WhatsApp notifications in the middle of the night were the final straw. I switched those off – and every other alert – and it helped my wellbeing, sleep and parenting
This is interesting because I very deliberately try the opposite. My top priority is always making time for helping colleagues. Most of my industry is super green and the young staff require a lot of training/attention if you want them to develop well/quickly. It means when I first started my team things were a bit hectic, but years later it basically runs itself. I always prioritize investing in individuals so that when things pile up I’ve got 20 people I can delegate to. What’s more, this is cultural at this point so they all do the same. It’s basically a positive feedback loop at this point where things just sort of work cause everyone knows what they’re doing.
There is another team next to mine that is run a lot like how you’re describing and they are constantly missing schedules/going over budget/having quality issues cause the lead ‘doesnt have time right now’. Except right now is all the time and none of the staff seem to know what they’re doing and are all super frustrated.
Anyway, all that to say I think how you structure these kinds of things depends a lot on what kind of work you do, what kind of team environment you have, and what your overall goals are. Could I be individually more productive if I told everyone else to go away? Absolutely yes, I’d get 3 times as much done, but the team overall would be less efficient.
I also don’t work outside work hours, and neither does anyone else on my team because we’re efficient enough at work to plan out and execute 40 hours of work per person per week. The same can’t be said for that other team where the lead goes home and everyone else is left confused working crazy OT.
Your way seems to work for you, but I think it is important to note that there is no ‘right’ approach for all situations. One needs to define the objectives and then determine what the best approach for accomplishing those might be for that particular role. In short, it’s complicated. And anyone who says it’s not is generally trying to sell something
I did that when I started (I am, modesty on the side, a natural at what I do for work) and the result was that I became the top problem-solver of my team and over time I had more and more load from people bringing me their problems whilst still being expected to do the formally allocated work, with the end result that when I left that job I was working very long hours, always tired and my productivity had plummeted.
What was happenning there was that, because of me always saying “yes, I’ll help you” with zero pushback, I became the easiest path for people in my team to quickly solve their problems, and that was including problems they could solve themselves. Also my effectiveness at doing anything fell massivelly because whatever I was doing, in the middle of it I would be interrupted (which has quite the cognitive cost due to interruption of the mental state of Flow and “mental context switching”) and if I immediatelly went into solving that new problem I would likely be interrupted at that too (leading to multiple things hanging half-way to done and making my delivery speed overall worse), and even if I wasn’t interrupted serving the latest interruption the mere “stop this task, do something else equally complex, then get back to the original task” increased the probability of mistakes in the original task because of the possibility of losing track of important details of the work I was doing in it.
Human beings are naturally lazy (myself included) and if, because you offer no pushback, coming to you with any problem is easier and faster than trying to figure it out themselves, people will tend come to you with their problems before properly after little or no effort to solve it themselves, which might be doable (though not good for them or for you) if it’s only one or two people, but not when it’s more than that.
If only to avoid becoming the minimum-effort-path for everybody else and/or having your efficiency drop because of not enough single-task focus and too much context switching (and the entire team’s efficiency fall compared to them solving all the problem they can solve themselves), you have to do some pushing back.
You aren’t hired to do the work of others and neither are you hired to underperform because you’re in constant firefighting mode even for things which are unimportant or not really burning, so immediate response to any demand on your time from somebody else is pretty much the most amateurish, least professional way to do your work for anybody which is not a junior-level professional.
That said, if you’re lucky enough to be in a situation were you empowering others to work better is recognized and desired or, even better, you’re expected to and have officially time to be a mentor, then you can relax the pushing back: you still should triage the urgency of your response to things to match their actual urgency - that’s just basic competence at organising your time and work - but you can now when approached by somebody with a problem dedicate some time to teach people to help themselves (literally have them sit down and explain how to diagnose and fix it whilst they do it themselves) both so that they don’t constantly come you with simple problems (which isn’t really the value added stuff you’re being paid a Senior level professional cost to do) and for them to grow as professionals, and if you’re mentoring you’ll want to go further and periodically sit with the junior types and do overviews of things or help them out in planning how to tackle a complex thing they’re about to start.
Still, in all this, you have to plan your time and triage access to you time based on urgency and importance in order to mantain good performance and actually deliver results in a predictable way, So as to best fits the needs of your employer: for any employee beyond junior level, good time management (which includes the priority of your response to queries and problems match the importance and real urgence of them) is just simple professional competence and since the triaging itself is a time cost (quite a big one if it breaks you out of Flow and forces a mental context switch), you want it done in the most effective way as possible and by the more well informed about the important and urgency of the situation as possible, which means most of it should be done upstream and before getting to you.
