Some of the most incredible programmers I’ve had the pleasure of working with were just like this, and I felt like it was my job as their boss to help them keep it that way.

There’s a bias for visibility and not actual work that I think makes it really difficult for those on the spectrum or who have adhd or just difficulty refocusing after getting interrupted have to deal with that doesn’t get a lot of support in the modern workplace. To boot, this culture drives type-a, need to talk face-to-face, achievement focused personalities absolutely crazy.

I can’t tell you have many times I’ve had to say no to some over controlling stakeholder who “needs in person morning status updates” every day. It absolutely killed our code velocity when we tried it and the late night crew thought they were hitler.

Ime. Depends. If it’s in service to the work, and the developers find it useful, then sure. But I’ve seen teams work a whole lot of different ways and be successful.

But the important thing is that the team finds it useful.

There are plenty of ways to build a product or a company that doesn’t rely on a daily meeting.

Remember that Scrum doesn't care about the format: that's up to the developers to decide. Scrum only cares that people stay on the same page and most importantly are productive in helping move forward with open communication and collaboration to hit the sprint goals.

I’ve seen this meeting used by clients and executives to micromanage everything, and sometimes telling the “business owner” they aren’t invited to the meetings isn’t possible. For example, telling a non-technical, micromanaging startup CEO who’s just discovered the power of SCRUM while under pressure for a raise and feeling behind on their product delivery to sit down and just listen very easily. Or in some teams doing a daily meeting works only around releases and they don’t feel like it’s useful all the time. There are a lot of forms that works successfully, but everyone has strong opinions on what does and does not work.

You don’t want to be too prescriptive. What my experience has taught me is to have someone in charge of the product delivery — and then allow them to run the show with whatever support they need. That allows for a lot of flexibility while keeping accountability.

that's not bias, someone that behaves like OP without proven record is just eccentric.

Fortunately, my manager agrees that work requests should be submitted via official channels (i.e. the appropriate project management / issue tracking system).

I have good communication with my manager. I regularly ask for their feedback about my behavior, and if they think I should be handling situations differently. I always take any suggestions very seriously and either do my best to accommodate them or discuss my concerns openly so that I'm not putting myself in a difficult situation.

I've tried to explain, but despite being met with agreement regarding my perspective, the behavior would continue time and time again.

I find that simply not responding in such cases is the most effective action. Anything else feels like rewarding the behavior.

Note, however, that I do try and give them the benefit of the doubt. If it seems at all like they've tried to find answers or solve the issue themselves, have searched for and read related documentation, etc., and subsequently decided that my assistance is required, I am beyond happy to help. I really, truly, enjoy being helpful, but sometimes it feels like I'm being taken advantage of.

Most of the questions I get these days include a brief explanation of the effort made before contacting me, which I really appreciate. Needless to say, I absolutely do the same for others, even if they don't have the same expectation of me.

I would press you to either make some consolations on your lack of response and ignoring of messages.

Unless you’re in HFT or an environment that is not dependent on relationships but systems, like government.

If they’re behaving that way unannounced then yeah, it’s not good but if the manager is aware then all that’s needed is “hey team, Andy is on the spectrum and prefers to work this way. Please try to accommodate, any issues let me know”

Those requirements aren’t challenging to meet for a coworker.

Imagine someone comes to your desk and says they need help with something and you say "Please go away, you're distracting me" or you simply ignore their presence. How would they feel?

I'm not saying OP is doing it at that level but I think you can see my point.

Nevertheless I'll try to put this in neutral terms. Hopefully I get my point across without sounding too punchy.

I'm at work to work. It sometimes feels like managers and companies put you in a double-bind. On one hand I am supposed to be a factory-line worker, solving ticket after ticket. Make whatever metric go up so to speak. On the other I'm supposed to be part of a "community", get involved, be proactive, show my brilliance and creativity..

I've found that I have to place heavy emphasis on the code-monkey side of things. Even if the internal communication is the other way around (e.g. by the usage of the word toxic). Because creativity happens for its own sake, shipping product is a second thought at best. We framed the market in rigid and mechanical terms. And Ii the end we have to abide to that sterility in order to succeed.

