>In my experience, burnout is cured not by vacation, time away, switching teams, or switching companies. These are (attempted) implementations of the real cure: change of perspective.
This resonates with the published research on Burnout (mostly Maslach): she argues that the causes of burnout are best understood as mismatch between expectations and workplace reality. E.g. customer support firefighting can be tolerable if you don't expect yourself to be spending time on strategic thinkiing.
However, when burnout has happened, change of perspective / removing causes just won't do (those are preventative solutions). When you've burnt out, it's time for rest.
When you are passionate about your work, it can easily bleed into every other area of your life — you read about work-related topics in your free time, you think about a particularly challenging problem in the shower, you journal about your work, etc. It also changes ones social circle: hanging out with an ambitious and curious start-up crowd easily leads to work as the default topic in a gathering of friends. Once you have work deeply embedded in your interests and social life, it does not take a huge mental leap to "work is what defines me as an individual".
That then leads to a precarious "all eggs in one basket" situation that leaves you vulnerable in cases of professional failure ("My start-up is not doing well; I am a failure") or burnout ("I'm cynical about my work; nothing matters").
It took quite a bit of time to disentangle my self-worth and my professional identity, but it makes life so much better.
A related issue is that many technical people mistake a passion for their craft with a passion for their work.
For example, I am very passionate about statistics, I spend a tremendous amount of my free time studying it. I also work as a data scientist. For far too long I mistook a passion for statistics as a passion for data science. I know many software engineers make a similar mistake regarding their passion for programming.
This is a surprisingly big issue in my experience because commitment to your craft can lead to friction with your work and vice versa. This is not a problem when you realize these are two distinct things, but can lead to problems if you aren't aware of this difference.
The most obvious one is that confusing work for craft means you can put more energy into your employer's goals than ones related to bettering your craft (and also yourself). For a software engineer, at first, a late night coding session can benefit both. However in the long run if you keep spending time solving your employers problems, you will have less energy to study and practice software for it's own sake. This can also lead to burn out in which you start to lose you passion for your craft as well.
The reverse of this is also true: being very good at your craft can hurt you professionally. Your employer doesn't care about good code, or the correct statistical models. In the past, whenever I saw fundamentally incorrect statistical tools being used in production at work I couldn't stop and try to correct it. I've seen many software engineers struggle similarly when orgs make bad technical decisions.
I failed many interviews because the interviewer had a mistaken view of things, and rather than just play along, I would try to correct them (I've learned that no matter how sincere and kind you are in your correction, it is always a mistake to correct an interviewer). I distinctly remember the first time an interviewer incorrectly "corrected" me, and instead of justifying my decision, I just said "wow you're right, I was just sketching out some ideas here, but that path is worth investigating". Got that job very easily.
Eventually I realized that I am passionate about statistics and mathematical modeling, these are related but ultimately tangential to my day job. It's great that I get paid well to do something closely related to what I love to study, but at the end of the day it's no different than a true coffee lover working at starbucks.
It funny you mentioned the interview thing. I interviewed at Google with someone who obviously has the wrong mental model of how multi-threading worked at the OS and hardware level and I got into that exact situation. I could tell they were annoyed and I realized my miscue immediately. Didn't get that job even when the rest of the day long interview went very well.
An interesting distinction. I think I've somehow found subconscious ways to keep these aligned. I suspect that my craft is finding creative technical/programming solutions to semi-well-defined problems so that intersects with work. If there's a lack of such problems and learning opportunities, I'd look elsewhere. I'll be thinking about this more from now on and seeing how I can do things differently. I should at least be able to identify some cases where I don't like the feeling of something then learn why.
This is such a great distinction! The reason people are encouraged not to make their work their life is that their work can be taken away from them (including for reasons that are in no way their fault). But a passion for your craft can transcend your day-to-day work.
> but at the end of the day it's no different than a true coffee lover working at starbucks.
starbucks would be horrible for a true coffee lover. starbucks serves more "coffee flavored drinks" than real coffee.
