promote you to his job when he moves up?

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Ol Olsoc]

And that pretty much wipes out all the stress reduction from the vacation which means I may as well not take a long vaction.

Agreed, there is no feeling so flat and disappointing than the first day back form vacation.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[starblazer]

Well, Zuck owned the company. If Zuck wanted to go poof in 2005, he could have. He made that choice. This discussion is about the hundreds of thousands of workers that are managed by companies that are only interested in getting as much work out of you and then tossing you aside. If I owned a sizeable stake in the company I work for, you could make a solid bet that I would be working a little bit harder to make that company move forward. Alas, I am just a dumb employee that should be grateful to be employed and could be replaced at any second.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Ol Olsoc]

Talk to the big boss about his business' 'truck number'. If they won't pay for any redundancy, _extort_ them for more pay. They will pay, one way or another.

Oh hell yeah - I was paid three times as much as the next closest in my department. Some of them didn't like it, but the boss asked if they wanted to do the extra stuff I did.

Besides: If you don't have someone learning your tasks, how will your boss promote you to his job when he moves up?

It was pretty complicated, and we had the problem often found in places where the bean counters raid all the overhead to hire more bean counters. Training goes out the window.

An illustration is that back in the 80's and mid 90's, I was required Then after around 1997, the bean counters took over, and slowly, then accelerating in pace, trying to go to anything not required expressly by the contracts was just about impossible. My continuing education and everyone else's was sucked up by the bean counters plus. "We have to get control of overhead" was the mantra. But for every 10 dollars saved on overhead, they added 20 dollars of new bean counting.

So after the educational activities went, the next thing to go was training. So we ended up like the government affiliated places did after budget cutbacks affected them. No one in the promotional pipeline. No training. So people would retire, then be called back since there was no one qualified to replace them. Same thing happened to me. Then I decided to hell with this and left for good.

p.s. I saw the handwriting on the wall, years before the clusterfuck occured, and planned for an early retirement. If you can retire at 55 at all, do it. Beats the living shit out of working.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[BadDreamer]

If all the company wants to do is "survive" then the company really needs to rethink its strategy.

My role usually involves improvements, follow-ups and making sure customers are satisfied. The company can survive for quite some time while neglecting these aspects, but it will hurt more and more the longer it goes on.

But me being a way a month or two at the time is not a problem, as long as I do my job properly while I'm on location.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[david_thornley]

A friend of mine was a project lead for LucasLearning, and he had to cancel a vacation because another department didn't bother to meet a clearly explained deadline. The company paid for his prepaid expenses, and set him up on a later vacation. It was still unfortunate because he missed the sailing trip the rest of us had scheduled for.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[david_thornley]

I had a manager once who insisted that he be included in any lottery pool. He figured that, if all of us called in rich, he didn't want to be left holding the bag.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[EndlessNameless]

Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.

If the company cannot survive a month with me, they have planned very poorly and deserve to fail. I am guaranteed to either die or find another job one day.

The idea that you will hurt the company is a lie maintained by managers who want to cut costs by: (a) not hiring enough staff, (b) refusing to provide the vacation they promise, or (c) not maintain adequate coverage of essential skill sets.

This can cause continuity issues, and it is a red flag for any company. A small business or startup may have no choice but to accept the situation, but any manager who cannot avoid or plan for employee turnover is incompetent.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I worked at an investment bank and can confirm people in certain groups were required to take a vacation of at least 5 continuous days once a year.

The story I had heard was that this was due to some trader falsifying his positions and only being detected because he got sick and was out of the office long enough for it to finally get noticed. From what I remember he supposedly had worked in enough different groups (front, middle, back-office) that he knew in which reporting systems he needed to make his changes.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[HornWumpus]

One place I worked I personally took 130% of the 'department raise budget' my first year there.

Useless weasel told the rest of the department at their reviews that they weren't getting anything because I had taken 100% of the 'raise budget'...

