I am often too swamped to get work done effectively. I tell my manager this on a weekly basis. I still get new stuff put on my plate.

I have 40 hours a week to work. He's welcome to divide that up how he sees fit. I'm not going to start working any more than 40.

When your manager brings you new work and you’re already swamped with work try asking this question: “I have these X other high-priority items on my plate. Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?” Then set expectations on when you think you can get to that new thing, also, it can be helpful to offer reasons why you believe certain things are higher priority. Prioritizing work is important when your feeling like there is too much.

Change the conversation from how much to when.

I've definitely had cases where the manager (and on lots of cases, the CEO) tried to "turn those conversation around" and bullshit me.

The thing they wanted me to do was maximum priority, but there was also some other totally unpredictable thing (often support related) that I also had to take care of. The higher-up was 100% sure it wasn't a real problem and assumed I was exaggerating the situation.

The solution to the problem of lack of trust is of course to convince them, or to leave. If you can't make changes that increase your productivity, you'll become stressed and burned out, and will still not be able to do enough. It is a decision they made.

If you're doing something you think is important ("other totally unpredictable thing (often support related)") at work and your boss says they think it isn't important ("The higher-up was 100% sure it wasn't a real problem and assumed I was exaggerating the situation.") then I would assume your boss is right and you are wrong and act accordingly (start ignoring or delaying dealing with these support-related things when you are busy with the "higher priority" work). Either it will turn out your boss was right and it won't be a big deal, or it will turn out your boss was wrong, and it will be clear to everyone, and before you know it a big pronouncement will come down from up high saying that that "unimportant" thing actually is very important.

And in the end it’s you again who has to rush to take care for the suddenly important item. You simply cannot win.

Sure, but "I doubt that's that big of a problem" is very different from "isn't important".

But your boss needs that feedback loop or they will continue to be wrong.

Let me try again:

The previous CEO of the story wasn't wrong about what's important at all. Only about how much time it takes. He considered everything important and maximum priority, but didn't believe the "previous thing" was taking 80% of the time of the team. I couldn't tell the team to "drop the previous task" like the other post suggested: it was also maximum priority.

"Important" and "Takes too much time" are very different.

He didn't think it was important to put in the extra time then. He felt adequate results could be achieved with less time, and that the extra time to make sure quality and completeness was up to some standard was unnecessary.

So, try it. See how well you can do in 0.8 times the time. Probably not as well, but maybe still adequate for the boss's standards, or maybe not. Either way the impasse is solved, as both you and your boss will see exactly what can in fact be done in 0.8 the time.

> Which of these would you like me to deprioritize in order to work on this new thing?”

At most places, the answer is going to be “you need to prioritize all of it. Oh, and by the way, here is even more work to put on your plate!”

I think my answer to that is something of the kind of: “Work is going to be prioritized one way or another. If you don’t tell me which one you want me to work on first I’ll pick the one I like best, and we’ll see which of the problems never gets finished.”

I think this only works if you’ve already set boundaries on your time though.

I usually work on the latest task, last-in-first-out system. If someone has a higher priority they should bug be more to get bumped up. The reason is that I want to finish at least a few tasks without delays. For large tasks I ask them to select the ordering.

There are occasionally times when everything is critical. Often this is in the early stages of survival for a company.

If this is a chronic problem, or it's an established company, though, you realistically have two solutions that don't lead to burnout:

1. Don't deliver everything you're asked for

2. Find a new job

Once that culture is established it's extremely hard to change. It certainly will not fix itself.

I agree completely. I was working for a company that had been around for over 20 years and when that happened, I did both 1&2. It was pretty clear that I had made all the improvements I could there and that nothing would get any better.

I love repeating the phrase “if it’s all top priority than none of it is top priority”

I worked at a company like this (for f...ing 10 years!), beeing fired at the end was the best thing that could happen to me, it lead me to a much less stressfull job with much better pay

> Yes, drop those other things

or

> Well just do this in like the fastest, shittiest way possible

:shrug:

We can prioritize and things do get prioritized but if you have 40 hours of time and 80 hours of work, some ball is getting dropped.

> Yes, drop those other things

Reminds me of a previous manager I had. He would come with a 20 to 60 hours task, and quite reasonably say "that's urgent, drop anything else and focus on this for as long as you need".

The only problem is that he did that about twice a day.

Right? OP is victim blaming here. I'm swamped because my manager manages based on hopes and dreams.

These are the worst kind of employee, yet so many managers who appear too incompetent to find their rear end even when using both hands seem to love these people. These employees serve as a red flag to everybody else - if these employees are rewarded or otherwise encouraged to maintain this behavior then that's your sign your work culture is poor and it's time to go. On your exit interview don't be bashful to state the actual reason you're leaving. I worked at a place once where they had an employee like that and many people were leaving as a result. Someone in upper management got the message loud and clear and the problem was taken care of. I was about to leave when that happened and the place turned out to be awesome once that problem was resolved. A couple of the people who had previously left even came back. Life is too short to tolerate working in a culture like that and these people are very draining to have to interact with.