Now that same coffee lover working at a high end coffee place where they can perfect the art of the pourover and refine their pull on the espresso machine.. that might be heaven for them.
You could say the same about falling in love with someone, it's great, you can get caught up in it, and you're really vulnerable in case the relationship fails.
The analogy here would be to not cut out all your other social relationships just because you have a romantic partner. Make time for your family and friends.
Depends on how much success you have with the SaaS, perhaps it changes your life enough to be a world-changing event. Some people fall in love multiple times, not many can say the same about making a ground breaking SaaS.
Tongue firmly in cheek, in case people don't get what I'm saying.
> "do not get invested that much that you loose everything including yourself if it fails"
That's great advice if you're 18 years old; but some things are worth the risk.
If you're not all in, you're not in at all. While this certainly applies to work in some cases, it applies as much as again if you want to start a family.
Modern relationships are a hell because everyone has their eye on the door at all times - ready to bolt at a moment's notice if something goes wrong, or if something better comes along.
You'll never have a family of your own with that mindset; it's a problem that causes itself.
Seems like black and white thinking. There's a big spectrum between those two extremes, and no good reason you can't healthily occupy a point on that spectrum. In fact, many points on that spectrum are probably a lot more healthy than either extreme.
Well, you have managed to have pretty long career as a DJ. I don't know if anyone can be so influential in software development as you were with House music ;)
I don’t think so. When you look at the historical record. Work either in the modern or agricultural sense has only existed for at most 5% of human existence.
Dividing things into intrinsically human and not is a false dichotomy. Our experience is always a mix of what comes from our biology and what comes from culture. Finding enjoyment in a craft or a puzzle may well have existed for thousands of years. And relationships are definitely effected by culture. The expectations around marriage for example have changed a lot.
I'd still consider hunting/gathering a form of work. And who knows, maybe the disposition for individuals to hyperfocus on that form of work led to more genetic success and desirability for reproduction, since it meant there would be more security of resources. I have no idea if these tendencies have a genetic component, totally spitballing here.
> That then leads to a precarious "all eggs in one basket" situation that leaves you vulnerable in cases of professional failure ("My start-up is not doing well; I am a failure") or burnout ("I'm cynical about my work; nothing matters").
I have such an annoyingly hard time with this. From a simple "couldn't achieve a technical goal I set for myself for the day" on a Friday afternoon ruining my Friday night and, through ripple effects, subsequently the rest of the weekend to I'm unfulfilled in my job therefore I'm worthless.
> Once you have work deeply embedded in your interests and social life, it does not take a huge mental leap to "work is what defines me as an individual".
No, you are confusing cause and effect around emotional attachment and passion/effort.
People are equally likely to attach their sense of self-worth to aspects that require zero effort: nationality, favorite sport team, family name...
Putting a lot of effort into something is not the cause for attachment, but sometimes it can be the effect.
My challenge with this is that I feel I am not good enough, so I make the extra effort (e.g in my personal time) to show up and be better. The problem is I've been burnt by this in the past and I see it happening again to myself. There's a few things I've done differently to prevent burn out, but anytime I pause, my inner critic catches up and works to remind me how incompetent I am relative to everyone else.
Your inner critic can be shaped to what you need it to be. First, I'd change, I'm not good enough, to I want to get better at X. Seems like semantics, but perspective is everything. When possible, frame things in the positive (hit the ball, rather than DON'T miss).
When you do this, I think it will be easier to convince your inner critic that you need rest (not just sleep but time to pause, other activities for your brain/body, etc.). Whatever balance is for you, you can train your inner critic to prioritize that over a cruel checklist.
Also, I think it's unhelpful to describe yourself as incompetent relative to everyone else or not. If you are behind some others, there are reasons (most probably related to experience), and if you understand them, I think you should be at peace with where you are. That doesn't mean stop improving. It just means, I am here; to get to Z, I must do X and Y.
