My experience confirms the decrease in motivation after anouncement of a new exercise routine, diet, or life plan. Keep it private unless you already have a 100% committment within yourself to follow through. I pre-announced that I was quitting smoking, but I was really ready, and haven't smoked in 12+ years.
I sometimes wonder if a similar mechanism might be at play when you imagine accomplishing your goal in a Walter Mitty sort of way.
There are many projects which I can envision completing, and which I know I have the technical skills for. But I gain a certain amount of satisfaction just from picturing the completed work, and in the end I don't actually put in the effort to make it reality.
I vaguely remember something about research showing that visualisation works well if you visualize both the positive outcome of achieving a goal and the negative outcome of not achieving it.
I suffer from the same affliction. Daydreaming forward often reveals additional functionalities and synergies and implications, so it even "feels" like progress, but I've learned the hard way that skipping to the last page of the book is counter-productive.
That's only if you're talking about major accomplishments, like "I'm gonna make Director by 2021". Ya that's bullshit and bragging. I'm referring to things like saying "Guys i'm gonna not drink for a month" or "I'm gonna finish that damn car repair this summer".
Likewise. I achieve very little unless I feel like I'm letting down other people if I don't succeed. I can cope with the self-loathing of letting myself down, so if my plans are private I struggle with motivation. In fact, I add extra sticks (which I react to far better than carrots): two years ago I announced my weight loss goal – which had a strict deadline – in public and the extra stipulation that were I to fail, I would not touch alcohol for the entire following year. I firmly believe that without either of those, I would have found it ludicrously easy to cheat and fail.
Agree. It seems plausible that this just varies by personality: some people are motivated by announcing, some are demotivated (and probably some are indifferent).
"Share your 'go up' goals selectively... share your 'go up' goals with everyone you possibly can"
So, if you want to give up smoking, share that with everyone including your mailman. They will help you on your path. However, beware of sharing your 'go up' goals - like starting a business - with others... they might drag you down.
I always had some uncanny notion of this, and would keep my plans to myself. For some things, it's the way to go (like quitting your job and traveling). Probably b/c you don't need the external input; it only adds noise.
Yet I wouldn't be so quick to discourage sharing and doing what it takes to stay motivated. External motivation is great, I wish I had more of it!
I reckon there is greater glory in stating what you will do and following through ftw... and yummy humble pie for you if you give up or fail.
I think you have a good point on external input noise.
When you announce your plans to people close to you, such as family and friends and coworkers, you start getting input which is not necessarily useful even if their intentions are good.
Moreover, your announcement might make some people uncomfortable to the point where they try to sabotage you, either intentionally or subconsciously.
This happens to me too, and it's doubly worse when I've made a little progress on a project in addition to telling/showing someone.
For example, a couple of days ago, I implemented a 'MVP' for a sweet (my opinion ;) IntelliJ plugin[1], but since telling/showing co-workers I lost the motivation that got me started on it.
I had never seen these ideas put down on paper but it is true for me. My mind can be pretty satisfied with just thinking it knows how it would be if I accomplished something instead of actually doing it.
While I share your sentiment I think the article means sthg. Different. What I think it says is: If you have a plan and tell others about it's realization, you are less motivated to actually implement your plan.
Thinking about me it is bexause others start to monitor my doings, causing pressure and somewhat forcing me to work according to others schedules instead of my own. That's what workflife is about, no?
It is a probabilistic claim, not a causal one. Whether you announce it can clearly have no bearing on doing it, at the physical level. However, the studies showed that you're more likely to succeed it you kept it private.
Not guaranteed to succeed. Not doomed to fail if you announce. Just like getting dealt an ace as the first card doesn't determine if you win. Has better chances than getting a two, though.
I watched a TED talk about this years ago and recognized myself and my habits. I've since stopped announcing plans until I have a certain amount of concrete progress. Sometimes I still misjudge, and lose motivation. For me this applies for both small and big things.
Eg say I make plans to go to the gym tomorrow. If I tell someone I'm going to go to the gym, I am less likely to actually do it. If I keep my mouth shut I'll probably follow through. I currently have an idea of something I'd like to do. It will take a lot of physical and emotional work. I've tried to make plans before and discussed them with some friends, and always after the discussions it never ends up happening. This time I'm not telling anyone until the plan is actually in motion.
I haven't watched this (I'm on a bus, bandwidth concerns) but the title just made me think: "yes, keep your goals to myself. In a diary. That way I won't be demotivated by premature announcement, yet I'll be bursting to have something to show when I make progress"
Promissing to ones self, for me at least, is a motivator because I trust myself more, and the trust is reinforced as I complete goals. But announcing "I'm doing this thing" either causes anxiety, or demotivates nectar is already our there, as the article describes.
I'm exactly opposite of that. If I announce plans, that adds an additional cost (embarrassment) to failing to accomplish them, which makes it less likely that I'll procrastinate or abandon the effort.
This only works if people are excited for what you are making.
I once worked on an ambitious game for months, and then decided to make an announcement about what I was building. The reaction from most people was meh. I stopped working on it about a month later and all remaining copies of it have since been deleted by now. Never released.
> This only works if people are excited for what you are making.