Yea it's tough. As a manager I dealt with this recently.

Had a guy who was an absolute star. Technically very sound. Committed to doing things properly. Managed his time diligently and productively. Tried to help everybody.

Reacted badly to every attempt I made to find somebody to assist him. I wanted to make sure he could take a vacation and not get a phone call. Also wanted to make sure the company had somebody in place who knew the work in case he decided to leave for some reason.

I see myself in this. I am being labeled as superstar.

The thing is that I am very quick to understand things and can get a prototype working from a new thing we want to do in a week or two.

This way I know a little of of everything that goes on and when something breaks I am the one who can effectively debug and solve things. Others can too of course but for me it is usually <1 hour while for others it would take at least the whole day.

I am passionate about my work and proffesion but on other hand don't want to be the albatross you are talking about

Then you need to bring your talents to bear on how to make others as good as you are at these things. Mentor, pair, teach, write, etc.

This would imply that everyone has a similar capacity and willingness to learn, and that a capable IC's time is best-spent mentoring and documenting. I'm not sure these things hold true all the time.

Not all the time, but often enough to be good advice for the large majority of the time.

If the place is on fire? Maybe not.

The rest of the time? Spreading that knowledge is a force multiplier.

Maybe consider freelancing or launching your own company. It sounds like you’re cut out for it. It’s riskier than a steady job of course, but it sounds like you might be getting a bit too comfortable.

If the maverick in question is an IC, then this responsibility is solely on their manager.

Enthusiastic contributors are rare and good.

Lazy managers who hope reports will self-manage are not.

It's not solely on the manager if the manager doesn't know because the employee in question is not giving feedback about their workload. Which isn't to say that the manager isn't to blame at all -- there are many things a manager can and should do to proactively suss out such issues.

If you can't tell whether a direct report is being reasonably productive -- that's 99% a management problem. You need to set clearer expectations and indicators.

If you identify a concrete issue, then it is the onus of the report to truthfully report on what is holding them back.

Makes you wonder what exactly those managers are for if everyone is meant to self manage their own workload anyway

In my previous job they managed engineers workloads. Instead, they mostly “supported” engineers. This meant reaching out to people/ making noise to get roadblocks cleared, attempting to fix any interpersonal grievances and etc.

It was great when the manager was an experienced developer, as their sagely advice/insight often made sense and helped me think about my problems in new light.

But then we also had managers that never coded in their life who would link me some medium articles about some pop science productivity stuff.

Remove roadblocks. Sometimes it's the dev motivation, and in this case help him find the problem (lack of understanding for the final product, too much meetings, or plain burnout), sometimes it's just that he dev isn't a fit, most of the time (imho, i could be wrong, I'm not a manager) it's external to the dev: issues within the team, issues with admin or with sec, issue with clients or issue with other teams

I wonder if at-will employment in the US influences this. If I'm bus factor 1, they're less likely to fire me.

I have anxiety around losing my job, which makes me more likely to say yes to piling on tasks. It doesn't seem so crazy when you consider my healthcare is directly attached to my employment.

Even if they don't fire you, saying no (to anything, ever) will come back to bite you when performance reviews (and raises and bonuses and stock grants) come around. OP is falling into the common internet commenter trap of assuming that the way the world should work is the way the world does work.

Maya Angelou has a quote that's supposed to be inspirational but is actually depressing as hell: "People will forget what you did, people will forget what you said, but they'll never forget how you made them feel." Want to actually succeed in the actual real world and not the fantasy world internet commenters exist in? Focus on making people feel, not on results. If you say "no", they'll remember you made them feel like the person who turned them away when they needed you most. If you just say yes to everything and get to what you can get to, you'll make them feel like the person who tried their best.

Until all of civilization starts rewarding actual results over vague feelings (it never has), focus on appearances.

An "underperforming" worker can consistently underperform though, and that consistency might make people feel good. Ultimately you're right on a deep level, but perhaps there are other ways to produce good feelings than what you've suggested.

The recency of the good feelings matters too. If you push back now and set expectations for everyone, then a year from now your boss will probably remember the consistency more than the push-back.

Of course, it will depend on the people involved.

This reminds me of the idea that most people's actual job is to make/keep their boss happy, and what they think of as their job is just a means to that end.

It might feel short-term good to have someone say yes, but when they don’t fulfill their agreement that leaves a more long-term feeling that their answers in the future will be unreliable (“Yeah, X told me they’ll do it soon, we’ll see if they actually do…”).

Communicating honestly (“If we need that done today, we have to deprioritize something else to make time”) will get you further unless you’re dealing with very immature management.