Basically, zoom in and out of your situation enough to understand it, and do the best thing for you. It could be helpful to frame it as though you are setting up the parameters for a friend rather than yourself. A lot of people aren't as kind to themselves as they are to people they care about. Care about you; be kind to you.
I think you’re forgetting natural talent (it is their Acceleration to your velocity), commitment, energy, lack of distractions, luck and so many other things you can’t account for. Feeling left behind is inevitable even if you’re on the top of one field - there are going to be others you’re not at the forefront of. The billionaires pay a ton of money to play tennis/golf for example - ask them how they feel when they watch pga/open events.
The crux of the answer is making peace with getting left behind and constructing meaning where you’re. Or use that as motivation. In a connected world the Jones are way too many in number to match and exceed.
I think we as humans need to and will find the ability to have a thick skin for this. We have had to historically build resistance to various distractions - this is just the latest where all the celebs are very interested in making you feel like they are regular humans as well and what they do is very much achievable for everyone: in short it isn’t and we just need to get with the program.
These patterns of automatic thoughts ("how incompetent I am relative to everyone else") are a pain to overcome, especially, if there is no alternative avenue for self-worth (e.g. I am a good partner / friend / child / parent / citizen).
It's also quite surprising to note how easy these thought patterns emerge from seemingly nothing. The bar we evaluate ourselves against is often quite removed from rational thought — we can easily place this at an arbitrarily high point just out of reach ("OK, my start-up is growing; it doesn't matter, it needs to be grow faster!").
Good on you for reflecting and picking up these thought patterns!
You’re probably not good enough at a lot of things (this is true of nearly everyone), so why do you make the extra effort to get good at work? How do you know you’re not good enough? Are you getting fired over and over?
I definitely experienced this. The problem for me was that in addition it made it harder to deal with tough feedback as self worth is connected to the work.
There's a big difference between "professionalism can be part of your self-worth" and "your work is the only source of your self-worth". Second part may be unhealthy - though, frankly, we probably would miss a lot of inventions and scientific discoveries if not for people that lived for their work - but the former is completely normal. "Untangle" is such a bad word to describe it - there's nothing wrong with your work being part of who you are, being tangled into it - provided there are other threads in that tangle.
I think it's important to distinguish between work and career. I do as well disentangle myself from work/job. My career, though, is another story. I love programming and I do it in my free time. At work, I couldn't care less whether I have to write Go, Java, Python or if I have to fix broken yaml files. I work for (good) money, I don't care if the company I work for succeeds or not. My career is timeless and it will accompany me until my last day.
Do you have any tips on how to go about this disentanglement? I spent the last 15 years focused solely on work. After a re-org I’m left on a team responsible for work I hate and want no part of. I find myself rather lost, but with the current economic situation I do like the stability of the job.
This starts from the hidden assumption that all work sucks. Basically, if you become passionate about your work, you will necessarily burn out, because work is awful for everyone all the time everywhere. It's a little like saying you should work really really hard to not be too into your romantic partner, because every human being on the planet is an abusive asshole.
Clearly not every human being is an abusive asshole; it's wonderful to be really extremely deeply invested in your romantic partner! But unfortunately we can't really say the same thing about work environments.
What you're actually doing here is excusing shitty work environments. If all jobs are abusive to their employers, we need to fix that, and quickly. There is nothing more satisfying in life than being passionate about your work, and the fact that it is virtually impossible to do so without eventually feeling like a battered abuse victim is a symptom of a late-stage cancerous regulatory-captured capitalism run by a caste of psychopaths.
I want to be passionate and invested in my work. Can we work together to make that a good thing, rather than being something only stupid loser suckers do?
I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that "one of the best things a mid/low performing company can do is to reduce toil". It feels that this principle is dependent on the context to the extent of not being useful guidance anymore.
For instance, if the company is pre-product-market fit reducing toil seems like the wrong investment; doing stuff manually can be the way to go until you find what works (unless the effort investment in toil reduction is trivial).