This is interesting because I very deliberately try the opposite. My top priority is always making time for helping colleagues. Most of my industry is super green and the young staff require a lot of training/attention if you want them to develop well/quickly. It means when I first started my team things were a bit hectic, but years later it basically runs itself. I always prioritize investing in individuals so that when things pile up I’ve got 20 people I can delegate to. What’s more, this is cultural at this point so they all do the same. It’s basically a positive feedback loop at this point where things just sort of work cause everyone knows what they’re doing.
There is another team next to mine that is run a lot like how you’re describing and they are constantly missing schedules/going over budget/having quality issues cause the lead ‘doesnt have time right now’. Except right now is all the time and none of the staff seem to know what they’re doing and are all super frustrated.
Anyway, all that to say I think how you structure these kinds of things depends a lot on what kind of work you do, what kind of team environment you have, and what your overall goals are. Could I be individually more productive if I told everyone else to go away? Absolutely yes, I’d get 3 times as much done, but the team overall would be less efficient.
I also don’t work outside work hours, and neither does anyone else on my team because we’re efficient enough at work to plan out and execute 40 hours of work per person per week. The same can’t be said for that other team where the lead goes home and everyone else is left confused working crazy OT.
Your way seems to work for you, but I think it is important to note that there is no ‘right’ approach for all situations. One needs to define the objectives and then determine what the best approach for accomplishing those might be for that particular role. In short, it’s complicated. And anyone who says it’s not is generally trying to sell something
I did that when I started (I am, modesty on the side, a natural at what I do for work) and the result was that I became the top problem-solver of my team and over time I had more and more load from people bringing me their problems whilst still being expected to do the formally allocated work, with the end result that when I left that job I was working very long hours, always tired and my productivity had plummeted.
What was happenning there was that, because of me always saying “yes, I’ll help you” with zero pushback, I became the easiest path for people in my team to quickly solve their problems, and that was including problems they could solve themselves. Also my effectiveness at doing anything fell massivelly because whatever I was doing, in the middle of it I would be interrupted (which has quite the cognitive cost due to interruption of the mental state of Flow and “mental context switching”) and if I immediatelly went into solving that new problem I would likely be interrupted at that too (leading to multiple things hanging half-way to done and making my delivery speed overall worse), and even if I wasn’t interrupted serving the latest interruption the mere “stop this task, do something else equally complex, then get back to the original task” increased the probability of mistakes in the original task because of the possibility of losing track of important details of the work I was doing in it.
Human beings are naturally lazy (myself included) and if, because you offer no pushback, coming to you with any problem is easier and faster than trying to figure it out themselves, people will tend come to you with their problems before properly after little or no effort to solve it themselves, which might be doable (though not good for them or for you) if it’s only one or two people, but not when it’s more than that.
If only to avoid becoming the minimum-effort-path for everybody else and/or having your efficiency drop because of not enough single-task focus and too much context switching (and the entire team’s efficiency fall compared to them solving all the problem they can solve themselves), you have to do some pushing back.
You aren’t hired to do the work of others and neither are you hired to underperform because you’re in constant firefighting mode even for things which are unimportant or not really burning, so immediate response to any demand on your time from somebody else is pretty much the most amateurish, least professional way to do your work for anybody which is not a junior-level professional.
That said, if you’re lucky enough to be in a situation were you empowering others to work better is recognized and desired or, even better, you’re expected to and have officially time to be a mentor, then you can relax the pushing back: you still should triage the urgency of your response to things to match their actual urgency - that’s just basic competence at organising your time and work - but you can now when approached by somebody with a problem dedicate some time to teach people to help themselves (literally have them sit down and explain how to diagnose and fix it whilst they do it themselves) both so that they don’t constantly come you with simple problems (which isn’t really the value added stuff you’re being paid a Senior level professional cost to do) and for them to grow as professionals, and if you’re mentoring you’ll want to go further and periodically sit with the junior types and do overviews of things or help them out in planning how to tackle a complex thing they’re about to start.
Still, in all this, you have to plan your time and triage access to you time based on urgency and importance in order to mantain good performance and actually deliver results in a predictable way, So as to best fits the needs of your employer: for any employee beyond junior level, good time management (which includes the priority of your response to queries and problems match the importance and real urgence of them) is just simple professional competence and since the triaging itself is a time cost (quite a big one if it breaks you out of Flow and forces a mental context switch), you want it done in the most effective way as possible and by the more well informed about the important and urgency of the situation as possible, which means most of it should be done upstream and before getting to you.