“I’m finding this repetitive task combined with the isolation of quarantine is having a negative effect on my productivity. I’m interested in developing new skills to broaden or introduce some variety into my role, is there anything that we could do to make this happen?“

It’s turned from a question about someone’s productivity problems to a question about how much more can I do for the company. 9/10 a good manager will jump at the chance to avoid an awkward “why aren’t we getting the work done?” conversation and have a (much more productive) “let’s help each other out” conversation.

It is also very likely that no one has noticed the work is slowing down and it is just a normal sort of check in.

Really you should not let it get this far that you feel this negative about the work you are doing.

YMMV, & not my fault if you try this and lose the job anyway as loss of job is an expected outcome when you stop doing it. No one should get soulcrushed and discarded, but it does happen frequently.

Also, this only applies to the relatively privileged industry of ‘tech’ where you’re expensive to replace and finding anyone competent enough is an incredible chore.

More concerning to me is the "I always lose my job or quit." It sounds a lot like you're running into a pattern in your life which causes you to underperform. If it's emotional or mental, please consider seeking counseling. Brain chemistry can send a person on a roller coaster, and counselors really can help.

If the problem is simply that you are bored with the work, then could you move on sooner to a new job? Better to find new stuff than get bored so much it affects your work.

Even the greatest rock-star or sports celebrity spends the majority of their time doing hard, repetitive or tedious work leading up to their moments of glory.

I personally find that when I set my expectations appropriately, and find ways to link the tedious work to a larger goal/milestone that I am at least somewhat invested in that it helps with motivation. It doesn't have to be finding the cure for cancer, it could be hitting your sales goal for the month, improving the customer experience, or saving up for a new electric guitar.

Another trick that helps is researching things you are going to need for upcoming work, before they are urgent and become a dreaded deadline. It's kind of a mind trick to say to yourself "Hey, I'm looking into this stuff because I'm interested, not because I HAVE TO". I've done this for school exams and work related projects.

Failing that, there are other time management strategies like the Pomodoro technique.

Obviously there are limits and it's not a bad idea to pursue more meaningful work,but it shouldn't be a frequent pattern.

Regardless, engage with your manager as suggested, show that you are trying to succeed and hopefully you will find a solution together.

A good manager will help you find those opportunities when you feel stuck, but in the end nobody is better suited than you are to find your interests, whether it's within your workplace or the world at large.

I agree. I used to think exactly this, until I eventually realized that work should be engaging because I find it engaging, not because it is naturally engaging, and it's up to me to set that attitude.

^ That's a very important reply. Whenever I send one of those messages like OP quoted, what I really mean is to ask if there's anything I can do to help.

A manager is not an old-school "boss" responsible for cracking the whip. Managers exist to coordinate, organise, bridge communication, remove obstacles... It takes several conversations with higher-ups and with HR for a manager to fire someone, and if I fire people too often people start questioning my ability to hire and manage.

However I notice that the specific message on OP is a bit ambiguous, I would personally add some suggestions ("do this instead", "let's ask X for help, they have experience with this kinda stuff").

I can reassure the person if they want, but they have to tell me they need reassurance before, or I have to at least detect they're uncomfortable. I'm not gonna go to every employee and say "ok just so you know, I'm not thinking about firing you". That's even weirder!

Consider this: "It's not our biggest account, but it does count for something, so I really want our team to get the demo online by Thursday, so I was thinking of having Jared work with you for for the next two days, or having you hold off on the Tachyon project until Fusion is ready. Which of those options sounds good to you?" These are the techniques used:

The message began with "Just wanted to check in and see," but they're not just curious and adding a layer of casualness confused the message. They're not just checking in, they are asking for reason related to the product delivery. Maybe things are going well, and the manager is seeking to optimize to deliver early. Or maybe the employee is about to delay something or maybe not until weeks from now. But with the intent hidden, the manager concentrates all of the power, setting the managed into an anxious or defensive posture. So clarify the situation with the appropriate level of urgency.

Next, add suggestions of what the manager can do. The employee can't be expected to guess or know what options are available. Is there $ for a consultant? Can a team member ahead of the game afford a few pair-programming sessions? Could tasks be reprioritized? Knowing these options is the manager's duty. Expecting the employee to come up with them is like expecting a boat to tell you how it should be washed. They are likely already pressed trying to perform technically, so generating a list of possibilities without knowing their feasibility compounds the stress. It's like picking movies with a friend: One picks a number of good possibilities and the other choose from that set.