I suppose I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about a public announcement, I'm talking about announcing it to my personal friends and colleagues. Whether or not they are excited by the project itself isn't really a factor -- they'll still want to know how the project is going.
I tend not to make any public announcements until at least beta.
That's how I thought the fear of embarrassment turns into motivation too, but that is not real motivation as it doesn't come from within but from the outside, fearing of disappointing others or fearing personal embarrassment. That may work to keep one going but the reality is that things change, priorities change, motivation fades for good reasons. It is probably better to not announce anything until you've started off and made some progress and realized that you're on a good path.
The concept of "vaporware" seems relevant to this discussion. It's easy to talk big and hype a product that doesn't actually exist yet, but following through and getting the product shipped is a hell of a lot harder.
This article treats all types of announcements as being equal. Not so!
A hazy announcement like "I'll be doing more to fight climate change" may indeed be empty virtue signaling that leads to nothing.
But what about a more precise announcement like: "I'll be writing a book on Topic X, which I plan to publish 15 months from now, and I'll be completing one chapter on the 25th of every month until then"? Now we've got intermediate deadlines, and deliverables, and at least the first stirrings of a coherent plan.
Announcements can work quite well, as long as you're willing to commit with enough clarity that your friends and rivals will keep you honest.
> But what about a more precise announcement like: "I'll be writing a book on Topic X, which I plan to publish 15 months from now, and I'll be completing one chapter on the 25th of every month until then"? Now we've got intermediate deadlines, and deliverables, and at least the first stirrings of a coherent plan.
As a data point, if I did this, it would probably make me much less likely to work on it and very anxious about the whole thing.
> "I'll be writing a book on Topic X, which I plan to publish 15 months from now, and I'll be completing one chapter on the 25th of every month until then"?
I did something similar when I began my first book. It accomplished nothing. I ended up stalling for several years.
What helped was a private commitment to myself to work on the book every day. It's definitely important to have a plan, but that's orthogonal to sharing a plan.
> your friends and rivals will keep you honest.
This depends on your friends, but I think at least in the US, most friendships are based on uncritical support. They aren't likely to cause friction by calling you on things you previously committed to doing unless that commitment actually affects them personally.
Maybe that's the way to use your social network to keep you honest. Make a commitment like: "If I finish this project by date X, I will contribute $YYYY to your favorite charity." Now your friend has some skin in the game.
The problem is that if the person is looking for some sort of validation, and the responses from people are ho-hum (or, worse, negative) that has a demotivating effect.
"Nobody is excited about my plan now; nobody will care when it gets done; why bother."
Alternately, people will be excited and encouraging for someone's announced plans, and the execution will feel like it's all downhill.
It's interesting that the GP mentioned that climate stuff is "virtue signalling", but announcing that you're writing a book is beneficial. Both are absolutely meaningless claims until there is execution, and announcements are self-sabotage or worse.
Anecdotally, I think you've got the examples wrong.
For me, announcing specific projects that I'm working on definitely demotivates me. After announcing personal projects that may or may not fully happen, it feels like I'm then working for others who have expectations, rather than for myself. That's not fun.
But telling people about things like changes to my lifestyle are different. I feel like it almost even helps to have people ask me if I'm still working out, motivation to fulfill that expectation.
Maybe it's because in the first example, what I want to accomplish requires creativity, while in the second, it only requires regimen. Expectations of my regimen challenge me to work, expectations of my creativity feel like boundaries, which are antithetical to the creative process.
> feel like boundaries, which are antithetical to the creative process.
I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that this is precisely backwards. Boundaries are essential to creativity. In a way, they are the source of creativity.
Or maybe I should say it as: the imposition and refinement of self-imposed boundaries is the creative process -- from the vast sea of all possibilities, you are winnowing down to one, the thing that you produce at the end. Artificial or external boundaries at the outset just give you a head start.
But that doesn't change your point, just the terminology. I agree that announcing projects can be highly demotivating. It's sort of like the winnowing process above is no longer happening exclusively in my own head, but rather I become dependent on what's going on in others' heads in order to match what I think their expectations are.
After telling someone else, half of the sea of possibilities is gone -- but I'm not sure which half, and drive myself crazy guessing. As you say, I'm now at least partly working for others instead of myself.
That's separate from the problem where announcing a cool project delivers much of the payoff, reducing motivation to work on it.
Yeah I think you're right on that. Challenge a pop musician to make a song using only a banjo and a synth and they'll produce something cool and unexpected. Good cuisine has come over time from the scarcity of food, and people putting effort into making what little they have taste good. Etc.
The article seems to be specifically addressing the precise announcements you talk about and is making the case that they are bad because they provide an emotional response similar to actual completion.
The way you phrased that kind of makes it sound like just another commitment to be avoided. Wouldn't you need to do something more like "give your friend $1000 in escrow and tell her she should only give it back to you if you run the marathon"?
This depends how trustworthy you are in general, and is definitely an interesting question.
Would Gandhi take a pill which made him 1% less likely to not commit any murders, if it meant receiving a million dollars with no other strings attached?
The answer seems to be, "he would use a Schelling Fence" if that was an option.
(tl;dr: they don't agree that announcing your goals makes you less likely to accomplish them. Which should not be surprising, to anyone who has already heard of Beeminder.)
