My wife does not work in software development, so perhaps if one wants a work-life balance, one needs to start there. Then again, she makes less money than me. And she loves her job. And she is allowed to work part-time with almost unlimited home office. I guess this is all connected somehow. đ So basically we are in a situation where if she wanted, she could stay at home, and we could easily handle it economically, but she doesnât want to. Meanwhile, I would love to stay at home, but we cannot afford to lose my income. Luckily I donât compare myself to her, I just wish I had more time and energy for my projects.
Home office during covid was so wonderful. No commute. Healthier meals. No open space. Silence (or music of my choice, without having to wear the headphones). During short breaks, I could exercise or do the dishes. During the lunch break, I could take a nap, or go to a supermarket. I could take a break to take my kids home from school and kindergarten, and then continue working while they were playing or watching TV. My everyday life felt much better. Afterwards, the company started slowly pushing back against the home office; every few months, the limit was tightened: 3 days a week, then 10 days a month, then 2 days a week. And I suspect this will continue, perhaps until it finally gets back to zero.
I was joking about the divorce. The point is that wanting a part-time job without having a really good excuse is a bad signal of oneâs work ethic. What else could be a good excuse?
he point is that wanting a part-time job without having a really good excuse is a bad signal of oneâs work ethic. What else could be a good excuse?
One part of the declining societal work ethic is itâs quite a bit more common to decide to work less, without needing much of an excuse. I know a LOT of people under normal retirement age, who describe themselves as âsemi-retiredâ or âworking enough to keep my head in the gameâ, rather than optimizing for career and future earnings potential. Note that this is mostly long-term software devs whoâve amassed quite a lot of savings, and I ALSO know many who are near or past normal retirement age and need to keep working for the money. A lot of motivation isnât about work ethic, itâs about transactional optimization.
The tradeoff of âpretty good compensationâ for âmore time/âenergy than Iâd like to spendâ is pretty rampant. That part isnât about sexism or having a good excuse, itâs just the bundling that seems to work for most employers.
I guess, from certain perspective, my question is âhow can I send costly signals of work ethics if I donât have one?â and the obvious answer is âyou canât (or it is really difficult), because thatâs exactly what makes it a costly signal, dummy!â :D
The annoying part about the time-energy/âcompensation tradeoff is that it isnât linear. There is no simple lever I could push to spend 50% of time-energy for 50% compensation and find out how that works for me. (I have explored some options, but if seemed that the drop in compensation was dramatic, something like 50% compensation for 80% of time-energy, which isnât really the thing I want. It would make much more sense to stay unemployed between jobs.)
There seems to be no convenient way to even explore the landscape of possibilities, because companies do not transparently advertise how e.g. stressful or meaningless the work is. It is supposed to be your responsibility to ask the right kind of questions during the interview, but in my experience that doesnât work either, because sometimes different departments work differently, and they hire you for one department and after you sign the contract or maybe a few months later they move you to a different department that functions differently. Or a new manager comes and changes the rules.
Even the concept of âwork ethicsâ sounds a bit misleading. Itâs not like there is a uniform thing called âworkâ and you either like it or donât. You may find some aspects of work okay and other aspects unbearable. For example, as a software developer somewhat on the autistic spectrum, I find âdeveloping software, with clear requirements, without interruptions, in a quiet roomâ a pleasant experience, but âdeveloping software, with unclear requirements that contradict each other and change all the time, with constant interruptions and task switching, in open spaceâ deeply unpleasant. So itâs not like I fundamentally lack âwork ethicsâ, but rather that I am more compatible with some work conditions and less compatible with others (and sadly the latter seem more popular among managers so the entire industry moves that way).
Also, what is the opposite of âworkâ? Some people spend their free time watching TV or scrolling on social networks. Other people have hobbies and projects, which can be similar to jobs in complexity and time-energy requirements, itâs just that they do not generate income. If someone does difficult and useful things, but they do not generate profit, does it make sense to accuse them of not having âwork ethicsâ? Basically, the motte-and-bailey fallacy, where we equivocate between âworkâ and âwork for moneyâ.
Fully on-board with the annoyance at this equilibrium. I donât see a better way, unfortunately, with the information and motivation asymmetry between software employers and employees, both of which have large variances in quality.
Iâve focused on the technical and social/âteam aspects of software development as a (very) senior IC, rather than as a manager in title. Even so, Iâve been deeply involved in hiring, organizing, motivating, and aligning teams for a number of large projects. Iâve found a very strong correlation between the signaling of âwork ethicâ in terms of energy and hours and the actual performance and impact of an employee. Like all heuristics, itâs nowhere near 100%, and itâs sad that thereâs no easy way to identify the exceptions. Sad as it is, itâs trueâas an employer of software engineers, I would prefer not to hire part-time.
Which means the expected-productivity curve for employers is nonlinear, so thereâs no reasonable way to make the pay/âeffort ratio constant.
100% (or moreâthis justifies hyperbole) on applying âwork ethicâ to other aspects of life. This difficult tradeoff of motivated effort on behalf of others applies to housekeeping, care for partner/âchildren, some parts of hobbies, and a lot of other things. Itâs not work-for-money, itâs work-for-others-preferences.
