Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not saying it's right or the most effective option, but I believe it would be trivial to justify: it's easier to organise something in a group if everyone's available at the same time. I'm the only person in the team working 4 day week and even that was a bit awkward in planning. (still totally worth it)


> it's easier to organise something in a group if everyone's available at the same time

I think most workgroups have effectively been paying extremely high overhead in social costs just so the organization could have the option to organize easily. The problem then is that meetings are called flippantly. If it's hard to get everyone in a room, you'll do a better job capitalizing on when it happens.

The downside is there really are a large array of tasks that a group can tackle better than an individual, but I've never seen a corporate group meaningfully recognize or organize for those tasks. Far more often, I get pulled into meetings because some specific individual or another is lacking in autonomy and expertise.


> I get pulled into meetings because some specific individual or another is lacking in autonomy and expertise

These people are unconsciously aware that they are incompetent. They pull people into meetings in order to have a sense of having done work, at the cost of total productivity.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: