Disclaimer - Executive Summary

I am a young, naive, extremely inexperienced programmer and I often say idiotic things. If you think my posts are full of rubbish that is because they are.
Showing posts with label Hypothesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypothesis. Show all posts

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Hypothesis - Enthusiasm

Warning:

The following post is an exploration.

It is the attempt of a puzzled mind trying to work things out.

It should be analysed cautiously to see what, if any value it might contain.

The author though does post it in the sincere hope that it will provide something for you.

End of warning.

I'd like to talk about enthusiasm. What is it? What happens to your enthusiasm as you go through life? And how can you get it back if you happen to lose it?

What exactly is enthusiasm? If you like what you do, if it makes you feel better, if it's fun, then you are enthusiastic about what you do.

In short enthusiasm provides energy.

How can you tell if you're enthusiastic about something? The test is simple: if you have to wonder about whether you like doing X then you're not enthusiastic. Someone asks: "Do you like doing X?", enthusiasm brings up an immediate response: "yes, duh, why wouldn't I?"

Why should you care about enthusiasm? Because enthusiasm will turn what would objectively be a lot of tedious, weary chores, into light, fun tasks.

The truly great people in any profession have all been enthusiastic about what they did. The long hours of practice and study weren't difficult, they were ... fun!

If you want to be good at what you do, then you need to be enthusiastic.

How often do you need to be enthusiastic about what you do? Often enough that your life seems good rather than bad.

'Ask yourself frequently, "Am I having fun?" The answer needn't always be yes. But if it's always no, it's time for a new project or a new career.' - Stephen King




Starting out in life, it's easy to find enthusiasm.

When you're young (i.e. up to about six years old), life is full of fun, friends, toys, lots of time. It couldn't be better.

Then you start elementary / primary school.

School is a grind, but the promise of fun is just a bell ring away. In fact hardly anyone tries to suggest that you should feel enthusiastic about being in school, and of the few who do, most of them are rightly dismissed as sad pretenders.

As you go on to secondary / high school the work load mounts up. Bell rings don't promise fun so much as temporary relief, and pretty soon even your weekends aren't safe anymore.

By the end of seconday / high school, you just accept that this is the way that it is. Life is just hard work, you work towards the promise that things will improve when you enter college / university.

But upon entering college / university the work habits that you started to grow in secondary / high school are brought to maturity. The work is even more demanding, and to get good marks you have to put in exponentially more effort than what it takes to merely pass.

The carrot that led you from secondary / high school to college / university is the improvement in quality of life. But soon you discover that university is even more work than high school, and soon a new carrot appears: the improvement in life that a job will bring.

I followed the 'yellow brick road' from secondary / high school, through college / university, and out into the work force. Every time I grabbed the proferred carrot I found that the improvement in life was not nearly what I hoped.

As to my enthusiasm, what was that again? When was the last time that I had fun? I can't remember.

I never hated my studies, I often found them hard, but my response was a luke warm one. "How are things?", "so - so ... alright".

But was I enthusiastic? Was I having fun? Never. I was just working toward a job.

Indeed looking back I can see that my enthusiasm was beaten down as I moved through the educational institutions. I'd willingly take on almost any drudgery if there was the promise of a reward at the end. Often the chance that I would get good marks at something was enough.

On entering the work place, I found that the promise of a better and interesting life evaporating before my eyes. See my essay "Organisational Values: Producers and Consumers" for one of the reasons for this. People just did not care that much about the work.

Where does your enthusiasm go? It's beaten methodically out of you during your education.





How do you get enthusiasm?

If you don't like what you do at work, you need to introduce things that you like to do into your life. Once you do these things, the enthusiasm carries you along, and you become good at them. Once you become good at them you can change what you work at to what you like.

You need to find what looks interesting, because what looks interesting has the promise of something you may become enthusiastic about.

How do find out what is interesting? Paul Graham has some very useful ideas. But he concedes that this is a hard problem.

Some pointers on looking for what is interesting:

* You need variety in your life. It should be different from what you normally do in some way.

* Experimentation should be cheap, in terms of money and time. Most of what you will try will fail and you need to be able to walk away with few regrets. Also heavy investment brings pressure to keep trying something long after any potential for fun has faded.

* You should be able to keep your experiments secret. If people know what you are doing they will inevitably: ask stupid questions, and have unreasonable expectations, none of which you need. Having a secret can be fun too, it's all yours and no one else's.

* Some of your experiments, say approximately 50%, need to be doing something constructive, i.e. either making things or repairing things. If you find something constructive that you like doing then it's easier to see how you might make a living from it.





The search for enthusiasm is difficult, but the only alternative is to become a drone. Medium to large organisations love drones, people who exist solely for time outside of work, like regular paychecks, and are happy to do what they're told with the minimum of fuss. The sad thing about being one of these people is that living from paycheck to paycheck, and weekend to weekend means that the next stop for them is death. They don't get the chance to do more with their lives.

Because working on something that you love will bring many more opportunities into your life. You have to spend a third to half your waking hours at work and it's a pretty horrifying idea that they should trickle away as an apathetic waste.

For myself, I am quite horrified at how my life has turned out. I went after the proferred carrots that took me from school to work, I did computer science because I found it mildly interesting and it seemed like the path of least resistance. But the proper enthusiasm in my work never surfaced. In fact work nearly snuffed out my interest in computers and everything else all together.

If I'd known what I know now about enthusiasm I'd have used university to put myself in a position for better options. I'm a bit dissapointed that it took me this long to figure this all out, but relieved that at least I still have the opportunity to try things. A lot of people never even get to that point.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Hypothesis - Organisational Values: Producers and Consumers

Warning:

The following post is an exploration.

It is the attempt of a puzzled mind trying to work things out.

It should be analysed cautiously to see what, if any value it might contain.

The author though does post it in the sincere hope that it will provide something for you.

End of warning.

The amount of care that you are given as a person degrades as you progress through life.

In primary / elementary school your teachers know you very well and very personally, as such the good teachers tend to care a great deal about you.

In secondary / high school your teachers do not know you as well, the impersonal nature is a shock coming from primary school. The teachers still do care about you, but the energy that goes into personal attention is diluted by the number of classes that teacher runs.

Tertiary / college / university institutions are a more gentle degradation of the high school education system.The jump from secondary to tertiary education is easier because it's just a minor variation on what you are already used to. Yet at the tertiary level those running the courses still do care about you, but the effort now is now mostly put into delivering course material and marking assignments and exams.

Now when you commence work, that care, remote though it might have seemed, vanishes.

It comes as a nasty surprise because in the case of the software developer the transition from school to work seems like just a variation on what has gone before.

Let's compare the two environments.

At college you have access to a terminal that you use to produce programs and on the side you teach yourself new skills.

At work you have access to a terminal that you use to produce programs and on the side you teach yourself new skills.

It seems like the same: assignment papers become change request specifications.

But there is actually a role reversal that happens. You were a consumer you are now a producer.

Students are consumers. The teachers are producers. The teacher produces educational material that the student consumes.

Society is fashioned to always pay attention to the consumer. This attention may often mainfest itself as care but does not always do so.

For example:

Shop assistants are encouraged by management to pay attention, in most cases this means being nice, to customers in the hopes that they will buy something. The shop assistant therefore pays a great deal of attention to the customer, but the customer is under no obligation to pay attention to the shop assistant. The customer's only interest is in getting what they want.

There is a power equilibrium between the shop assistant and the customer, with a significant tilt in the customer's favour.

So what happens if the customer gets what they want? The customer is satisfied they get their item or service, the manager is satisified the business makes money. The shop assistant (assuming that they are paid a fixed salary) however just expended energy with no immediate reward.

What happens if the customer doesn't get what they want? The customer is dissatisfied they have nothing, the manager is dissatisfied, they have no sale. The shop assistant has still expended energy and quite possibly has a vexed manager to deal with.