I call them "Secret Plans". You gotta save up the emotional energy and reward. On so many projects, you get the same neuro-chemical reward by talking about your project plans and how cool the result will be, as you do by making progress. By holding out, and only allowing progress itself to be a reward, and not just the talking, I usually get much further. The project may still die, but then I have something in my hands usually, and that's more rewarding than a bunch of people who think I only talk about things and never start/do any of them. . .
This is certainly a position I've found myself in, there's a temptation to talk about ideas you intend to do, but the ones I get progress on are ones where I actually execute on the concept, telling people later once I have something solid to show, or I already have someone engaged asking me about progress.
The current commentary might be a personality specific thing however, I've certainly seen people discuss ideas as a forcing mechanism to get them to work on them, and also people discussing ideas as a way to evaluate whether they're worth working on. I doubt it's very clear cut.
Standups to me are just a way to ensure everyone is awake. And able to answer a simple question and make a sentence. I don’t exactly care about the contents, except from time to time when it makes us notice that a colleague is on a wrong track.
Depends on the kind of person. Surely a lot of programmers do not care about that kind of contrived team building. Solving a high priority bug or patching a server during downtime typically builds closer bonds.
That's contrived and juvenile. Standing in a circle with my team engaging in process for the sake of process doesn't make me feel like a part of a team. Getting stuff done and working directly with teammates on a daily basis, coordinating in person, on Slack, however we choose to do it, organically, is what makes me feel closer to my team.
Aren't those contradictory? Someone talking on the phone clearly isn't standing in the circle with you.
I understand the benefit of standing together, but not if you're going to add an exception for someone talking on a phone from anywhere in the world. Physical alignment is a great metaphor for team alignment, and therefore physical absence shows me someone cares more about sitting on their porch with their dog than being part of the team at work.
I found the best response to standups in a prior job was to randomise a delay about ongoing work. Simply talk about what you did 2-5 days ago (depending on urgency of things). This obfuscates your exact productivity and takes away organisational power from micro-managing bosses.
Whenever a manager comes in or there is a meeting to check on your progress, you can slice of something from your buffer to present. For every problem you present (from few days) ago, you can already present the solution.
Or, in other words: Your productivity is some process that you don't want to be observed directly by your manager, because you will suffer negative consequences from them detecting the exact amplitudes. You simply apply non-stationary smoothing to it.
Engineering manager here. I think a lot of people miss the point of standup, or abuse it to somehow micromanage engineers.
Standup is for the team, not the manager or PM. It serves multiple functions, but the most important is the last bit: "are you blocked by something?". Most of the time, someone else on the team knows how to unblock you. Other times, your manager is better positioned to get you what you need than you are. Most of us don't care when you work, or how much progress you made today, or whatever. Our job is to keep the ball rolling, not manage your time.
The status update portion exists so that your manager doesn't randomize you in the middle of the day asking about that thing you're working on. Not because s/he thinks you're slacking, but because your work ties into a bunch of other work that's going on, and it's the manager's job to coordinate. While you may be more effective working as an information silo, your team and org are hindered by it.
Nope. Never once in my career have I been at a standup that was useful to me (a contributing or leading member of the team) and that wasn't simply for the manager. Your second paragraph also contradicts the first. Is it for the manager or not? Cause it sure as hell is not for the team members who are bored out of their minds listening to the other people on their team speak about their work that 99.9% of the time is completely irrelevant to one's own. This is the reality form the IC side. Maybe managers should wise up to it and stop wasting our time.
Standups are an extreme lack of parsimony.
IMO, weekly 1:1s and biweekly roundtable meetings are the right quanta to compress work into so that its relevant to the respective audiences. Most people learn to bullshit and zone out during standups. Daily standups don't make sense in anything but a rare and specific tight deadline.
IME standups are not even effective in unblocking most people.
Why would someone want to admit they're blocked by something in front of everyone? Someone else will inevitably proclaim that they have the solution, however simple it may be, and make the asker look stupid while elevating themselves.
Most people know who to ask to be unblocked or can ask their manager.
1:1s are the time to sync with regards to status on projects not in the middle of the day.
Weekly roundtable meetings are the time to sync up with the rest of the team and learn what everyone is working on.
The only purpose of standups is to slavedrive people into "productivity", which inevitably ends up with them thinking of how to hyperbolize whatever they're working on minutes before standup begins. Its useless.
Does your team communicate outside of the stand-up?
I usually know what everyone is working on (because of ticket assignments, code reviews, some occasional side meeting, etc), as I usually work with teams of 5 (or less) people.
I disagree with your reading of the article. It does not say that providing status updates in 1:1s are the "worst possible use of time" anywhere.
Quoted from the article:
"The point of this discussion is not to solve my Disaster, the point is that we’re going to have a conversation where one of us is going to learn something more than just project status."
Status updates are a conducive part of 1:1s and its the perfect time to get unblocked as the quote above duly points out.
As for learning about whether "feature A will collide with feature B", weekly/biweekly roundtables are the perfect time to learn about such things. The weekly cadence allows people to find time to collaborate on the possible overlap.
Lastly, I don't think the article is even that good. It seems to make up for its lack of interesting-ness by feigning conviction and edginess. The central point of the article is highly unusual in that it lauds novelty over pragmatism.
