Comments on: Why Modern Workplaces Don't Work

By: Mike Templeton

Mike Templeton — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:17:42 +0000

It's interesting to hear Fried describe his company as a business that removes interruptions from the work day. Now there's a powerful unique value proposition.

I agree with him in that all too often our days are broken up or interrupted by things that can wait or that could be solved via a less intrusive method. Another problem I see with the current work environment is that sometimes those that want to be productive and not engage in interruptions are seen as "not being part of the team" or not being sociable. I have no problem with taking it easy and having fun, but I'd rather it be when I'm not at work being accountable for tasks and projects.

Great interview with Fried on this topic. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

By: Larry Salibra

Larry Salibra — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:12:21 +0000

A great theory however it doesn't work well in practice. As a business owner who is a "manager" that hates meeting, I almost never call meetings, let my employees make most of the calls and let them come to me for help. The result is that I am interrupted on other people's schedule instead of interrupting other people on my schedule. The inefficient interruption work environment gets transferred to the manager instead of the employee.

My solution is to minimize time in the office so that employees know they will have a 2 or 3 hour period in the afternoon each day when they can find me for questions. Otherwise I work from home or the road and we can interact via email and IM.

By: tskweres

tskweres — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:24:37 +0000

Agreed 100%, Werkadoo is a walking case study of the remote office and how it works so well.

By: Simon Mackie

Simon Mackie — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:23:50 +0000

Fear is a big driver behind the status quo, I agree. And if management trusted its workforce a little more, perhaps more businesses would be able to embrace some of these ideas.

By: Simon Mackie

Simon Mackie — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:19:55 +0000

Agreed, Skip -- scheduling bac-to-back meetings is better, even if it sounds less appealing

By: Skip Knox

Skip Knox — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:16:01 +0000

A key point in Jason's comment concerns time delay. He says that most matters can wait a few hours or a single day, and he's right. Specifically, most management-related interruptions can wait (unless there's a client standing in the office at the time). But they don't wait. They get scheduled without regard to the productivity arc of the developers. Taking that communication cycle asynchronous lets the workers decide when (within a day's time-frame) it's appropriate to deal with non-development matters.

Jason doesn't address, but does hint at, another killer: scheduling interruptions in an intelligent way. The stuff that kills me is the 9am meeting followed by an 11am meeting, which leaves me almost zero productivity time for an entire morning. Leave aside the fact that one hour meeting should have been a half hour and the other wasn't needed at all (!), scheduling the two back-to-back would be more efficient for the organization.

We need some sort of scheduling filler software that takes out the gaps. If you're going to blow my morning, lets get four meetings done and give me two other days with no meetings at all. This, I think, is the core of Jason's remarks: finding ways to win back larger chunks of true work time.

By: josuediaz

josuediaz — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:58:36 +0000

Amazing post! Jason is completely right. Totally progressive in thought, but the unfortunate reality is that corporate America is so set in its ways and many of the levels of managers is about taking credit rather than fostering a true creative environment. Much of what happens is about the fear management has to make bold moves in the workplace. The businesses that succeed in so many industries (along with excellent employee morale) tend to take a non-conventional approach to the workplace dynamics. Are there organizations that rule by an iron fist? Of course, but ask the employees how they feel about that environment and you'll see what a flawed methodology that is.

Again, great article and extremely refreshing. :)

By: Simon Mackie

Simon Mackie — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:58:57 +0000

Fair point, Chris -- yes, it depends on the job. But for many people, I would say that interruptions do get in the way of them doing their work.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:28:17 +0000

In some jobs it is not a productivity killer, such as support job when you are supposed to be constantly available for your customers/clients. You are always interupted by calls or people who come to you. You also have to check your emails at least every 5 minutes. But yet, that's the job. And it is quite a common one, so it is wrong to say that such environments are non-productive. They are the only one possible so it works well with the people you support.

By: Hide in the office (or work at home) and get more done — A View from the Isle

Hide in the office (or work at home) and get more done — A View from the Isle — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:06:53 +0000

[...] video by 37Signals Jason Fried (which I found thanks to WebWorkerDaily—Why Modern Workplaces Don’t Work – WebWorkerDaily) tells it like it is. The “workplace” is the worst place to get work [...]