In either situation the shop assistant loses.

In the production hierarchy those at the bottom, either directly making or selling the products lose. They produce but their only return is a fixed wage.

What role does the manager play?

The manager is a consumer. He naturally consumes the efforts of those under him either:

(a) For profit or power.

(b) To give to his manager.

So all the profit and power spreads up the chain of command to those at the top. The other workers in the chain are left with their salaries but little else.

This is how things play out in their natural state.

As a software developer you are producer at the bottom of the food chain, while your manager or your customer may get to draw immediate appreciable benefit from your efforts you will not.

As a peon at the bottom of the food chain a lot of people simply rebel, and management is left with a lot of surly unresponsive employees. The only reason these poeple are kept on staff is because the cost of recruiting new staff in terms of time, money, and energy seems dauntingly high.

Management of course realises that employees on fixed salaries don't perform well and try all sorts of things to motivate them, most of which fail.

Nagging and bullying causes employees to leave. Non-monetary rewards tend to raise cynicism in employees: "you're saying my effort is only worth this lame X?". Parties and social events tend to fall flat.

What management easily miss is that employees really want them personally involved in their efforts. Let's face it: most work is complete shit, but a manager able to understand what an employee is going through and encourage them on a day to day effort makes it all bearable, indeed it makes the work incomparably good. This is why employees tend to follow good managers.

Unfortunately for a new person coming into a medium or large organisation it is fairly random as to whether or not you get such a manager. In a medium or large organisation it only takes one person to be horrible to another for the effects to come cascading down the tree. And this sort of bad karma eats away at the very morale that you seek to establish. Eventually you get feelings of: "they don't care, so why should I bother?" and good luck trying to stamp that out if it gets entrenched.

Working for a medium to large organisation can really suck, and you want to be very wary before going to work there. The wages offered at medium to large organisations are higher in part to make up for horrible deficits in morale.

The final message seems to be: get yourself into a small organisation that you like. It should be easy to decide whether or not the organisation has the desired qualities that you seek, everything is apparent before your eyes, as opposed to medium or large organisations where it may take a while to see everything that you need to.

In a small organisation the morale is high. The manager and his team must gel otherwise the organisation will die. Medium to large organisations tend to breed selfishness, apathy, and joylessness.

I will finish with a quote from the comments following Steve Yegge's Being the Averagest:

Are you insinuating that working our asses off year after year for that 40 rating and a 1% raise isn't motivation enough to make us all rise to stardom??"
- Anonymous

Hi Anonymous,

That's a very interesting, complex question, and undeserving of a flip answer from me.

All I can say is: if you're working your ass off, stop right now. Amazon's not worth it. If you have a crappy manager who's making you work your ass off, fire your manager (by finding another group to work in.) There are plenty of bad, insecure, incompetent, neurotic managers in every organization, including ours, and you don't need to keep them in business by working hard to make them look good. I don't know why it takes so long to root out and eliminate bad managers at Amazon, but that seems to be the way of things.

Once you find a group at Amazon where you're actually working because you enjoy what you're doing (which is typically determined more by your team members and your management than by the actual work), then you can come back to this post and start wondering whether you might not want to "work" (in a fun way) to make yourself more effective at doing what you love to do.

What many people find is that when they're in the right environment, doing something they believe in (and being recognized by their peers for it), they work harder than folks who are supposedly "working their asses off." But it doesn't feel like work anymore. When it does feel like work, something's going wrong, and you need to fix it.

If you can't find a suitable team in Amazon, well, there are lots of places that pay higher than we do. I know a few guys who've gone across the street to work for Wells Fargo or Washington Mutual, made 50% more than they do here, and they leave at 3:00pm to go play golf.

My god, life's too short to bust your ass for wage increases. Nobody gets rich off wages.

- Steve Yegge


P.S. This post still has a draft feel to it. There is a lot more that I will say on this and related topics but I hope that it's good enough to be useful.