Responding to life at work

"Can you do this real quick?"
"You should spend some time every day talking to people around you"
"Do not let your emails sit unanswered for too long"
"It is a good practice to tweet several times a day, and update blogs a few times a week"

When are we supposed to get any work done?

I am going to start from afar and consider a historical example. When computers were first deployed in the 50s and 60s, they did batch processing. A job was started, the machine chewed on it until done, and only then was ready to accept another job.

Technology has improved, and today's successful computers no longer employ batch processing.  All of surviving systems are interactive - while processing a task (virtually always) they are ready to respond to input in the timely manner.   A shrinking, yet non-trivial, portion of resources is allocated to the task of always being ready to respond.

Batch processing is largely dead because people who buy computers (which is all of us) prefer systems that respond quickly to systems that respond later and, sometimes, very much later.  People need complicated graphs and tables to understand how well a particular system performs on a complex task, but buyers make a quick and emotional judgement whether a machine is a "good one" based on quick response - or lack thereof.

The same kind of quick and emotional judgement applies to people: good people respond quickly and with predictable timing.   They smile back, answer questions, deliver results in a timely manner.  Excellent people keep up with the news, blog, tweet, and answer strangers' questions via email and various forums online and off.  Great people also take the time to signal "I'm here for you, should you need me" - by sharing advice with the larger world, working with user groups, mentoring, and following up with those they've connected with before.   The best people also find a moment to connect personally: pay attention to people around them, their needs and their motivation. 

So where are we supposed to get any work done? The grunt, technical, head-to-the-ground work that requires sharp technical skills and deep concentration, and constitutes the basis of a technical career.

The only answer is to learn to manage time according to priorities.  Responding to  people quickly and helpfully is very important, so is working with the larger world, and so is getting the grunt work done.  Multitasking does not work, so just apportion the time available to the tasks that need doing.  It helps to accept reality and basic rules of arithmetics when planning a workday. If there are two hour-long meetings, and you'd like to post work-related tweets twice a day, and keep your work day to 8 hours, realize that there is no way to spend 6 hours coding.   That is OK, and you will accomplish sufficient progress in the available time.  Just realize how much time you will dedicate to working on the code, and also leave time to spend reading and writing office email (organizational and technical), helping out coworkers, and getting water and latest office news from the water-cooler.  Blogging is best left for after-hours.

It is important to reserve time for urgent projects, keeping up with the news, maintaining relationships with colleagues past and present, while also getting regular work done at a sustainable pace.   Thinking clearly and deliberately about the daily schedule is important for managing time and productivity.

Men may be from Mars, but is it a different planet?

The difference in conversational styles continues to stun me.

I recently attended a reception for a group of highly educated and very successful people.  Successful women, including the honoree of the party, who the rest of the attendees were trying to woo, said things like:
- Oh, you probably know more than I do about this
- I can give a lecture, but it's hard to talk about me
- I am not a specialist in this

While men, even noticeably less successful men, said:
- Oh, but you don't understand
- You are wrong, this is not how it works
and overall did significantly more bragging, even for less momentous achievements.

Is the difference caused by nature or nurture?  If it is nurture, then who is doing the nurturing, and, more importantly, why?

More practical question: which way is better?
And what is "better" in this context - leads to greater success, allows for more peace of mind, something else?

How long is your game?

These days, the latest spin is king.  So much information is published so often and publicized so forcefully, it’s hard to remember what came before.  It is true in politics where GOP and Democrats fight it out for electoral votes, it is just as true in the office politics, where the winner gets a budget and a chance to build the project she is passionate about.  To win at the short game, often it is enough to be loud and clear, and to offer an  attractive soundbite.

Then there is the long game:  what happens after all the noise dies down, the news cycle moves on, and it is time to execute and produce results.  Often, it feels invisible and unimportant, since nobody is watching or cheering. Yet it matters a great deal. Although yesterday’s announcements are no longer in the news, the information remains available forever. 

So, do you play to win at a short or a long game? Do you work hard toward your announced goals after they are no longer exciting news?  Do you continue to uphold your values after everybody else has cooled down and moved on?  Your reputation is built on how your results relate to your promises. 

Having an audience, making promises and setting ambitious goals is exciting, saying what the client wants to hear is a great experience, and it is wonderful for relationships and for business.  On the other hand, executing on the promise often less glamorous, and involves tedious work.   New and exciting things are happening every day, and that makes it easy (and sometimes tempting) to forget what was said and promised earlier.

However, most serious projects take time and effort to build.  We have to be able to tune out the excitement of  the breaking news of the day long enough to concentrate on the technical side of the job and to get into the flow of work.   To step aside from the limelight and do the grunt work, which is not nearly as exciting as setting goals and producing soundbites.  

It's that non-glamorous, down-to-the-ground work that makes winners at the long game. It delivers results, innovations, and builds reputations.