Next, and you may pass this over as overly pedantic: There absolutely are things that a manager could do to help, so asking if there are sounds too simple. It sounds like a weak lead. And for someone struggling, getting led by a person full of uncertainty compounds everything.

Finally, I would suggest reassuring the person they're not going to get fired if they answer this question wrong. With the growth of "hire to fire" positions and stack ranking, employees often feel like managers are simply out to gather evidence of blood so they can be pecked to death. Just be level about how where this work stands in importance.

> However I notice that the specific message on OP is a bit ambiguous, I would personally add some suggestions.

It’s not. If you can’t tell the difference, we’ll, there’s nothing else to add here, the answer is right under your nose.

There's also the reality that, when corresponding with your employer, it's sort of like talking to the police: anything you say can and will be used against you.

If my manager had a "hey, what's going on?" conversation with me out of the blue, my immediate reaction would be concern. I honestly believe that my manager is a good guy who wants me to succeed, and I'm still very cautious about what I say to him. I know that I can never un-say anything. Also, losing this job would be difficult. Though I am a software engineer and could find work relatively quickly this would put me in a very difficult situation due to the US health insurance system and my wife's serious illness.

I would suggest:

1. In-person or video chats instead of email/slack when possible. Written words tend to be so much more prone to misunderstanding and can be used against a person more readily.

2. When possible, regular scheduled informal reviews with your reports, instead of unscheduled "what's going on?" queries. I've never understood why managers don't make time to talk to their reports one-on-one at least once a month. They could be short 15 minute conversations!

Number 2 is a great good tip indeed, if you want a status report, just wait until the next bi-weekly meeting and it will look even more casual.

I’d rather hear what the problem is and how they think it can be fixed. (EU based)

Human empathy and emotional intelligence appears to lead to a common pattern in communications. For personal questions, you always want to ask gently and not aggressively.

This of course, for a lot of developers appears like an anti-pattern. We like machines, probably because humans are confusing with vague inputs and totally erratic outputs. However the whole "I say things bluntly" approach will at some point limit the developer. "Hard to work with" becomes a thing. Of course this can be hidden blessing for a dev that likes working on code in isolation and not interact with people. From a management stand point though it's a little flag about that person.

Now the funny thing is some of the same people that like to speak bluntly tend to not like it when others are blunt with them. Regardless, let's try this exercise.

Which one of these two paragraphs sound "better"

a) "Hey X, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to check in and see if you'll still be doing N things from here on out, or if you've been spending more time doing ___. If there's anything I can help with please let me know."

vs

b) "Hey X. You haven't being doing N things, and it doesn't seem like you have been doing more of _____. Get your act together or start looking for a new job."

The interesting thing to me is that your interpretation of (a) is that it's passive-aggression, "cracking the whip". That it's disingenuous...and I guess this is when I am going to start judging you...

What if you are wrong? What if the manager is concerned about the well being of their employee? Why do you feel like it's aggressive? I will like to postulate that the email is actually very well written. The problem with "direct & clear" is that the manager would have to be making assumptions. Maybe they are working on _____ and not N. He might not know, he might have suspicions, but he can't be sure. Also if someone is having problems telling them that they appear sad / depressed / unproductive creates more stress to some people. Ever been upset that you got upset?

In essence the manager is communicating. They are saying please give me an update on what you are working on. They are giving her an out, to say "I am working on ____", so in essence they assume good intentions. They are also asking about N. Have they stopped working on it? Is it a lull? Furthermore they are allowing for the employee to bring up any blockers or issues she is facing. The key point is though, they didn't make any assumptions. They are trying to find out the reality of that employee.

But that's the issue here: this is how a lot of managers "just check in"! Maybe that's not how you would do it, but that's how a lot of us do.

There's no backhanded way of telling something is wrong. "Is there anything I can do to help?" is a legitimate question. I believe that is the crux of the miscommunication here, not the cultural part (I'm also in EU).

I believe you're reading this in a different way others are, which is completely okay, but is leading to lots of misinterpretation. I'd seriously rethink if you're not the one being judgemental here, especially about the "passive aggressive" part.

