On Good Questions

You also have to count the time people spend doing work stuff outside office hours. People are expected to be on call, and deadlines keep getting shorter, so lots of stuff has to be done in the evening or on weekends. IME Americans are pretty hard working in general.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

ed" at the typical job -- answering email, surfing the web, chatting on the phone, chatting by the water cooler, etc. (all "personal" tasks unrelated to work).

ur co-workers as being an employee of your boss. It took me a while to get used to "wasting" time at work being sociable with the people I worked with , but it didn't take me all that long to realise that if you didn't like an d trust the people you worked with, you weren't going to collaborate effect ively with them to get the stuff done that the boss (and the shareholders) wanted done.

receiving personal e-mail, playing with your phone, bathroom breaks, etc. probably doesn't count as "being sociable with the people you work with".

Nor did I suggest that it was. YouTube Videos, playing with your phone and bathroom breaks definitely don't. Personal e-mail could be a grey area.

dustries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be in far more meetings t han "factory workers", administrative staff, etc. And, those meetings tend to be less formal -- more "brainstorming" and interactive.

Your two hour figure wasn't backed up by any obvious research so has to be understood as "a significant amount of time".

imes for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's dime" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (and, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).

Worrying about "dinging the company" is a waste of attention.

ving "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can see how easy i t would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is amazing as it translates t o ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course of a year!).

Why bother? Getting excited about how employees structure their work is the kind of moronic make-work that personnel departments tend to get excited a bout - when they aren't busy with their proper job which seems to be reject ing well-qualified job applicants and scheduling obvious no-hopers for job interviews.

e of people working at ostensibly competitive organisations as well.

r desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something engineering-related... yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current workload"?

tions in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulder to sort out a problem he/she's having, etc.

That's more where relationships come apart. Putting them back together agai n requires a less driven environment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Ahh you forgot...

Once you fix, repair or modify something for free they expect expect a lifetime warranty on the item no matter what goes wrong.

Actually, that hasn't been the case for me! Most of these "favors" are either for "professional colleagues" or "friends" (almost never for "acquaintances").

Colleagues understand the significance of the effort -- i.e., I get

*paid* for similar types of work (just like THEY get paid for the types of work I extract from *them* as "favors"). The fellow who's laptop's power jack I repaired today would be chagrined if he knew the extent of the effort (buying -- my expense -- the replacement part, tearing the laptop down to *nothing*, machining the case for the new/revised replacement part, reassembling the laptop, then testing all of the laptop's functionality to ensure I haven't left a WiFi antenna disconnected or damaged an internal speaker, etc.)

Similarly, friends understand that I am making a gift of my personal time to them for . "Friends" don't abuse this sort of thing -- out of fear of *losing* it! It's a personal imposition and making it lightly/too often is likely to find a future request (which may be VERY IMPORTANT) met with a polite, "Sorry, I'm busy" (after all, my time is *mine* to decide how to spend).

Of course, the same is true in reverse -- if I ask for a design of a small power supply and *happen* to specify a particular mechanical envelope that makes component selection unexpectedly difficult (unforeseen at the time the favor is agreed to), I'm not going to hear a lot of griping about how "big" the favor has turned out to be! (just like you don't gripe to a client about a bad estimate on YOUR part for one of their projects! Learn... remember for "next time"!)

"Acquaintances" usually have no idea of the effort involved (not usually involved in similar industries). And, probably not as willing to *reciprocate* -- THEIR time is ALWAYS more valuable than *yours*! :>

(And, a "freebie" for a business often leads to requests for OTHER freebies -- as they attempt to minimize their costs!)

You didn't read the post for understanding, did you?

:), or should I mean ":("

Yes too true, but I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I'll remember that!

...

Tim, i will peak at some of the responses, but i don't have time to read all 50 or so. so someone else may have already pointed this out (lemme know):

sometimes, getting the question formed into a "Good question", is nearly sufficient to get the OP to answer the question. the answer becomes evident. that's sometimes where it is legit to ask poorly-formed questions and get help by straightening out the question into a well-formed question that them "experts" (whoever they are) will have enough to know when each unanswered element of the question is actually answered.

i've found use in reading (usually regarding communications engineering, which i am not really involved in) responses to not-well-defined questions that forced the OP to refine the question to a state where it actually means something tangible and specific. so, even though these OPs don't make our life easy by asking such questions, sometimes others just as dumb as the OP (like me) can learn something seeing these specific elements emerge in the nascent "good question".

i'm gonna select some answers (Eric et.al.) and if i miss a good subthread of this thread, someone lemme know please.