A 1:1 should be an environment where all of what the article talks about CAN take place. But that doesn't mean it SHOULD during every meeting.
>It serves multiple functions, but the most important is the last bit: "are you blocked by something?". Most of the time, someone else on the team knows how to unblock you
To preface, I'm assuming you are talking about daily standups. How often do you see this actually working for you? In most cases, if someone is blocked, then they would communicate that, either to a manager or a coworker. If someone is blocked for days at a time and doesn't communicate anything, thats a problem in and of itself.
I'd like to get more value from them, but most times the devolve into "status updates" and then all engineers end up blocked by the standup.
People don't always realize that their tasks is blocking someone else.
Often times when engineers are blocked, they work on a lower priority tasks while they wait. Sometimes that is a good thing but other times they get off track.
Spending 10 minutes every day resolving the communication and prioritization mismatches early helps deliver software faster.
With just weekly meetings, these issues could go unresolved for days.
Yes, exactly. A lot of people don't do a good job communicating this sort of thing. It helps to have someone else ask you what's blocking your progress.
I mean, c'mon. We're not children. We're professional developers. If anyone I worked with waited even a day to raise a blocker on an urgent task, I'd think much less of their abilities.
It's another trade off, though: do you annoy your developers for what I believe is just a slight increase in velocity?
While I do know some developers who like (or at least get enough value from to tolerate) standup, I know many more who find them an annoying waste of time. For teams that do standup first thing in the morning, it even makes them want to go to work less. How's that for starting the day on the wrong foot?
that meeting is supposed to only take 5 minutes, and it is only to discover the issue, not to address it. addressing the issue happens after the meeting with only the people who are actually involved.
5 minutes or 5 hours, an interruption is an interruption. My ideal day to be fully productive would've no meetings at all. I don't need each day to be an ideal day, just once a week (or more if at all possible). However, when there is an scheduled interruption each day every day, guess what?
Also, anything that feels like micro-management will be considered micro-management. A daily meeting to give a status report looks a lot like that.
> at the beginning or end of the day? or before or after lunch break?
That could work if everyone gets at work at the same time (+/-30m) or if everyone takes lunch at the same time (+/-30m), which has not been the case in most of the companies I've worked for. It'd be better at the end of the day, assuming no one does extra hours, but then it's even less useful or at least it becomes obvious it's all about status-updates.
> micro-management is if i tell you every single step that you should do, but a daily status-update is not
It's a micro-management enabler. There's no way to know if it's used to pressure someone to deliver, or to do things a certain way, without working in that team.
The bottom line is that stand-ups are of very questionable use. There are just better, more effective ways to communicate what everyone is working on, what things are done, and when someone is blocked. i.e: ticket assignments, PRs, sporadic side meetings, asynchronous communication (Slack, emails, etc), etc.
It'd be better at the end of the day, assuming no one does extra hours, but then it's even less useful or at least it becomes obvious it's all about status-updates.
i disagree that doing it in the evening makes it less useful.
it shouldn't matter much if i report resterdays work and my plan for today, or i report todays work and my plan for tomorrow.
and sure, people doing scrum wrong can use this as a way to enable micromanagement. but as has been mentioned elsewhere, the alternative is managers running around and interrupting you at will. it's not reasonable to blame daily standups for that and reject it just because it gets abused by some.
the kitchen knife analogy comes to mind...
i have had nothing but positive experience with daily standups. they help me focus and not spend days trailing off on a tangent or failing to ask for help because i am the junior, to shy to ask questions, or worse, harbor the feeling that no-one cares about my work. in other words, for me the daily standups acted as a team-integrator.
as a team leader and manager, daily standups help me be uptodate on what's happening, and save me from having to invest time to check myself. if anything, daily standups help me avoid micromanaging, because they satisfy my anxiety about the work being done without needing to be intrusive.
5 minutes of your time, that you can prepare for, so you are not surprised by it, and you'll be left alone for the rest of the day.
> Often times when engineers are blocked, they work on a lower priority tasks while they wait. Sometimes that is a good thing but other times they get off track.
Not in my experience. Most developers I work with will raise issues in Slack as they come up. That's part of what being an owner of your tasks is about: communicating issues early and often.
In this case I think it's the opposite: most junior developers I know are much quick (sometimes a little too quick) to ask for help when they're stuck, while a senior developer's ego might get in the way of raising a flag.
The comments in relation to the view of process and management from the general HN audience makes me feel for the challenges of being an effective engineering manager.
Perhaps you should also feel for the engineers, who constantly have to put up with managers who don't understand what motivates them, and yet has power over them with regard to firing, compensation, work assignments, etc.
My most effective managers have mostly left me alone, and have genuinely interacted me to learn what motivates me and helps me get my work done most effectively, and then has put me in the best position possible for me to be successful. An effective manager needs to do that, individually, with each member of their team.
> the most important is the last bit: "are you blocked by something?"
If you've waited until the next standup to raise a blocker, you've potentially wasted as much as a day of your time.
If I have a blocker that I need unblocked to get my work done, I'll immediately get in touch with the person or team that can help unblock me. If I don't know who that is, or need help coordinating, I'll go to my manager, again, immediately.
> The status update portion exists so that your manager doesn't randomize you in the middle of the day asking about that thing you're working on.