I would press you to reflect on why you think you have the right to tell a stranger how to behave. Why your opinion of "correct" behavior is the only possible valid option.

People like you have this assumption that autistic people somehow owe you. That you expect them to go through a great deal of stress and effort to act they way you want. If they do, you give them nothing in return. If they instead prioritize their own comfort and wellbeing, you give them abuse and call them toxic.

Edit: for perspective, telling an autistic person they're toxic for doing what they need to cope is the same as calling a person in a wheelchair toxic because everyone else has to walk slower to keep up. This is abuse and does real harm to people.

Isn't that what OP is doing to coworkers?

These agreements should take everyone's individuality into account to find a balance or compromise in terms of personal preference and overall comfort (not to mention meeting the goals of the team from technical and business perspectives) which everyone involved finds acceptable.

My comfort is no more or less important than that of others.

I'm just pointing out the obvious: we are all telling others how to behave to a certain extent.

The response is "disabled people don't need accommodation, you should just act like you're not disabled no matter the personal cost"

The difference is between asking for help and setting boundaries for what you can tolerate, and telling someone else they're a bad person for being disabled.

One is reasonable, if annoying. The other is a direct attack on an individual.

40% disability is very common for diagnosed autistic people, meaning they are categorized with the same amount of impact on their wellbeing as crippled, wheelchaired, or mentally impacted people.

So I think the discussion and comparison that calamari4056 started is very well reasoned and makes sense in the context of "what society expects of you" vs "what you can expect of society".

I'm not sure why you're implying that disabled is a dirty word. That's the word that pretty much every disabled person uses to describe a disability. It's the official legal term for the same.

And yeah, it's a personal attack when you tell someone they're a bad person for having a disability that inconveniences you.

Basically;

lazy / inflexible management = productivity losses flexible & inclusive management = empowered people + awesome results

I’m curious if you have seen how the companies you work for handle any of the following problems I’ve seen come with this working style:

- PM breaks down tasks with such granularity that it’s like they’re programming the people doing the work. They learn a programming language through a bootcamp and start doing some tickets themselves, and now you have a key product person who is likely to leave for a developer job.

- PM gets burnt out from dealing with behavior that would be considered extremely impolite on a regular basis.

- No PM you have or could hire is capable of breaking down tasks in a way they will get worked on or responded to, at which point you have to find another dev/firm.

I haven't run into this scenario, but I have encountered project managers who want to read the code and advise on that level, which I don't think is very productive at all.

Unfortunately, in my experience, managers like this need to see for themselves how much time and energy is wasted trying to be this hands-on, as opposed to deferring to the developers.

> PM gets burnt out from dealing with behavior that would be considered extremely impolite on a regular basis.

I've had this happen with multiple project managers. My understanding is that working with people, including dealing with seemingly impolite behavior, is a part of any management role. This is precisely why I'm not interested in management — I'd be terrible at it.

It should also be noted that I've experienced my own feelings of burnout as a result of dealing with the behavior of managers as well, and whether I find such behaviors to be impolite or not, the only control I have is with how I respond to them. I choose to do so in ways that allow me to avoid stress and frustration, and I'd do the same in their position.

As for the company's response to manager burnout in this situation, it's difficult to say because it mostly seems to happen behind closed doors. I've had managers quit projects, and I've been reassigned to other projects which were under different management. I'm fine with either case, as long as we're all able to work reasonably comfortably and have our individuality respected.

> No PM you have or could hire is capable of breaking down tasks in a way they will get worked on or responded to, at which point you have to find another dev/firm.

This has been a concern of mine in the past, and so I always try to provide examples of what I think are reasonable methods of communicating within the group. I design processes, describe roles and responsibilities, and set expectations as best I can, all while taking the preferences and individuality of others into account. I would never require my specific suggestions to be implemented as-described before participating, but I feel that the principles behind them should be understood and that reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate them. And I think all members of the team deserve the same considerations.

My experience is generally in environments where project managers are expected to also manage the people working on the project, at least to some extent, and so I didn't think to make this important distinction.