I also think you're also coming from a compeltely different direction here: you're giving management advice, while what I was trying to give is how to interpret your manager's words.

> if you've been spending more time doing ___.

means, because it seems like the crux of understanding the entire situation.

> how can a company expect to retain employees/contractors if the only work available is the same tedium over a long period of time

Not everyone is that ambitious. Lots of people made a good life out of pulling the same levers for 30 years in a Ford plant. If you are ambitious, go somewhere that has room for it. If you find a happy little niche, there is also nothing wrong with being happy occupying it.

It's a SF based tech-ish company, one y'all have heard of, and as I did my consulting gig there, floating through the wave of SMEs and ICs and Directors and VPs and the history of all those who had left or been fired, I thought about that guy and why he stayed where he stayed. He also had notable records and accomplishments in a not-lucrative sport, so I figured the stability and unbothered job position he had let him achieve notable things in the rest of his life.

If he'd gotten a mortgage 25 years ago and lived within in his means, I bet his net worth exceeded many of the Directors and new VPs that churned through the place.

As much as it doesn’t feel like it, companies do not want to fire employees. It’s expensive to lose someone who knows the business, and expensive to hire someone.

Or maybe WFH has exposed that the work just isn’t worth doing and indicates it’s time to move on.

> or if you've been spending more time doing ___

Was ____ "watching Netflix", or was ____ "helping person X who is doing more interesting work and whom you are not being paid to help/work with."

It's more than a red flag.

They have been increasing their use of robotics. Other low skill jobs have too (miso's burger flipper). There are still college kids and low skill people that need jobs. It seems the continual supply with shrinking job positions will enable them to continue doing this.

If they automate the whole thing and have robot pickers, that'll be awesome too. About time. I used to work as a picker, and it's not a fun job. Especially the way Amazon runs their warehouses.

It's expensive to replace people. Advertising, screening, interviewing, induction, training, all take up time. New employees are not productive from day 1, and take a long time to ramp up to "full" productivity.

Losing people is also disruptive to the social life of the business - that person's friends may be less happy/productive after they leave. And all their friends may question their choice of employer - the loss of a popular staff member can trigger a wave of departures.

And experienced employees are more productive. The economics of paying experienced employees more works fine.

Also there nothing automatic about managing key worker risks. Trust me on this. You seem to have some theoretical idealised image of a perfectly dystopian company and think that’s a universal truth. I’m not sure where you got this image from, I suspect it’s ideologically based, but reality is all over the map.

Sure, companies look after their own best interests. Often those align very well with employees, but not always. You can have friends at work, and most people try to do the right thing, but the company is not your friend. It’s unreasonable to expect it to be.

Only if you're not replacing them. People typically (in my experience anyway) get much larger raises when they move jobs than year on year at the same job.

So either you're paying more for the new hire than you would have by retaining the old employee, or you're replacing them with someone probably less experienced/valuable in general, and certainly less experienced in the specific role you're trying to fill. Lose/lose.

Company don't have to fire their employees, they can just freeze their salaries, there's no "need" to give salary raises, especially once they've explained that you're underperforming.

> It takes some time for the people added to a project to become productive. Brooks calls this the "ramp up" time. Software projects are complex engineering endeavors, and new workers on the project must first become educated about the work that has preceded them; this education requires diverting resources already working on the project, temporarily diminishing their productivity while the new workers are not yet contributing meaningfully. Each new worker also needs to integrate with a team composed of several engineers who must educate the new worker in their area of expertise in the code base, day by day. In addition to reducing the contribution of experienced workers (because of the need to train), new workers may even make negative contributions, for example, if they introduce bugs that move the project further from completion.

The more churn that you have, the slower you can move. If you are Edison and have not yet created the light-bulb, but you have tried 1500 different attempts, and you were tasked with training a replacement, do you really think you would walk through all 1500 of those experiments? To be able to move forward, you not only need to know the happy path(what ends up in the code-base), but what doesn't, and why. That almost never makes it to the new hire. They will make that mistake again.