That's what the issue tracker / scrum board / kanban board / whatever you use is for. Certainly some people and teams are better and worse about keeping it up to date, but a solid incentive of "if you keep this up to date we won't have to do standups" will motivate most people. As much as I hate Jira, if you eliminate a meeting from my day that I consider a waste of time, in exchange for keeping it updated, I will definitely keep it updated.
For special cases, the manager can asynchronously ask their report on Slack (or whatever) what they're up to, and the report can answer when they're at a natural break point.
This whole "we all need to be face to face in the same place at the same time" nonsense needs to go. People are remote, people are in different time zones, and they still need to be able to participate naturally and asynchronously.
If you figured that out yesterday then yes, you should absolutely go get help immediately.
Mentioning blockers in standup is about admitting you need help. Lots of developers have trouble figuring out when they're wrapped around the axle.
And it can be a little passive aggressive, but it's also a chance to point out that you've been asking for help and getting nothing. Basically you're warning the master/manager that your story is gonna slip if they don't start managing.
> Basically you're warning the master/manager that your story is gonna slip if they don't start managing.
This. But it doesn't have to be accusatory like that. It's a way to have opportunity for feedback without having to be pressed for feedback.
The best manager I ever had was great because he totally trusted his people. Standups were a non-intrusive way to keep the overall pulse and make himself available if he was needed...that way he didn't need to vulture around to make sure he could insert himself if needed.
I'll take planned and well used 5 minutes of direct management over compulsive and nervous micromanaging anyday.
It isn't so simple. We are developers, we are used to solve problems on our own. A lot of times I spend a lot of time solving a problem that a coworker already knows. And I don't know that he already knows.
You don't need standup to have a quick private chat with your manager to tell them you've been trying to get help on something for a while but no one is giving you the time of day. Again: communication is a part of any job. If you aren't communicating, and need a daily meeting to force you to do so, you are not doing your job and need better training.
What about announcing deadlines and completion times that others will depend on? Won't you feel more shameful if you can't meet that and will work harder to meet that rather than secretly working to accomplish something with no repercussions?
My friends and coworkers are aware of my work on a particular ML task and are cheering me on. Every major hurdle and obstacle I've encountered is met with support and an unending eagerness to try my product.
I am so ready to get this out the door and I'm spending all of my free time on it. It's going to be huge.
This has been a year long project that is the offshoot of another project that led me down this more exciting path. My investment is only getting more and more intense now that I've found the correct problem domain gradient to explore.
I remember reading about this years ago (maybe this very article). Announcing your plans seems to give you some of the satisfaction of having accomplished them, without actually doing anything. So ... I don't tell anyone if I'm planning a workout change, diet change, side project, etc, unless I figure I'll need the peer pressure more than my internal motivation.
I think the keyword in this article is intentions. Those should remain private, but anything else about your work can be discussed and managed and is frequently better to do so.
The modern concept of a self is a difficult thing. I don't fully understand it. It seems to include a willingness to isolate and exile part of yourself. The boundary between what's internal and external is the basis of a whole category of research, but the modern pop-psychology idea is just to run with it as if we could know.
While in general, I agree with not announcing plans until they're finished, I do have two counterpoints
1) A year ago, I announced to in-person friends and on FB eliminating certain foods from my diet. Afterwards, it was easy because I could always remember I publicly announced it. Last year, it was chicken. This year, I added pork, soda, and processed meats. Haven't touched them since.
2) If it's very tangible and concrete then I find it works well. I announced writing daily for 30 days on my blog and successfully did it.
But yeah, general plans like I'm going to start a business or workout more usually fizzle out after the initial excitement.
I don't share ideas with many people anymore. Even ideas, and especially not goals. Any negative people are out, which unfortunately is too many.
The few that are trusted and have an analytical mindset are helpful for sound boarding, even if you don't exactly get them to immediately quit their jobs and join you at exciting-new-startup-here.tld.
Finally, I try to spend more time in general with those directly contributing to achieve my goals, usually in the activity itself (e.g. work, training, study). Work can be harder to navigate because, well, I'm not responsible for firing ;-) but it is possible to at least move the needle.
178 comments
[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 264 ms ] threadThere are many projects which I can envision completing, and which I know I have the technical skills for. But I gain a certain amount of satisfaction just from picturing the completed work, and in the end I don't actually put in the effort to make it reality.
Can't be bothered to look it up, though :D
I know this could be understood insulting, still my observation though.
"Share your 'go up' goals selectively... share your 'go up' goals with everyone you possibly can"
So, if you want to give up smoking, share that with everyone including your mailman. They will help you on your path. However, beware of sharing your 'go up' goals - like starting a business - with others... they might drag you down.
Yet I wouldn't be so quick to discourage sharing and doing what it takes to stay motivated. External motivation is great, I wish I had more of it!
I reckon there is greater glory in stating what you will do and following through ftw... and yummy humble pie for you if you give up or fail.
When you announce your plans to people close to you, such as family and friends and coworkers, you start getting input which is not necessarily useful even if their intentions are good.
Moreover, your announcement might make some people uncomfortable to the point where they try to sabotage you, either intentionally or subconsciously.