Since he had started the conversation, I simply told them that I had taken 180% of the 'budget' and that they should all jump up and down until their balls dropped (including the lesbian, only one to take my advice to heart.)

Never expected employers to train me. Never been disappointed. You train as you learn/break new systems. Things not directly useful to current employer, on your own time. Who's going to teach the brand new stuff anyhow? Before the internet it was a bitch...swapping bootleg knowledgebase CDs.

Besides it's 90% the same shit as the last version, just rearranged, further obfuscated and renamed.

Not quite retired...but already financially capable. Just a question of where at this point. Besides I would get bored...bad things...

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[Ol Olsoc]

One place I worked I personally took 130% of the 'department raise budget' my first year there.

Useless weasel told the rest of the department at their reviews that they weren't getting anything because I had taken 100% of the 'raise budget'...

I had a similar thing back in the mid 80's. The boss in our department had a group meeting, and explained how he figured out the raises.

Like you, we had a budget total for raises, and X number of people in the department. Two other guys in our department and myself were young whippersnappers, and not making a tremendous amount of money. So the boss took a small amount of the raise form the older folks, and distributed it among us. Turned out to be something like 25 dollars a year for them.

You would have thought we were trying to cut off their peckers. One of they guys, a fellow who thought you had to have a retirement income double your monthly take-home, was vicious about it. Guess he figured out he was going to get his 25 dollars worth of abuse on me Being a whippersnaper at the time I allowed him to be an asshole until I could do something about it. Revenge is best served cold, anyhow.

Never expected employers to train me. Never been disappointed. You train as you learn/break new systems. Things not directly useful to current employer, on your own time. Who's going to teach the brand new stuff anyhow? Before the internet it was a bitch...swapping bootleg knowledgebase CDs.

Well, it wasn't an expectation on my part - I had to do it. I had a choice in what I was training on, but no real choice in getting it. As long as they were paying for it, I was cool with it. Some folks took gut stuff. I predicted what was going to happen and got actual worth.

It was only later, after the bean counters wrecked overhead, that we were left on our own, and it had to be free.

Re: Sounds like you're the problem

[luis_a_espinal]

Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.

Or his company is big enough and/or has its shit together so that a person is never a single point of (knowledge) failure. Just sayin'

Gee, ya think?

[whitroth]

It's 99.999% the fault of management. Most of them know *nothing* about what and how things are being done - in IT, I think some of them believe that you just have to point and click and it's done.

I worked for Ameritech, the former Baby Bell, in the mid-nineties, in what was a startup division. For more than a year and a half, I was working 9, 10, 12 and some 16 hour days. I was getting paged frequently. About a year and three quarters in - I was in just over 2 years, and left as they announced the beginning of the shutdown - a friend who is a degreed clinical psychologist in private practice told me that it was her professional opinion that I was that close to clinical burnout.

And it was ALL upper management. They gave us insane schedules as to when things were supposed to be ready, the entire division from from 4 project teams to 27 in a year, and people were there from seven or eight (I'd get there around 9 am), and whenever I left - 19:00? 20:00? 22:00? I usually wasn't the only one still there.

Management didn't know what they were doing, hadn't called in people who knew the subject and made a real project plan - they just kept adding with "oh, we hadn't thought of that".

And, gratuitously, FUCK YOU, DICK NOTEBART!

Re:Gee, ya think?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The truth is, your bosses know more than you think, that's why they are the boss and you are not.

My team lead yes. My current manager while he does know more he does not actually know more about my job than I do, in fact he knows very little about my job. What he actually realizes, unlike past shitty ones, is that it is possible for people to not be experts in everything and will trust my and my team lead's judgment. Then again most of the management here didn't become managers by getting an MBA and having no background knowledge on their industry. My manager spent years working in the industry both as a customer side and now on the supplier side. My worst manager was several years yonger than me and was hired right out of college after getting his MBA, his undergrad was in business as well.

Re:Gee, ya think?

[Frosty Piss]

Still a Help Desk Jocky, eh?

Re:Gee, ya think?