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

I honestly can't understand a mindset that sticks to one skillset, application domain, etc. for an entire career. To me, it would be like "digging ditches" -- regardless of the pay level and/or proficiency attained, it's just "the same thing, over and over" ("Oooo! The soil here has a high concentration of loam -- instead of clay!" )

How many power supplies do you design before you say, "Um, I'm pretty sure I've got this skill 'down'..." and ache to move onto something new? How many different sort() routines? User interfaces? Math packages, etc.?

Similarly, there's a point at which it gets harder and harder to find folks who are willing to pay you to learn something "new" (to you). At that point, it's inevitable that you become a "ditch-digger" (though you now have a larger variety of "ditches" to choose between).

So, if you want continued variety and challenge, you have to resort to your own imagination: "Gee, wouldn't it be great if...".

Of course, deciding when you can "afford" to do that is a matter of personal comfort: how well you've saved/invested, how comfortable you are in your assessment of your own future need$, life expectancy, number and types of folks who "depend" on you and the extent of your commitment to them, physical/mental condition and prognosis, etc.

On the flip side, how much capacity to undertake new ideas and concepts do you expect to have as you get older? Given that you don't *already* have something under your belt, are you confident that you'll have the mental and physical skills to "pick it up" when you're 60? 65? 70? What recourse will you have if the above proves NOT to be the case? (blindness, tremor, stroke, fatigue, respiratory problems, memory, hearing, dexterity, strength, etc.)

[Dunno about you, but I find the things that I want to learn get more taxing -- perhaps because they *are* more complex! -- to pick up as I get older! E.g., the idea of learning another foreign language at my age would be far too frustrating! It's a challenge for me just to resolve the subtle differences among the sounds of English speech in order to understand fine differences in pronunciation rules at my current "state of decay"^H^H^H age! :> ]

(sigh) Off to deliver some goodies...

Counterexample, probably apocryphal, but who cares...

A newly minted maths graduate got a job assembling vacuum cleaners. After a few months they realised he was capable of more, and repeatedly gently tried to get him to move into management etc. Eventually they asked him why not.

He replied that he deliberately got a job that he could learn in 30mins and thereafter do mindlessly. Why? Because while he was ostensibly assembling vacuum cleaners, actually he was indulging in his passion: playing games of chess.

I've always admired someone that can work out what's /really/ important to them, and then find a way to achieve it.

Exactly! I'm not advocating folks follow *my* approach to life, career, etc. Rather, indicating what I, early on, realized was "really important to me" and how I went about getting that out of my life, career, etc.

E.g., I have stubbornly resisted management roles beyond "project management". And, even there, have limited my "touch" to ensuring everyone on the team has what they need to do their job (*my* view of a manager's true role!) instead of "playing policeman".

I've a friend who was essentially "set for life" in his

20's. He's moved on -- but to more expensive versions of what he was doing "back then". From my perspective, a "waste of talent" -- as he was immensely capable of doing anything he set his mind to! *But*, he is apparently happy (and very $ucce$$ful!) doing it. [*I* would rather trade potential $$ for the ability to reclaim *my* time on the planet]

So, what "works" for one may not for another.

Well, yes. I had a coworker once who's professed ambition was to recharge his unemployment and then start gently pissing off the boss until he was laid off (the boss never fired anyone -- he laid them off, and then hired a replacement. Anyone who's employed people knows how kosher that is). Then when his unemployment ran out, he'd apply for work again.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Yeah, I hired a guy like that once. He gradually damaged more and more expensive equipment and tools until he was laid off. Serially unemployed.

--sp

OK, my guy just went up in my estimation. He never damaged equipment, just mouthed off and got slower and slower until he was let go.

--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com

A friend "periodically" sent his wife back to work... just long enough to get through the probationary period. Wages were immaterial. What he wanted was access to the health insurance policy (through COBRA -- as her time working wouldn't cover the costs of day-care for the kids). Then, convert to COBRA for 102% and 18months later repeat the process.

I wasn't trying -- or intending -- to defend it. Merely offering it as an observation.

as one starting point. You can feel free to use google to dig deeper.