My wife does not work in software development, so perhaps if one wants a work-life balance, one needs to start there. Then again, she makes less money than me. And she loves her job. And she is allowed to work part-time with almost unlimited home office. I guess this is all connected somehow. đ So basically we are in a situation where if she wanted, she could stay at home, and we could easily handle it economically, but she doesnât want to. Meanwhile, I would love to stay at home, but we cannot afford to lose my income. Luckily I donât compare myself to her, I just wish I had more time and energy for my projects.
Home office during covid was so wonderful. No commute. Healthier meals. No open space. Silence (or music of my choice, without having to wear the headphones). During short breaks, I could exercise or do the dishes. During the lunch break, I could take a nap, or go to a supermarket. I could take a break to take my kids home from school and kindergarten, and then continue working while they were playing or watching TV. My everyday life felt much better. Afterwards, the company started slowly pushing back against the home office; every few months, the limit was tightened: 3 days a week, then 10 days a month, then 2 days a week. And I suspect this will continue, perhaps until it finally gets back to zero.
I was joking about the divorce. The point is that wanting a part-time job without having a really good excuse is a bad signal of oneâs work ethic. What else could be a good excuse?
One part of the declining societal work ethic is itâs quite a bit more common to decide to work less, without needing much of an excuse. I know a LOT of people under normal retirement age, who describe themselves as âsemi-retiredâ or âworking enough to keep my head in the gameâ, rather than optimizing for career and future earnings potential. Note that this is mostly long-term software devs whoâve amassed quite a lot of savings, and I ALSO know many who are near or past normal retirement age and need to keep working for the money. A lot of motivation isnât about work ethic, itâs about transactional optimization.
The tradeoff of âpretty good compensationâ for âmore time/âenergy than Iâd like to spendâ is pretty rampant. That part isnât about sexism or having a good excuse, itâs just the bundling that seems to work for most employers.
I guess, from certain perspective, my question is âhow can I send costly signals of work ethics if I donât have one?â and the obvious answer is âyou canât (or it is really difficult), because thatâs exactly what makes it a costly signal, dummy!â :D
The annoying part about the time-energy/âcompensation tradeoff is that it isnât linear. There is no simple lever I could push to spend 50% of time-energy for 50% compensation and find out how that works for me. (I have explored some options, but if seemed that the drop in compensation was dramatic, something like 50% compensation for 80% of time-energy, which isnât really the thing I want. It would make much more sense to stay unemployed between jobs.)
There seems to be no convenient way to even explore the landscape of possibilities, because companies do not transparently advertise how e.g. stressful or meaningless the work is. It is supposed to be your responsibility to ask the right kind of questions during the interview, but in my experience that doesnât work either, because sometimes different departments work differently, and they hire you for one department and after you sign the contract or maybe a few months later they move you to a different department that functions differently. Or a new manager comes and changes the rules.
Even the concept of âwork ethicsâ sounds a bit misleading. Itâs not like there is a uniform thing called âworkâ and you either like it or donât. You may find some aspects of work okay and other aspects unbearable. For example, as a software developer somewhat on the autistic spectrum, I find âdeveloping software, with clear requirements, without interruptions, in a quiet roomâ a pleasant experience, but âdeveloping software, with unclear requirements that contradict each other and change all the time, with constant interruptions and task switching, in open spaceâ deeply unpleasant. So itâs not like I fundamentally lack âwork ethicsâ, but rather that I am more compatible with some work conditions and less compatible with others (and sadly the latter seem more popular among managers so the entire industry moves that way).
Also, what is the opposite of âworkâ? Some people spend their free time watching TV or scrolling on social networks. Other people have hobbies and projects, which can be similar to jobs in complexity and time-energy requirements, itâs just that they do not generate income. If someone does difficult and useful things, but they do not generate profit, does it make sense to accuse them of not having âwork ethicsâ? Basically, the motte-and-bailey fallacy, where we equivocate between âworkâ and âwork for moneyâ.
Fully on-board with the annoyance at this equilibrium. I donât see a better way, unfortunately, with the information and motivation asymmetry between software employers and employees, both of which have large variances in quality.
Iâve focused on the technical and social/âteam aspects of software development as a (very) senior IC, rather than as a manager in title. Even so, Iâve been deeply involved in hiring, organizing, motivating, and aligning teams for a number of large projects. Iâve found a very strong correlation between the signaling of âwork ethicâ in terms of energy and hours and the actual performance and impact of an employee. Like all heuristics, itâs nowhere near 100%, and itâs sad that thereâs no easy way to identify the exceptions. Sad as it is, itâs trueâas an employer of software engineers, I would prefer not to hire part-time.
Which means the expected-productivity curve for employers is nonlinear, so thereâs no reasonable way to make the pay/âeffort ratio constant.
100% (or moreâthis justifies hyperbole) on applying âwork ethicâ to other aspects of life. This difficult tradeoff of motivated effort on behalf of others applies to housekeeping, care for partner/âchildren, some parts of hobbies, and a lot of other things. Itâs not work-for-money, itâs work-for-others-preferences.