[malkavian]

Actually, after being a boss, and being a worker, the bosses don't know more than most think. They know other stuff, if they're any good. A good boss is an exercise in logistics and being more of a generalist than anything. If you know more about the particular subject than the person you've got working for you, you've either made a bad hire, or you're being wasted in the wrong job (most likely).. Whatever made you think someone signed up for long hours? Likely they were a conscienscious worker who put in the time when it was needed because they wanted the team to succeed. No, shinks don't get any bonus for saying you have any form of abnormality. What they actually get paid for is to get people back to effective work as quickly as possible when there's been an issue raised. They're very good at spotting burn out, or near burn out conditions, because they've seen so many. Same as a good tech knows when a machine is on its last legs, and what to do about continuing service as effectively as possible. But, feeding the troll (and you always do excellent trolls, hats off to you). :)

Re:Gee, ya think?

[whitroth]

You're a fool. No, he's not the boss because he knows more than me. Second, when I started, they told us not to worry, no pagers. Two months later, pagers. Then it was ONE BIG PUSH... and the pushes kept coming, and coming, for the same reason that we went from 4 teams to 27, because upper management *are* ignorant, but are sure they know Everything.

And they don't. And suckers like you are one reason they keep doing it.

And I suppose you have no life.

Re:Gee, ya think?

[Headw1nd]

Did you read the post? I very much doubt that the grandparent is/was a help desk jockey.

Sociopaths

[fluffernutter]

I think everyone who isn't a sociopath is going "duh" right now. Explaining this to someone who is a sociopath is like challenging religion. They are already dead to the logic we use to arrive at this conclusion.

Burnout is accelerated by incompetency...

[bogaboga]

...You may wonder who exactly *is* incompetent in my post. I am referring to company leadership that has got no clue about how things run.

Sometimes, they do have a clue, but pretend not to know; or provide "non answers" or "non solutions" to real issues.

In many cases, these managers have risen up the ranks of the company solely because of *nepotism* and not capability.

Sometimes, they have risen because of "who you know" for lack of better terminology...

Sometimes they have risen because they [have] provided a "service" or "favor" to the founders or influential parties. I will leave the nature of this service or favor to your imagination...

And BTW, this is very common in today's USA as well. I am speaking as one who lives right here in this blessed "land of the free."

Re:Burnout is accelerated by incompetency...

[fluffernutter]

I think there are a lot of eyes that are firmly on retirement right now and not necessarily thinking long term.

Re:Burnout is accelerated by incompetency...

[thegarbz]

I am referring to company leadership that has got no clue about how things run.

Culture often trumps leadership. I work for a multinational that prides itself on its employees. That doesn't stop our US colleagues getting half the vacation entitlement we do (even though it's still more than the standard 2 weeks). That doesn't stop our US colleagues seemingly working themselves to stress related sickness (hey guys when I'm at home I will not be answering your email, please stop answering mine when you're at home).

The problem isn't upper management as they happily move from country to country. The problem is they accept the local norms, and the local norms in the USA is that work is god almighty, and we'll do anything to please them.

Re:Burnout is accelerated by incompetency...

[chris_osulliva]

the talentless people who rise through the ranks are the ones who have never made a mistake... because they have never produced anything. people who are busy are too busy to curry favor. don't have time to BS with the boss and can be blamed when things go wrong because they are the one responsible for the system. if you never build anything, you never get blamed

2 weeks vacation

[thegarbz]

Two weeks is an insult not a vacation, and you don't even have the decency to mandate that insult.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[Cheerio Boy]

I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[m00sh]

I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.

You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.

You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[Cheerio Boy]

I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.

You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.

You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.

When agism is rampant in multiple industries, and when there are people who will work for much less than I am, then the companies have the upper hand.