So right now my lips are sealed on the current project that I am working and it's coming in good shape as of now
For example, a couple of days ago, I implemented a 'MVP' for a sweet (my opinion ;) IntelliJ plugin[1], but since telling/showing co-workers I lost the motivation that got me started on it.
[1]: https://github.com/nndi-oss/intellij-gensett
Thinking about me it is bexause others start to monitor my doings, causing pressure and somewhat forcing me to work according to others schedules instead of my own. That's what workflife is about, no?
I believe the article is saying is that announcing "I'm going to quit drinking." Is not a good way to get and stay sober.
Not guaranteed to succeed. Not doomed to fail if you announce. Just like getting dealt an ace as the first card doesn't determine if you win. Has better chances than getting a two, though.
Eg say I make plans to go to the gym tomorrow. If I tell someone I'm going to go to the gym, I am less likely to actually do it. If I keep my mouth shut I'll probably follow through. I currently have an idea of something I'd like to do. It will take a lot of physical and emotional work. I've tried to make plans before and discussed them with some friends, and always after the discussions it never ends up happening. This time I'm not telling anyone until the plan is actually in motion.
I had thought the opposite was true. Announcing was supposed to be like committing. Curious if it just became a form of virtue signaling.
Could it be Derek Sivers' TED Talk "Keep your goals to yourself"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHopJHSlVo4
Promissing to ones self, for me at least, is a motivator because I trust myself more, and the trust is reinforced as I complete goals. But announcing "I'm doing this thing" either causes anxiety, or demotivates nectar is already our there, as the article describes.
I'm working on taking the long view, but it is hard.
I once worked on an ambitious game for months, and then decided to make an announcement about what I was building. The reaction from most people was meh. I stopped working on it about a month later and all remaining copies of it have since been deleted by now. Never released.
I suppose I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about a public announcement, I'm talking about announcing it to my personal friends and colleagues. Whether or not they are excited by the project itself isn't really a factor -- they'll still want to know how the project is going.
I tend not to make any public announcements until at least beta.
A hazy announcement like "I'll be doing more to fight climate change" may indeed be empty virtue signaling that leads to nothing.
But what about a more precise announcement like: "I'll be writing a book on Topic X, which I plan to publish 15 months from now, and I'll be completing one chapter on the 25th of every month until then"? Now we've got intermediate deadlines, and deliverables, and at least the first stirrings of a coherent plan.
Announcements can work quite well, as long as you're willing to commit with enough clarity that your friends and rivals will keep you honest.
As a data point, if I did this, it would probably make me much less likely to work on it and very anxious about the whole thing.
I did something similar when I began my first book. It accomplished nothing. I ended up stalling for several years.
What helped was a private commitment to myself to work on the book every day. It's definitely important to have a plan, but that's orthogonal to sharing a plan.
> your friends and rivals will keep you honest.
This depends on your friends, but I think at least in the US, most friendships are based on uncritical support. They aren't likely to cause friction by calling you on things you previously committed to doing unless that commitment actually affects them personally.
Maybe that's the way to use your social network to keep you honest. Make a commitment like: "If I finish this project by date X, I will contribute $YYYY to your favorite charity." Now your friend has some skin in the game.
"Nobody is excited about my plan now; nobody will care when it gets done; why bother."
It's interesting that the GP mentioned that climate stuff is "virtue signalling", but announcing that you're writing a book is beneficial. Both are absolutely meaningless claims until there is execution, and announcements are self-sabotage or worse.
For me, announcing specific projects that I'm working on definitely demotivates me. After announcing personal projects that may or may not fully happen, it feels like I'm then working for others who have expectations, rather than for myself. That's not fun.
But telling people about things like changes to my lifestyle are different. I feel like it almost even helps to have people ask me if I'm still working out, motivation to fulfill that expectation.
Maybe it's because in the first example, what I want to accomplish requires creativity, while in the second, it only requires regimen. Expectations of my regimen challenge me to work, expectations of my creativity feel like boundaries, which are antithetical to the creative process.
I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that this is precisely backwards. Boundaries are essential to creativity. In a way, they are the source of creativity.
Or maybe I should say it as: the imposition and refinement of self-imposed boundaries is the creative process -- from the vast sea of all possibilities, you are winnowing down to one, the thing that you produce at the end. Artificial or external boundaries at the outset just give you a head start.
But that doesn't change your point, just the terminology. I agree that announcing projects can be highly demotivating. It's sort of like the winnowing process above is no longer happening exclusively in my own head, but rather I become dependent on what's going on in others' heads in order to match what I think their expectations are.
After telling someone else, half of the sea of possibilities is gone -- but I'm not sure which half, and drive myself crazy guessing. As you say, I'm now at least partly working for others instead of myself.
That's separate from the problem where announcing a cool project delivers much of the payoff, reducing motivation to work on it.
The article seems to be specifically addressing the precise announcements you talk about and is making the case that they are bad because they provide an emotional response similar to actual completion.
You should read about commitment devices in general but the idea is they FORCE you to do something you know you're probably not going to do.
A good example is to tell your friend you're going to run a marathon and if you don't you'll give her $1000.
Would Gandhi take a pill which made him 1% less likely to not commit any murders, if it meant receiving a million dollars with no other strings attached?
