So what is the correct solution to that specific problem then, adjust loading time per customer?

Probably just let them vent until they adjust their habits and just chat with their co-workers, without the need to use this as an excuse. Then, they can enjoy the fast loading times :)

▲

wahnfrieden 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why would the boss accept that? They automated the work to eliminate employee downtime. If the employees were upset to lose their chatting time then presumably they lack the agency to choose chatting over work duties when they’re unblocked. The only way to help them in that situation is to organize them

▲

Gigachad 3 days ago | parent [-]

Because the 10 minutes of chatting has value too. Which is why corporations make you spend so much time on team building exercises and axe throwing.

▲

rswail 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, that's HR justifying its existence.

Plus that's for higher stature service based roles, not warehouse logistics.

It's also mostly bullshit.

Teams work because they have the right combination of skills, both personal and technical, high EQ and IQ, leadership and ownership.

Whether or not you fall backwards into a team's arms or have to participate in childish games is not relevant.

	▲	Gigachad 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		For most people, liking and being friends with the people you work with is a huge factor in how much you like the job and are willing to stay. Most of the times I’ve left a job it’s been triggered by the people I liked talking to leaving and the remaining team members being dull and anti social.

▲

ramijames 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ignoring the users is the correct solution. Defining company culture through software loading is ridiculous.

▲

DenisM 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

What about the second order effects?

Ignoring the customers becomes a habit, which doesn’t lead to success.

But then, caving to each customer demand will make solution overfit.

Somewhere in there one has to exercise judgement.

But how does one make judgment a repeatable process? Feedback is rarely immediate in such tradeoffs, so promotions go to people who are capable of showing some metric going up, even if the metrics is shortsighted. The repeatable outcome of this process is mediocracy. Which, surprisingly enough, works out on average.

▲

conception 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Steve Jobs has a bunch of videos on creating products- https://youtu.be/Q3SQYGSFrJY

Some person or small team needs to have a vision of what they are crafting and have the skill to execute on it even if users initially complain, because they always do. And the product that is crafted is either one customers want or don’t. But without a vision you’re just a/b testing your way to someone else replacing you in the market with something visionary.

	▲	DenisM 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This requires correct vision + enough influence to execute. This is not a repetitive process. It’s pretty hard to tell apart a visionary from a lunatic until after they deliver an outsized success.

▲

rawgabbit 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

First define who the real customer is.

Second define what the real problem is.

Third define a solution that solves 80 percent of their problem.

None of this is intuitive or obvious. It may not even be technically feasible or profitable.

▲

jerf 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone's brain builds a model of the world.

One of those higher levels of maturity that some people never reach is to realize that when your model becomes incorrect, that doesn't necessarily mean the world is broken, or that somebody is out to get you, or perhaps most generally, that it is the world's responsibility to get back in line with your internal model. It isn't.

This is just people complaining about the world not conforming to their internal model. It may sound like they have a reason, but the given reason is clearly a post hoc rationalization for what is basically just that their world model doesn't fit. You can learn to recognize these after a while. People are terrible at explaining to each other or even themselves why they feel the way they feel.

The solution is to be sympathetic, to consider their input for whether or not there is some deeper principle or insight to be found... but also to just wait a month or three to see if the objection just dissolves without a trace because their world models have had time to update and now they would be every bit as upset, if not more so, if you returned to the old slow loading time. Because now, not only would that violate their updated world models, but also it would be a huge waste of their time!

Thoughtful people should learn what a world model violation "feels like" internally so they can short-circuit the automatic rationalization circuits that seem to come stock on the homo sapiens floor model and run such feelings through conscious analysis (System 2, as it is sometimes called, though I really hate this nomenclature) rather than the default handling (System 1).

▲

andsoitis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But how does one make judgment a repeatable process?

Principles can help scale decision-making.

▲

dchftcs 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Their bosses are likely happier for the lower downtime required to run the software anyway.

▲

notatoad 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The solution is to accept that this isn’t a software development problem, and to remove yourself from the situation as painlessly as possible.

If a manager wants to structure a morning break into their employees’ day, they can do that. It doesn’t require a software fix.

	▲	toxik 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Completely insane, who doesn't get to have coffee breaks without manager permission? Surely any org that treats its employees as adults would not have this problem.

▲

wahnfrieden 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Organizing workers

What’s the alternative? Ask the boss for favors? That’s what organizing is for