"The 2007 Wasting Time Survey by Salary.com, which asked 2,000 employees across all job levels about how they spend their working hours, found employees waste an average of 1.7 hours of an 8.5-hour workday. This represents a decline from last year, when workers reported wasting an average of 1.89 hours each day."

I.e., this suggests at least two such surveys.

Similar/elaborations:

The phenomenon isn't, apparently, unique to the US:

My point (to Anand) was that folks *typically* don't work "8 hours straight" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of "distraction"?

Work is for work. If you want to socialize, do it on your dime.

Because how your coworkers spend/waste their time has a direct impact on the quality of *your* work experience:

Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phone calls and taking long breaks while at work.

Nearly 18% of employees reportedly waste time because they ?don?t have enough work to do,? while the second most popular response was ?my hours are too long? (13.9%).

While those surveyed were quick to admit wasting time at work, they also complained about work-related activities that waste time: Fixing someone else?s work and dealing with office politics were the two most popular answers.

from .

A woman I know was recently formally reprimanded because her coworkers were frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being too polite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I* do! Could you please leave me to get my work done?"

Despite the fact that the woman is present on weekends, late nights, etc. to ensure *her* work gets done!

We obviously have very different experiences in the workplace! I've found that team meetings are often the only chance you have to REGULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from purchasing to sales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering! If everyone visited each otehr team member individually over the course of each week, you'd have little time to actually *do* any work (on teams that have more than "a couple" of individuals).

Folks often don't know who might have an idea to get them out of their current (design?) predicament. But, being able to express their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a more expeditious manner.

E.g., on a printer design many years ago, the mechanical folks were having a tough time fitting a "ribbon (ink) sensor" in the design. The initial approach -- an iso-optilator through which the ribbon would pass -- required the operator to *thread* the ribbon through the slotted detector (or, arrange for the detector/emitter to magically "part" when the ribbon was accessed -- and similarly realign itself when said access was complete).

Exposing the problem to the rest of the team yielded a simpler and less costly solution (from a component cost and manufacturing labor cost) -- as well as a more "fool-proof" solution: let the ribbon come off the (supply) spool when it reaches the end and then detect when the takeup spool starts "freewheeling" (due to the sudden loss of a mechanical load). No alignment issues. No cables to offboard sensors. Etc.

The end result is a *tighter* relationship: this person has made my job *easier*!

Something a bit more current:

Doesn't matter. My point to Anand (?) was that folks are able to do these "non work" activities... why can't we similarly engage in activities that *appear* NOT to be "work related"?

E.g., his question could just as easily have been posted on FACEBOOK and been "How do you people find time to keep updating your facebook profiles???"

(Or, on a "running" forum and been "How do you folks find the time to run in all these marathons in various places around the country?")

industries or job types. E.g., engineers *tend* to be in far more meeting s than "factory workers", administrative staff, etc. And, those meetings t end to be less formal -- more "brainstorming" and interactive.

o be understood as "a significant amount of time".

it as an observation.

. You can feel free to use google to dig deeper.

ees across all job levels about how they spend their working hours, found e mployees waste an average of 1.7 hours of an 8.5-hour workday. This represe nts a decline from last year, when workers reported wasting an average of 1 .89 hours each day."

Both of them with a particular point of view.

There's a difference between wasting time at work, and spending time occupi ed in ways that don't immediately or obviously advance the employees percei ved interest.

ht" -- so, why assume "we" don't have time for this sort of "distraction"?

If you called it "practice at problem appreciation and problem solving" it wouldn't be seen as a distraction.

l times for "socializing". Figure the lunch hour is NOT "on the boss's dim e" so you're really only dinging the company for time on coffee breaks. (a nd, that doesn't count activities outside of the workplace).

Work is a collaborative activity. If you don't bother with social interacti ons with your co-workers, they'll be less willing - and effective - collabo rators.

serving "regular employees" at clients' facilities, etc. I can see how eas y it would be to "lose" two hours a day! (which is amazing as it translate s to ~12 weeks of "vacation" over the course of a year!).

the kind of moronic make-work that personnel departments tend to get excite d about - when they aren't busy with their proper job which seems to be rej ecting well-qualified job applicants and scheduling obvious no-hopers for j ob interviews.

the quality of *your* work experience:

Sure.

Surfing the net (34.7% of respondents), along with socializing with co-workers (20.3%) and conducting personal business (17%), were among the top time wasters. Those surveyed also report making personal phon e calls and taking long breaks while at work.