> saying no (to anything, ever) will come back to bite you when performance reviews (and raises and bonuses and stock grants) come around

Any employer that does this is toxic. You should find a new place to work. One of the hardest and most important professional soft skills is knowing when to say no and setting proper boundaries.

so, say "no", but be polite about it.

if somebody is butthurt because you refused to take on more than you are able to... that's a bad spot to be in no matter if you refuse or not.

> if somebody is butthurt because you refused to take on more than you are able to... that's a bad spot to be in no matter if you refuse or not.

Okay, but…if you work a job not for fun but because you need the money, then you’re still better off in the bad spot with a job than the bad spot without a job.

You may be better off without a job where you are managed by a 5 year old.

I can understand if this is the first time it happens, but some people still complain about this after 5 years of dealing with the same thing.

At that point it’s their own fault.

> You may be better off without a job where you are managed by a 5 year old.

If you happen to have access to free food, shelter, etc. and were only holding a job for fun, then sure!

It isn't that hard to interview and find another job while still working.

Dang, you can easily draw a connection between unstable work environments and unstable technical products. It's directly in the workers benefit to keep a product reliant on them or else they could just die. That's crazy.

When you're reliant on healthcare and live in America that is first concern before anything else. Not to turn a post political, but the employer-tied healthcare situation in America is borderline a form of slavery. In tech it is simply well-paid slavery. I rarely if ever take vacations, and due to healthcare requirements cannot explore starting my own company or being without an employer to take an extended sabbatical from work. I am well compensated for my role and generally do well but if I lose my health insurance my life can be measured in months. It's a stressor that is hard to describe.

Yeah, and it ultimately harms everything. It's so interesting that ultimately this system would produce lower quality products and suppress innovation. I wonder if countries with more flexibility in health-care will have more start-ups?

Almost all other developed countries have more flexibility with healthcare! Certainly it's never been part of any of my career decisions (in Australia). I don't believe it has much bearing on the number of start-ups, even successful ones - the US has too many other factors that overwhelmingly give it the advantage there - but I'm pretty sure it has been shown to affect upward mobility in general (America rates quite low on that compared to other countries with better safety nets and public/single payer healthcare systems, though other factors like cost of education almost certainly come into play).

Nothing borderline about that.

A lack of universal healthcare available to all regardless of employment status is absolutely damaging us as individuals.

You're also making yourself too vital to whatever you're doing now - if the conceit is that the team/division/practice/company can't function without you doing your job you'll never be able to be promoted out of it.

I've noticed only a few people do this but the ones that did did it out of either ego or anxiety (sometimes a mix).

They werent usually angling for a promotion.

The anxiety wasnt always unwarranted either. If you're in tons of debt, hate interviewing and work for an organization that doesnt care for people this isnt a wholly irrational strategy.

That has a pretty simple and effective solution though: just mention that you want to leave. I've just been through getting a healthy amount of equity (as a freelancer no less) because someone else announced they were leaving.

If your job is _that_ important, you might not get promoted away, but you'll get the salary as if you were and then some.

Under my own personal belief system, I don't agree with this sentiment. Sure, you might obtain the immediate but you're kind of poisoning the well with an announcement of expected departure.

I take it as a rule to not ever mention that you're leaving somewhere until you're leaving and then follow through.

I don't know. If your role is that important, they'll make you an offer to make you stay, which, unless you really, really, really want to leave, you'll take, because it'll be very good. Then they either work on making you not the single point of failure, or they'll accept you being that important and just go on paying you appropriately for it.

I see "wanting to leave" as either absolute ("I hate this company, no amount of money can make me stay") or relative ("I could make more money / have less work / do more interesting stuff elsewhere"). The latter can totally be shifted by adding significantly more money, at least for most people.

Just to add - this can even be a career advancement hurdle. My mom told her about a meeting she had with her boss where she asked for a promotion because she was doing so well at her current role and the boss basically said "yes you're doing more than we've seen before and that's why we're going to keep you right where you are".

I'm a bit wary of the "peter principle" where people generally get promoted until they can't do their job well - but that's an institutional concern. From the perspective of an employee it might make sense to not excel because it could make you too valuable to promote. One of those annoying contradictions where you might have to look out for yourself at the cost of the company you're also trying to help succeed

True! But not every highly-productive person is this. If you keep complexity low, you can have a "single point" without it being high risk.

Recently I was really proud of being able to take a half of a day to document all my systems to have a reasonable assurance that the documentation would contain all the info needed for someone else to step in if they need to and get something done.

And, it is a lot of systems! But we kept the complexity WAY down. And while the engineering is not perfect (is it ever?) I feel confident that someone can step in and work on these systems if I'm not here.

Seems like a contradiction. If someone can step in when you are not there then you are not a single point of failure.

Probably true. I think my point is more if you are good at your job, you won't become a single point of failure. It is part of being good at your job to avoid that.