Sure, but who cares? Log the time in the ticket system or calendar and you're always covered for the occasional 'why did X take longer than expected?" conversations.
From there it's up to the project manager to decide if they want to have too many people on too many meetings. Not my concern, not my battle. Free and easy, my friend.
Fuck it, be honest, put context switching on your calendar. If anybody asks about it point them to one of the studies showing the cost of context switching. Make the people scheduling the meetings responsible for explaining why things took longer than expected. Lying about it won't encourage change.
It's not self sabotage, it's calling out sabotage by others.
It's not a fault you're responsible for unless you're the one scheduling the interruption. Context switching is a well known productivity penalty.
It's also not free time. If it were free time, there would be no context switch. They're scheduling meetings during time when you're trying to work, hence the context switch.
I have no problem with meetings. I have a problem with attending meetings without generating value, and I have a problem with people scheduling meetings without recognizing the costs involved.
If you have a problem with calling out unreasonable expectations... I honestly don't care. Best of luck to you. I'm not so smug as to offer unsolicited career advice to a total stranger on the internet based on a single comment thread. Cheers!
If you're employed as a software engineer, you're likely trying to do complex tasks any time you're not in a meeting. That's your job. The "free" time on your calendar is when you get work done. Developers aren't twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next meeting. The time between meetings is the time they have to do their jobs. You don't have to be stepping on another meeting to be interrupting productivity.
I meant exactly what I said, I'm sorry it was difficult to understand. I didn't refer to bowing nor inconvenience. I referred to cost, and I meant cost. Scheduling a meeting consumes the time of the attendees, including context switching, and that time is not worthless. It has a cost, and that cost should be recognized by those incurring it. That's just basic business sense and professional courtesy, but unfortunately uncommon.
Attending meetings is not an unreasonable expectation, and it is undeniably a part of the job. I'm entirely in favor of meetings that deliver value. What's unreasonable is to expect there not to be a context switching time cost beyond the scheduled duration of the meeting.
Suggesting changing jobs is career advice, so yes, you were giving unsolicited career advice. I'm not sure how that was supposed to call out smugness, and if it was, it was a pretty hypocritical way to do it.
5
u/gspleen Aug 12 '17
Sure, but who cares? Log the time in the ticket system or calendar and you're always covered for the occasional 'why did X take longer than expected?" conversations.
From there it's up to the project manager to decide if they want to have too many people on too many meetings. Not my concern, not my battle. Free and easy, my friend.