I'm not disagreeing that things should be different - just pointing out that they currently aren't.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[Altus]

I'm the same age and it took me very little time to get a new job when my last place laid a bunch of folks off. Needless to say I take what vacation I can every year.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[malkavian]

Companies have this odd idea these days that everyone is replaceable (well, big companies.. Smaller ones still sometimes have a clue)..
They often lose the good people, and assume they can replace with anyone, and it can be years later before everything falls over in a catastrophic failure that the good skills would have avoided entirely... Think it was RBS that had a critical failure because they'd got rid of all their good techs, and the 'cookie cutter cost cutting replacements' used to save money made a mistake that the real skills knew had to be watched like a hawk and managed carefully. Big oops that took days to sort out, and cost billions, and a huge reputational hit.

Companies are being run by accountants and financiers these days.. Don't give them too much credit for understanding operations, or what's critical..
One anecdote I have, as example, was attending a disaster recovery symposium for a huge national (and life critical) institution. This was intended for management levels, and being as I was one of the prime technical managers of one of the local sites (still with 5k employees at that site), I was in attendance.
I consistently scored at the top of the assessments in each of the activities in the groups I was placed in, as due to IT experience over the years, I practically lived, breathed and slept disaster recovery and business continuity. When queried how I got such high marks, I simply explained to people that this was how IT had to run, and had been running for years to keep things running with as few issues as there were, which gave a lot of people around a new found respect for the trade (which was good).
In the final phase of things, when we are all together for the last question and answer session (a good couple of hundred of us, all the groups combined), one of the chief executives of a local site piped up, and asked how this seminar was supposed to be any help, as it was all much too detailled, and she didn't need any of this this, and didn't need to consider it. The guy running the seminar (who was responsible for implementing the business continuity of the organisation as a whole) asked her what she thought was needed.. The response was that all she thought she needed was the contact details of all her managers so they could talk to each other over mobile phone in case of a disaster. He returned a pointed question, inquiring as to what about all the general staff who dealt with the clients, and ensured safe operation. She replied that they were always just there, and so didn't need consideration in a disaster recovery plan.

That is the level of myopia that is often encountered. Bosses aren't magically endowed with a real understanding of anything. They don't understand that people, especially ones with experience, are critical to keeping things running smoothly. Sure, you can bring in people with general theoretical knowledge of something, but when there's a crunch, or an abnormality, by and large, you want people who are well drilled over years, not someone who'll be re-reading all the documentation with no in depth knowledge to make the process smoother.
Yes, you can, with extremely good documentation, keep things running with little experience and knowledge available, but don't expect it to be anywhere near as painless as it would be with skills and experience.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[thegarbz]

But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do.

The wonders of a government that doesn't care about it's people, corporations that profit from screwing over its human resources, and that wonderful "at will" working agreements.

In many countries in the west if someone "forgets" what work you do it's grounds to sue them or get a huge payout on the way out.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[m00sh]

I'll take my vacation sure! But while I'm gone it's one more opportunity for them to "forget" how much work I do. And that's working a regular 51 hours a week (yeah I'm a lightweight in the industry) and being extremely productive while doing so. I'm over 40 in "the biz" so EVEN if I had full certs, and EVEN if they were current, and EVEN with a TON of experience, If I'm let go, I'm unlikely to get employed at anything but the lowest technical position. This has already happened to me once. If I want to keep paying my bills and supporting my family I can't let that happen again. Fear runs this business in a lot of places.

You're doing it wrong. It should be the other way around. The company should be afraid that you will leave with valuable experience and knowledge.

You should only have FOMO, fear of missing out. Someone else grabs a nice opportunity when you're on vacation.

When agism is rampant in multiple industries, and when there are people who will work for much less than I am, then the companies have the upper hand. I'm not disagreeing that things should be different - just pointing out that they currently aren't.

I find ageism to be counter-intuitive for me.

The older you are, the bigger your social network and connections that you have more opportunities. I know an older engineer and he gets calls from his older jobs who want him to constantly do contract work and he charges very high for those. You basically carry around the knowledge of every company you have ever worked at and a lot of them are always calling you back to get a project done.

Plus, you have a huge retirement account. They say retire when the money your retirement savings makes for you exceeds your expenses. House paid off, kids grown up - the expenses are barely there and your retirement account keep growing. The only problem is healthcare though.