It happens. It's better seen as spending time, rather than wasting it. Empl oyees have an existence outside of work, and that regularly impacts on thei r behaviour at work. Someone who could rigidly separate their work from the rest of their life might strike you as an ideal worker, but I doubt if I'd have enjoyed working with them.

e enough work to do" while the second most popular response was "my hours a re too long" (13.9%).

If the employee hasn't got enough work to do, it's the employer who has was ted their time. "The hours are too long" is a less defensible explanation, but it probably wasn't actually offered as a serious justification.

also complained about work-related activities that waste time: Fixing someo ne else's work and dealing with office politics were the two most popular a nswers.

Neither is actually a waste of time. Nobody wants to do either, but since h uman beings are fallible, fixing up other people's mistakes is unvoidable, and office politics is mostly about preventing other peoples mistakes from doing too much damage.

Your obsession about "time wasting activities" is pure office politics.

re frequently seen "chatting" in her office; her "crime" was being too pol ite to tell them "Hey, YOU may not have anything to do but *I* do! Could you please leave me to get my work done?"

to ensure *her* work gets done!

Pointy-headed-bosses tend not to be present at weekends and after normal wo rking hours, so they don't kow about that.

eir desire to escape what they SHOULD be doing. How does that differ from an engineer wanting to distract himself with something engineering-related. .. yet NOT (necessarily) germane to his "current workload"?

".

orations in each other's offices, standing over a colleague's shoulder to s ort out a problem he/she's having, etc.

again requires a less driven environment.

to REGULARLY meet with everyone associated with a project -- from purchasin g to sales/marketing to manufacturing to engineering! If everyone visited e ach otehr team member individually over the course of each week, you'd have little time to actually *do* any work (on teams that have more than "a cou ple" of individuals).

On the electron beam tester project (1988 to 1991) I started copying my wee kly reports to my boss to the rest of the team fairly early on, for reasons that made sense at the time.

By the end of the project - when the team was quite a bit bigger, some ten to fifteen people - the weekly reports had metamorphosed to a team newslett er. I'd spend Friday morning going around the team, having a few words with everybody, and put together a couple of pages of text in the afternoon, th at got circulated to everybody. About a year before the project finally got cancelled, I'd pointed out to my boss that this was taking up a significan t part of my time, but he told me to keep doing it - the benefits in terms of team morale were worth the time invested. And from time to time the info rmation I picked up helped me do the systems engineer part of my job a litt le better.

rrent (design?) predicament. But, being able to express their progress -- and impediments -- in an open forum allows them to benefit from the ideas and expertise of their team-mates in a more expeditious manner.

Meetings aren't particularly open forums. Being honest about progress - or the lack of it - is often seen as playing office politics. People tend to b e more open when there isn't an audience.

having a tough time fitting a "ribbon (ink) sensor" in the design. The init ial approach -- an opto-isolator through which the ribbon would pass -- req uired the operator to *thread* the ribbon through the slotted detector (or, arrange for the detector/emitter to magically "part" when the ribbon was a ccessed -- and similarly realign itself when said access was complete).

ostly solution (from a component cost and manufacturinglabor cost) -- as we ll as a more "fool-proof" solution: let the ribbon come off the (supply) s pool when it reaches the end and then detect when the takeup spool starts " freewheeling" (due to the sudden loss of a mechanical load). No alignment issues. No cables to off-board sensors. Etc.

*easier*!

There's a lot of that around. Most of it happens outside of meetings when o ne engineer is explaining a problem to another, who recognises it as a vari ant of a familiar problem with a familiar solution.

And your "iso-optilator" would seem to have been a photo-emitter/photodete ctor "fork". If you didn't want to run your ribbon through a slot, there's a "reflection" variant, where the emitter is mounted next to the detector, and only illuminated the detector is there's something in from of the emitt er to reflect some of it's output.

The "free-wheeling" detection can be done with fewer extra parts, and is co rrespondingly more elegant, but it is less direct.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I knew a plumber like that once. He was good enough at his job that finding work was no problem but every time a contract completed he'd always wait until UI ran out to go back to work. He "scheduled" it so he was off summers.

However, in the case of your coworker, it's surprising he could find a job at all. Word gets out and even if they don't say anything (good reasons not to), people with such a poor record of employment tend to stay unemployed.