Judge people by their output. If someone is performing well and shipping, then it doesn't matter if that takes 10 minutes or 8 hours. Many people work better with a lot of space. If you fill someone's hopper so they're forced to work 8 hours a day, then you'll quickly find the tasks that used to take them 10 minutes to complete now take multiple hours due to: burn out, stress, context switching and most likely bad management.

Why? As a salaried employee you're literally paying me for my ability to get work done, not for my hourly output. If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?

> If the goal is to keep me busy for X number of hours a day, instead of getting a job done whatever it requires, why am I salaried?

The "goal" in a lot of cases is nebulous (i.e. "keep developing the product", "improve stability", etc). There might not be a manager feeding you tasks every time you run out. At least in my company, you are expected to figure out on your own how to continually make the product better and proactively do it, not sit around idle after rapidly finishing the last task your manager gave you.

If you are just a dumb worker that can only work when your manager fills your queue, you are not valuable to me as a salaried employee (you are more valuable as a contractor who I can call upon for a one-off difficult task that you can then complete in 30 minutes).

So you're not trusting the salaried employee to use their judgement on how best to utilize their time, but instead assuming they instead use their skill to be a butt in a seat and working for at least 40 hours? What's special about the salary then? It's just easier than an hourly system?

You seem to be presenting confused ideas.

Here's what I believe:

If I pay you a salary, I want (roughly) 40 hours per week of productive work at your current skill level. Note: I consider sitting around thinking about things relevant to the product or company to be productive work. If you believe your level of output deserves higher compensation than you are receiving, come talk to me or find a company that will pay what you think you are worth. However, accepting a salary and then doing tasks really fast and then going idle (watching netflix, working on side projects, etc.) until your manager cattle prods you is not acceptable for a salaried employee; that would be more appropriate for a contractor where you can idle on your own dime.

So basically let me get summarise this:

- you have an employee that works faster than others, in the same pay grade.

- You are annoyed that he or she has empty queue of work

- You expect employees to look for tasks on their own when they are done

so either that employee:

- has no creative control over the work he or she is doing and cannot move forwards on their own.

- is severely underpaid and undervalued

- is under bad management that cannot fill their work queue fast enough

All of that will lead into them doing tasks at the same speed as other ones - you just turned a good, valuable and fast employee into another drone.. or worse - they'll go work for competition, and you'll have to both suffer the loss of a good trained employee and a cost of hiring someone else.

If this is happening, it's 100% due to bad management. It means the employee wasn't given creative freedom and a strategic direction to go in. The very last thing any manager should ever do is punish their best employees (e.g. the person who can finish a whole day's worth of work very quickly).

> The very last thing any manager should ever do is punish their best employees (e.g. the person who can finish a whole day's worth of work very quickly).

They are not the "best employees" if they are constantly idling, waiting for me to tell them what to do next. People here seem to think the ideal manager/subordinate relationship is that of a worker thread pool where the manager fills the queue and the worker threads pull tasks off the queue.

Not so. The "best employees" are ones who can examine the current state of affairs, and then come to me and propose things to work on. The ideal manager/subordinate relationship is actually one where the workers are all artificial general intelligences that learn over time what the product is, how to improve it, and proactively create tasks to work on.

If you are a rockstar but only work as a a super-fast super-efficient thread in a worker thread pool, you are less valuable to me than a non-rockstar AGI who can dynamically recognize which tasks need to be done and only occasionally needs guidance and course-correction.

It sounds like you do value creativity and autonomy. If that's the case why would it matter how many hours someone was working? Judge them by their output, not how they got there.

This depends a lot on what the value of their output was. If they want to do their tasks 5 times faster than the interns and leave then they can do that for intern pay since that's the value they bring. If they are actually doing more valuable work that involves understanding the product, working with other teams, designing new systems, and they can still do it in less than 40 hours then that is fine. Being effective at driving projects and making decisions are a different kind of work that usually take some time.

Great way to turn that 30 minute task into 8 hour task.

If employee is getting extra works as a reward for being efficient guess what will happen.