Plus, older workers probably have more of a management role or a semi-engineering/management role. Those aren't going to be replaced by younger/cheaper engineers.

Plus, I feel older employees have probably had more time to come across that magical opportunity that gives you a huge payout or a huge chance to work with the best. When you're young, you're basically scrambling around to make something happen - unless you are aided by well-connected relatives or mentors.

I guess it all depends on each person's circumstance. I just feel older engineers control higher positions, hold all these wonderful connections and have it all setup over time. As a younger engineer you're basically burning through your time just to get an inch ahead while all your efforts are harvested by the older engineers to benefit them from the system they have slowly created to benefit themselves by withholding information, connections and such.

All I'm saying is that it feels counter-intuitive to me.

Re:2 weeks vacation

[david_thornley]

I had a lot of difficulty getting job offers. Then I dyed my hair, and I had no difficulty any more. YMMV.

It's only a cost if you're paying it

[rsilvergun]

so long as you've got enough replacements everybody except a few rare geniuses is replaceable. Well, everybody that is except the ruling class. Don't spill the blood of kings and all that rot.

Not 4 weeks at once

[pteddy]

Usually a week in the spring, two weeks in summer and a week in the fall. But hey, at least on your deathbed you'll be able to say that you didn't let that feature slip!

Re:Not 4 weeks at once

[Ol Olsoc]

Usually a week in the spring, two weeks in summer and a week in the fall. But hey, at least on your deathbed you'll be able to say that you didn't let that feature slip!

My only regret is that I didn't spend more time at the office.

Re:Victim of this exact thing

[fluffernutter]

But what happens when the management are the lazy ones, and they take the quick and easy way out which is to work people and get quick numbers? Instead these managers should be finding a way to add value to the company, meaning better employment. Isn't that what executives are supposed to be doing? Providing vision and, you know, LEADING?

80 hour work week needs to go as well companies

[Joe_Dragon]

80 hour work week needs to go as well companies that people who work for us the have passion to work from home in there (not so) free time.

Hire more people if you have deadlines that push endless 60-80 hour weeks.

Re:80 hour work week needs to go as well companies

[Major Blud]

Hire more people if you have deadlines that push endless 60-80 hour weeks.

That isn't necessarily a fix for that problem either....sometimes it can have the opposite effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[Torp]

... and yet they recommend Agile.
Makes no sense.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[HornWumpus]

Agile is a manifesto that is hard to argue with.

Agile as implemented is usually scrum...which is a waste of time by design. Good teams can get results with any formal methodology, usually despite it.

The problem with agile is management ignores things like 'people over process' and 'hire competent, enthusiastic individuals' and only follow 'ship often' and 'talk to the client a lot'. Using agile as justification for constant spec drift and little thought going into the spec in the first place.

When someone claims they are 'agile' you should inquire further. The 'hire competent enthusiastic individuals' line has implications. Those people don't work for cheap. If a place is paying 'industry average', they aren't doing agile.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[HornWumpus]

I did the 'daily stand up', before it was called Scrum. It turned into a _huge_ waste of time. 5 minutes per dev. Team of 5. That's a half hour easy. Without considering the 'game the meeting to avoid work' potential. Push the managers buttons, watch the usual BS. Avoid work, lower everybody's productivity to your normal (zero).

But honestly, that whole place sucked. Recently heard, one of the poor bastards is _still_ with them, decades on.

I forget where I read it. But their was a rant about meetings. Categorizing them by type and the type of online communication that best replaced them. Email, group email, forum etc. The only exception is the true 'rah rah' meeting. If you think those are useful, there is no substitute for a live one.

Daily's can be replaced by end of workday project manager status emails, done right along with and part of code checkin/bug tracker/testing schedule etc. Project manager reads those, summarizes for everyone and starts communication when needed. Code repository logs are available for review, so no bullshitting, daily check in your unstable appropriately. No whole team time waste.