If the company has reached something approximating product-market fit, reducing toil still ought to be weighed against the other priorities. That (as all technical debt reduction) can do wonders to productivity, but alternatives (e.g. pushing for a new feature) may as well be the better call.
We are working on a B2B application right now and we're seeing 2 linked patterns we're looking to overcome:
-- one strong champion in the customer organisation that uses us actively, then changes jobs / goes on maternity leave / retires -> customer churns
-- a champion in the customer organisation does not find the time to onboard other users in their company, so the value of what we offer is smaller than it could be.
For us, getting more users onboarded and introduced to the value offering (we're calling it engagement) seems like a perfectly valid challenge to address — does not feel like a dark pattern at all, but is "useful and meaningful to the end users".
We're also tracking "engagement" with different features in the platform to help us decide on 1) onboarding gaps, 2) whether the features are any good (both, of course, then researched further with interviews). Here it also feels like our work qualifies under the author's core tenets.
I’m in exactly the same boat with my B2B SaaS — particularly with the champion finding time to onboard the rest of their team.
Our app takes a bit of setup time, and I put a lot of work into making a really user-friendly “onboarding guide”, basically a checklist of things to do to set up the account, accompanied by visual call-outs for each step in the UI.
Before we had this, we forced companies to complete the full setup before they could use the app… As you might expect, many just gave up.
But since adding our onboarding checklist (and changing our platform to assume lots more defaults, reducing the number of actions required to get started, and allowing it to be used “out of the box”), we now have a new problem: more companies are using us actively, but many of them never complete the full setup, so it isn’t fully tailored to suit them.
The checklist UI dismisses itself automatically after all the steps are complete (there’s only 5, and honestly it takes 2 minutes, but there we go). I often look at active user accounts over 6 months old, and so many of them are using us daily but with a big “Getting Started” checklist still following them round the site!
I guess that’s users for you… Not sure how to improve this, practically speaking — we’ve already reduced the checklist down to the bare essentials — but open to any ideas…
I'll reply to you, though there are a couple others in this comment chain that it seems relevant (but possibly not...) to - Airtable has one of the best API guides I've seen, because you can load it up in a table you already have, and it creates examples _with your table_.
So no longer do you have docs that say "suppose you want to create a new entry for a sedan, which can be either red or blue", but instead has content from your actual existing table.
It sounds like a small thing, but it greatly reduces that bit of cognitive dissonance/overhead ("why are we talking about cars, I want to update the contact options for this customer") when trying to learn a new system (especially critical for less tech-savvy users), so might be applicable to other products.
Personally I hate those getting started checklists. They tend to be full of a bunch of stuff I observably do not need to do to use the product for my job, because I never have to do them to do it.
I know in the past I've just ad blocked the UI elements for those lists because they contain things which don't matter - or worse, which I can't do because the organization has disabled that feature for regular users in the company.
I'd be pretty curious to know what's on your list - I bet even with 5 items, your data is probably actually telling you you might not need it at all.
Curious to know whether that checklist is framed in terms of things to do or benefits they would get. I would guess they would perceive it as less daunting if you present them with what they would concretely gain from doing the thing.
No idea what you'd do beyond that though... Maybe I introduce some competitive aspect, like "you're already more involved than 60% of our users. You can get to 90% with this"? Or translate it in terms of real value gained from finishing the onboarding? Idk
I noticed that you scare-quote "engagement", rightly so imo. Delivering value to the user is the end, engaging them to enable them to extract value is the means. "when means becomes an end" is a good description of the toxic dynamic of that occurs when engagement metrics are optimized at the expense of value delivered which plagues our industry today.
Maybe expanding the term to allude to this dynamic would justify dropping the scare quotes; 'valued engagement', 'value delivered engagement' or something.
We have the same issue in the B2B company I worked at.
Currently we're implementing strategies to reduce the barrier of entry by making the product onboard the new customer. We just started and we still have a long way to go but I think it's the right solution.