The answer seems to be, "he would use a Schelling Fence" if that was an option.
https://blog.beeminder.com/schelling/
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SdkAesHBt4tsivEKe/gandhi-mur...
https://www.beeminder.com
https://twitter.com/bmndr/status/1169303739657682944
(tl;dr: they don't agree that announcing your goals makes you less likely to accomplish them. Which should not be surprising, to anyone who has already heard of Beeminder.)
The current commentary might be a personality specific thing however, I've certainly seen people discuss ideas as a forcing mechanism to get them to work on them, and also people discussing ideas as a way to evaluate whether they're worth working on. I doubt it's very clear cut.
The slow overcomes the fast.
Let your workings remain a mystery.
Just show people the results.
-- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 36, Stephen Mitchell translation (http://taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=36&a=Stephen+Mitchell)
They're also one of my easiest ways to include remote workers- they always go first. (the phone is part of the circle)
I understand the benefit of standing together, but not if you're going to add an exception for someone talking on a phone from anywhere in the world. Physical alignment is a great metaphor for team alignment, and therefore physical absence shows me someone cares more about sitting on their porch with their dog than being part of the team at work.
Whenever a manager comes in or there is a meeting to check on your progress, you can slice of something from your buffer to present. For every problem you present (from few days) ago, you can already present the solution.
Or, in other words: Your productivity is some process that you don't want to be observed directly by your manager, because you will suffer negative consequences from them detecting the exact amplitudes. You simply apply non-stationary smoothing to it.
Standup is for the team, not the manager or PM. It serves multiple functions, but the most important is the last bit: "are you blocked by something?". Most of the time, someone else on the team knows how to unblock you. Other times, your manager is better positioned to get you what you need than you are. Most of us don't care when you work, or how much progress you made today, or whatever. Our job is to keep the ball rolling, not manage your time.
The status update portion exists so that your manager doesn't randomize you in the middle of the day asking about that thing you're working on. Not because s/he thinks you're slacking, but because your work ties into a bunch of other work that's going on, and it's the manager's job to coordinate. While you may be more effective working as an information silo, your team and org are hindered by it.
Nope. Never once in my career have I been at a standup that was useful to me (a contributing or leading member of the team) and that wasn't simply for the manager. Your second paragraph also contradicts the first. Is it for the manager or not? Cause it sure as hell is not for the team members who are bored out of their minds listening to the other people on their team speak about their work that 99.9% of the time is completely irrelevant to one's own. This is the reality form the IC side. Maybe managers should wise up to it and stop wasting our time.
Why would someone want to admit they're blocked by something in front of everyone? Someone else will inevitably proclaim that they have the solution, however simple it may be, and make the asker look stupid while elevating themselves.
Most people know who to ask to be unblocked or can ask their manager.
1:1s are the time to sync with regards to status on projects not in the middle of the day.
Weekly roundtable meetings are the time to sync up with the rest of the team and learn what everyone is working on.
The only purpose of standups is to slavedrive people into "productivity", which inevitably ends up with them thinking of how to hyperbolize whatever they're working on minutes before standup begins. Its useless.
As a developer I've found stand-ups to be useful to know what's going on within the team and if feature A with collide with feature B.
[1] https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
I usually know what everyone is working on (because of ticket assignments, code reviews, some occasional side meeting, etc), as I usually work with teams of 5 (or less) people.
Quoted from the article: "The point of this discussion is not to solve my Disaster, the point is that we’re going to have a conversation where one of us is going to learn something more than just project status."
Status updates are a conducive part of 1:1s and its the perfect time to get unblocked as the quote above duly points out.
As for learning about whether "feature A will collide with feature B", weekly/biweekly roundtables are the perfect time to learn about such things. The weekly cadence allows people to find time to collaborate on the possible overlap.
Lastly, I don't think the article is even that good. It seems to make up for its lack of interesting-ness by feigning conviction and edginess. The central point of the article is highly unusual in that it lauds novelty over pragmatism.
A 1:1 should be an environment where all of what the article talks about CAN take place. But that doesn't mean it SHOULD during every meeting.
To preface, I'm assuming you are talking about daily standups. How often do you see this actually working for you? In most cases, if someone is blocked, then they would communicate that, either to a manager or a coworker. If someone is blocked for days at a time and doesn't communicate anything, thats a problem in and of itself.
I'd like to get more value from them, but most times the devolve into "status updates" and then all engineers end up blocked by the standup.
People don't always realize that their tasks is blocking someone else.
Often times when engineers are blocked, they work on a lower priority tasks while they wait. Sometimes that is a good thing but other times they get off track.
Spending 10 minutes every day resolving the communication and prioritization mismatches early helps deliver software faster.
With just weekly meetings, these issues could go unresolved for days.
But sometimes you have to do what you have to do to keep the organization moving forward.
While I do know some developers who like (or at least get enough value from to tolerate) standup, I know many more who find them an annoying waste of time. For teams that do standup first thing in the morning, it even makes them want to go to work less. How's that for starting the day on the wrong foot?
Also, anything that feels like micro-management will be considered micro-management. A daily meeting to give a status report looks a lot like that.
micro-management is if i tell you every single step that you should do, but a daily status-update is not
That could work if everyone gets at work at the same time (+/-30m) or if everyone takes lunch at the same time (+/-30m), which has not been the case in most of the companies I've worked for. It'd be better at the end of the day, assuming no one does extra hours, but then it's even less useful or at least it becomes obvious it's all about status-updates.