Sprints are fine, for sprint durations. Two year death marches are 'sprints' by some definitions. Weasel words abound. 'Continuous sprint' is nonsense.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[lgw]

If you're reporting status to the manager, it's not any form of agile. Managers are useless. Ban the manager from the stand-up and it goes far, far better.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[HornWumpus]

Agile doesn't say that. The manifesto is short. Perhaps Scrum does.

Years ago, like I said it was when 'dailies' were fashionable, before 'stand ups' (though they had that feature). Yes he was useless, but you couldn't get rid of him. Marketer promoted outside his range, best treated 'like a mushroom'.

Call the other one a tech leed if you prefer. Someone had to pay attention to critical path and run the project, though he was particularly bad at it, about like his coding. He was running 'knowledge is power' on the useless ex marketer, fucking us all in the process. I think the place was bouncing between -3 and -4 on the process immaturity model. Project sabotage was only sporadic.

Never so glad to put a place behind me as that one. Though I was glad to get it when it started, needed the move.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[HornWumpus]

Your point being?

I was discussing claims of 'Agile', as commonly seen in job descriptions. As I said Agile is a manifesto...but now it's a one word description which means whatever the fuck the terms user is thinking at the time he wrote it. Though the manifesto is as you describe, 'Agile' in practical use means nothing. Perhaps in means 'not waterfall', but I wouldn't count on it.

How would you evaluate claims of agility? My suggestion above is look at the team and check for signs of 'competence and enthusiasm'. Not finding those, I suggest any claims of agility will be found to be 'off handed fapping' at best.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[lgw]

Never so glad to put a place behind me as that one. Though I was glad to get it when it started, needed the move.

I sure know that feeling!

I think the fundamental lesson from the great Agile fad is: a good idea can't fix bad management. The places where scrum works well tend to be places where the upper management is sufficiently frustrated with lack of progress to tell the front line management to stand aside (usually as a last grasp before just firing the whole division).

As the consultants are fond of saying: scrum will highlight everything that is broken (or everyone). That usually results in accelerated finger-pointing, rather than anything getting fixed, of course.

Re:They blame "excessive collaboration"...

[joboss]

I come from a background of hating Agile and in particular Scrum. After looking into it however I came to understand that the structure and concepts are purposeful. I don't believe it's appropriate for all scenarios or problem free but the structure does make sense for a number of scenarios if applied correctly. I do not really believe in a strict form, or at least it should be fairly strict but tailored to specific needs.

What I have noticed is that a lot of people banging on about it don't actually seem to get it. Even some of the books go into la la land turning what are meant to be principles about how a team should operate into something like a game of the sims and the personality traits you should hire for. I don't like that it tends to contain developers, in fact all of your actual productive staff. There's no career progression in Agile if you want to remain technical.

Burnout has many contributory factors

[petes_PoV]

it's usually the organization, not its employees, that is to blame

It is incorrect to suggest that only factors related to work are the cause of burnout and that therefore it is a "company" problem. There can be many issues with an individual's personal life (or their finances, children, partners, parents, neighbourhood or many other sources) that means they are more or less susceptible to "burnout".

Even two people doing the same work: subject to the same level of professional stress can have vastly different reactions to it, depending on how pre-stressed they already are, or what coping mechanisms they have developed, or not - or even due to their personalities.

So while the pressures of a job may well add to an already stressed individual's burnout, it is unlikely to be the sole reason for it. Consequently a proper study would have to look at all aspects of a person's life to determine the extent to which their job or their boss or something else caused them to have problems. And therefore it seems reasonable that the solution to a person's recovery could, in many cases, be found outside of their work life, rather than within the company they work for.

Re:Burnout has many contributory factors

[citylivin]

" Consequently a proper study would have to look at all aspects of a person's life to determine the extent to which their job or their boss or something else caused them to have problems"

Well i didn't read the article, but i assume they controlled for this and used statistics. Statistics that take into account people being people and having human traits and such which bias things.