Reducing the cost of onboarding for the customer and making it easy to invite other member should help avoid churn.
I'd say it's about trying to design it in a way where they get maximum utility without any "onboarding". Of course there's a fine balance where a tiny bit of "onboarding" is helpful and feels natural, but examples of that are very rare.
I feel it adds a lovely bit of variety to the experiences. Tried a journaling RPG for the first time recently — spending 4 hours imagining experiences, describing them, and guiding my creativity with the game's ruleset / prompts. The game allowed room for introspection, for overcoming internal obstacles, for writing / thinking carefully about how I phrase things.
That was a profoundly different experience from my Tuesday afternoon RPG campaign where the social aspect, on-the-fly improvisation, "yes, and"-ing and the collective storytelling dominate, but would not discard the solo game as a bad idea — it's just built for something else.
Yep, I used to teach creative writing and the kids loved these. They can be cooperatively social, too -- I know one of my former colleagues is using a journaling RPG as a framework for a shared worldbuilding project that his students seem to find really engaging and generative.
You started with a goal and you took notes so the only thing different between your experience and Exploratory Testing is the debrief session. Oh, but you've started that here already, too.
If all manual testers played games like you, there would be more respect for that profession. Likewise, if more game testers did . . . anywho . . .
What, may I ask, did you play?
As if I'll look back here again! Seriously, I'll try to remember. That sounds like the kind of exercise James (not the seagull son) Bach would do. ;-)
Ironic that in a thread about shaming how people should be permitted by others to have fun, the first page of that web page is a long rant about the author's demand to gatekeep his purchasers political views, dripping with hatred for his opponents.
Frankly, those that "have fun" by punching down the already-downtrodden deserve everything they get, especially when one side is a lone politically powerless nerd. Suggesting an equivalence between the entire political right, with its glorious machinery designed to disenfranchise, and some guy who writes simple RPGs, is a false equivalence at best. Remember that politics is the study of who gets what, where, when, why, and how they get it -- this lone nerd isn't even preventing anyone from anything, he's just spewing helpless vitriol. The grand array of the political right is actually actively taking, right now.
"If you stand by quietly as Republicans take the power of the vote from African Americans in Alabama and compete to hurt trans people as badly as possible then you are part of this problem. You are lobbying for the death of my friends and relations, you are pushing for dangerous authoritarians to destroy the systems that let books like mine come to be. And this goes for equivalent groups outside the US–you know who you are."
That is a generous reading of the paragraphs of rambling on that page. The author lumps half of all voters in with actual "extremists". It is just useless, divisive political vitriol.
One thing I have learned over the years is that politics is extraordinarily complex. Painting with wide strokes and making caricatures of the "others" isn't useful or accurate. Nuance is just too complex for our monkey brains, so tribalism reigns. We must demand better every time this kind of drivel appears, regardless of the level of agreement with anything being said.
Perhaps those who wish to remove rights from people and treat them as second class citizens simply because of their sexual orientation, religious belief or lack of belief, or socioeconomic status deserve to be treated the way that want others to be treated.
I see little wrong with letting people experience a bit of what they, if they could, would force others to experience.
I don't see how saying, "have fun how you'd like to" and "dont buy my thing if you have different fundamental beliefs than I do" are the same. Feels like you're stretching a bit to try to make a point.
Improvising three dimensional or at least memorable characters as a GM in tabletop role playing games.
Giving characters over-the-top traits is a good start, but so much to learn about making them stand out in the players’ memories / making them more than tools of acquiring things to do for the players.
This resonates with the published research on Burnout (mostly Maslach): she argues that the causes of burnout are best understood as mismatch between expectations and workplace reality. E.g. customer support firefighting can be tolerable if you don't expect yourself to be spending time on strategic thinkiing.
However, when burnout has happened, change of perspective / removing causes just won't do (those are preventative solutions). When you've burnt out, it's time for rest.