> micro-management is if i tell you every single step that you should do, but a daily status-update is not
It's a micro-management enabler. There's no way to know if it's used to pressure someone to deliver, or to do things a certain way, without working in that team.
The bottom line is that stand-ups are of very questionable use. There are just better, more effective ways to communicate what everyone is working on, what things are done, and when someone is blocked. i.e: ticket assignments, PRs, sporadic side meetings, asynchronous communication (Slack, emails, etc), etc.
i disagree that doing it in the evening makes it less useful. it shouldn't matter much if i report resterdays work and my plan for today, or i report todays work and my plan for tomorrow.
and sure, people doing scrum wrong can use this as a way to enable micromanagement. but as has been mentioned elsewhere, the alternative is managers running around and interrupting you at will. it's not reasonable to blame daily standups for that and reject it just because it gets abused by some.
the kitchen knife analogy comes to mind...
i have had nothing but positive experience with daily standups. they help me focus and not spend days trailing off on a tangent or failing to ask for help because i am the junior, to shy to ask questions, or worse, harbor the feeling that no-one cares about my work. in other words, for me the daily standups acted as a team-integrator.
as a team leader and manager, daily standups help me be uptodate on what's happening, and save me from having to invest time to check myself. if anything, daily standups help me avoid micromanaging, because they satisfy my anxiety about the work being done without needing to be intrusive.
5 minutes of your time, that you can prepare for, so you are not surprised by it, and you'll be left alone for the rest of the day.
Not in my experience. Most developers I work with will raise issues in Slack as they come up. That's part of what being an owner of your tasks is about: communicating issues early and often.
My most effective managers have mostly left me alone, and have genuinely interacted me to learn what motivates me and helps me get my work done most effectively, and then has put me in the best position possible for me to be successful. An effective manager needs to do that, individually, with each member of their team.
If you've waited until the next standup to raise a blocker, you've potentially wasted as much as a day of your time.
If I have a blocker that I need unblocked to get my work done, I'll immediately get in touch with the person or team that can help unblock me. If I don't know who that is, or need help coordinating, I'll go to my manager, again, immediately.
> The status update portion exists so that your manager doesn't randomize you in the middle of the day asking about that thing you're working on.
That's what the issue tracker / scrum board / kanban board / whatever you use is for. Certainly some people and teams are better and worse about keeping it up to date, but a solid incentive of "if you keep this up to date we won't have to do standups" will motivate most people. As much as I hate Jira, if you eliminate a meeting from my day that I consider a waste of time, in exchange for keeping it updated, I will definitely keep it updated.
For special cases, the manager can asynchronously ask their report on Slack (or whatever) what they're up to, and the report can answer when they're at a natural break point.
This whole "we all need to be face to face in the same place at the same time" nonsense needs to go. People are remote, people are in different time zones, and they still need to be able to participate naturally and asynchronously.
If you figured that out yesterday then yes, you should absolutely go get help immediately.
Mentioning blockers in standup is about admitting you need help. Lots of developers have trouble figuring out when they're wrapped around the axle.
And it can be a little passive aggressive, but it's also a chance to point out that you've been asking for help and getting nothing. Basically you're warning the master/manager that your story is gonna slip if they don't start managing.
This. But it doesn't have to be accusatory like that. It's a way to have opportunity for feedback without having to be pressed for feedback.
The best manager I ever had was great because he totally trusted his people. Standups were a non-intrusive way to keep the overall pulse and make himself available if he was needed...that way he didn't need to vulture around to make sure he could insert himself if needed.
I'll take planned and well used 5 minutes of direct management over compulsive and nervous micromanaging anyday.
Sure, once the whole thing is done, tout the horn all you want.
My friends and coworkers are aware of my work on a particular ML task and are cheering me on. Every major hurdle and obstacle I've encountered is met with support and an unending eagerness to try my product.
I am so ready to get this out the door and I'm spending all of my free time on it. It's going to be huge.
This has been a year long project that is the offshoot of another project that led me down this more exciting path. My investment is only getting more and more intense now that I've found the correct problem domain gradient to explore.
The modern concept of a self is a difficult thing. I don't fully understand it. It seems to include a willingness to isolate and exile part of yourself. The boundary between what's internal and external is the basis of a whole category of research, but the modern pop-psychology idea is just to run with it as if we could know.
1) A year ago, I announced to in-person friends and on FB eliminating certain foods from my diet. Afterwards, it was easy because I could always remember I publicly announced it. Last year, it was chicken. This year, I added pork, soda, and processed meats. Haven't touched them since.
2) If it's very tangible and concrete then I find it works well. I announced writing daily for 30 days on my blog and successfully did it.
But yeah, general plans like I'm going to start a business or workout more usually fizzle out after the initial excitement.
The few that are trusted and have an analytical mindset are helpful for sound boarding, even if you don't exactly get them to immediately quit their jobs and join you at exciting-new-startup-here.tld.
Finally, I try to spend more time in general with those directly contributing to achieve my goals, usually in the activity itself (e.g. work, training, study). Work can be harder to navigate because, well, I'm not responsible for firing ;-) but it is possible to at least move the needle.