After accounting for all that (which i would hope they did) you can then blame different companies for different levels of burnout and analyze those companies.

Basically I don't get your point. One would assume they controlled for other factors and are then coming to this conclusion making your point moot. Otherwise, it wouldn't be very scientific would it? Your concerns would have been implicitly addressed by them doing a "study" about this. One assumes that this is a scientific study and not a social media poll....

I read it as them saying "after we controlled for all other variables, company culture is to blame". Not sure why you wouldn't assume the same.

Re:Burnout has many contributory factors

[ath1901]

it's usually the organization, not its employees, that is to blame

It is incorrect to suggest that only factors related to work are the cause of burnout...

I don't think they are suggesting that. They looked for common factors between companies with higher than average risk of burnout for their employees. They are not suggesting the factors they found are the only relevant factors. At least I hope they don't suggest that because it would be incredibly dumb to do so.

  There seem to be evidence that impaired recovery is the cause of burnout. If so, then there is no single factor but rather the total 24h load that is important. For example, I think I remember studies showing a low risk of burnout as long as your sleep isn't affected. Also, unemployed have an increased risk of burnout which can not be explained by high intensity stress during working hours but rather the constant low intensity stress and worry about money, finding a job, the future etc.

It would explain why otherwise unrelated things like work stress, depression and shift work increase the risk of burnout. Stress may make it difficult to unwind after work which can impair sleep and general recovery. Depression may lead to excessive worry which does the same. Shift work may physically keep you awake when your body wants to rest and recover, therefore also leading to increased risk.

And don't forget...

[computational super]

Open offices, too. But the fact that they're so popular suggests that the people who are making the decisions really just don't care about the consequences; they're just hanging on until retirement.

Re:Working people harder.

[__aaclcg7560]

And that poor unemployed slob who really wants to come back to work? Well, he "doesn't have the skills" .

For the two years (2009-10) I was out of work, hiring managers told me I was overqualified for minimum wage jobs and recruiters told me I was unemployable for anything else. I didn't listen to them. I got a weekend job for a moving company, working 20 hours per month for six months. The day after my Chapter Seven bankruptcy got finalized, I got a new fulltime job. I spent the next two years working seven days a week to rebuild my finances. As the economy got better, so did the jobs that got offered to me. Sometime you just have to hang in there until things get better.

Re:Working people harder.

[Altus]

I hear this crap all the time about unemployed meaning unemployable but I have come back form being unemployed plenty of times, including a very long stint back after 9/11 fucked the economy for a while.

Maybe these people just don't have skills that are in sufficient demand, maybe they didn't keep their skills fresh... but acting like this is normal ignores the huge number of people who do manage to get hired off of the unemployment rolls

They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not kid ourselves. Burnout happens because people no longer care about their jobs. Why? Because there is no benefit to working any harder.

Re:250,000 hrs == 28 years wasted

[HornWumpus]

Remember your most important kindergarten lesson. If you didn't get caught, you didn't do it.

Let them have their fig leaf. But recognize it and skip. Then you have a choice: bar or office? Guess it depends on how much work you have to do and who you are skipping with.

Peter principle

[Solandri]

Managers rise to the level of their incompetence. That is, people are promoted for performing well, up until they attain a position at which they are no longer competent. At which point they stop being promoted, and persist in that position doing their jobs incompetently in perpetuity.

pointless semantic games

[ooloorie]

Employee Burnout Is a Problem with the Company, Not the Person (hbr.org)

Yes, some companies burn people out. Some companies serve bad food in the cafeteria. Some companies don't pay enough. Some companies have smelly carpets.

It's still your decision to continue working for such companies.

"excessive collaboration"

[gweihir]

Interesting. The other two are pretty obvious, but this one made me think. Too many meetings, too many people involved in tasks, maybe to much management-by-consensus?

All we need is under Thunderdome

[dbIII]

Who told you it was illegal to negotiate for your pay in countries outside of the US ?

The movies obviously.
You try to negotiate and no guzzaline for you.