I prefer to know when somebody doesn't like some aspect of their job. Sometimes I can do something about it, sometimes I can't, but either way I can't do anything about it if I don't know what the problem is. There are people who are perfectly happy doing the same thing every day, in fact they prefer it. Sometimes those people have personal problems that are affecting their performance and maybe there's an opportunity to provide some short-term flexibility to help. If someone has gotten stuck with mundane work and they aren't a good fit for that kind of work, that's important to know.

For me, a message like that is never a prelude to a termination. That's pretty much the very last thing I want to do. It sucks. It might be necessary, but I'd rather avoid it. It becomes necessary when there is no other solution available and the organization can't just absorb the loss in productivity. Getting radio silence or a non-answer from the employee takes a whole lot of other solutions off the table.

But let's set all of that aside for a moment.

A more critical problem here IMO is that your friend is doing themselves a disservice. Being stuck doing something you hate for half your waking hours is a bad way to live. Sometimes you need a paycheck, but your friend should be trying to figure a way out of this situation ASAP. Talk to the manager, or start job hunting, or start making other decisions that allow them to not need that specific paycheck.

I actually want less variety. I never get consistent work. How can I be an expert if I don't have a steady type of work. I'm really struggling right now. A lot of that is because I know that anything I learn at work will be used once and then thrown away. What's the point of learning it at all?

For example, right now they want me to learn AWS Step Functions to automate our regression testing. The first thought I had was "there's nothing else I can see us using this for on our team". My second thought was "how will this work when the test data constantly changes and the tester's time is dominated by troubleshooting issues, mostly data issues".

I want strategy I can believe in and a role that allows me to grow into a respected expert. My only option is to switch jobs which is depressing (not a lot of good stuff out there for me based on my past). It sounds like this is anyone's best option when the underlying issue is dissatisfaction with the work.

I’m (usually) well respected by customers because of the reputation I’ve developed for my expertise. I’ll spend 10-20 hours each quarter per major customer to unblock their team / launch a project. For me it’s more rewarding than closing endless JIRAs.

My base compensation is less than the equivalent SWE level, but with bonuses my take home ranges from being on-par to significantly more. It comes with the intangible benefit of developing a much broader professional network.

Your mileage may vary. I consider myself extremely lucky and have no illusions about sales being a cakewalk. But if you’re looking for a way to find routine, going to into technical sales with a product you respect might be a good route.

I'm a software engineer with a Ph.D. from an elite university and 10 years experience. For me it has consistently gone like this for the past 10 years, and that was in a huge variety of different companies:

Manager: We need to add field X from data source Y to interface Z. Please do that for us.

Me: This will take 93 days.

Manager: That's perfectly fine.

Me: The reason it will take 93 days instead of 3 days is that your whole architecture is a pile of shit because of problem A, problem B, and problem C. Fortunately for you, I happen to be someone who is capable of seeing and solving problems. So here is what I'd like to do for you instead: I'll use 30 days to solve problem A, 30 days to solve problem B, 30 days to solve problem C, and, with those problems solved, 3 days to add field X from data source Y to interface Z. Your spending is the same, plus it's an investment in your software architecture that will pay dividends, because there's a good chance that next week you'll want to add field V from data source W to interface Z, and solving those problems, that too will then be a 3-day project instead of a 93-day project.

Manager: Wow, you are great at identifying and solving problems. I'm glad I hired someone who is such a great problem solver. But please don't do any of that. We just need you to add field X from data source Y to interface Z without touching any of the things you just said you'd like to fix.

Me: But it will take 93 days, and you are paying me a shit-ton of money, don't you care about that money and how it's put to use?

Manager: We have enough money to not give a shit about the money we give to you, and part of the reason we are giving it to you is so I don't have to expend my mental effort evaluating proposals like the one you just made. So, please just do as you're told.

Me: Okay. sound of soul crushing

I am oficially the "Head of IT" for a small industrial company, but in reality i plan networks, program my own tools or whole systems for the company... or simple hire someone who i need. Its really nice, though not really good paid.

That project was very short-lived. Since my consulting rate was 2X what they pay an employee, I couldn't convince them to carry the consulting engagement for long. They would have gladly hired me fulltime but were unwilling to pay more than X. But I knew that, working for a tech company, I could easily make 2X as a long-term fulltime salary, so I was already taking a financial hit by doing the consulting for as little as 2X.

The irony is: They ended up covering my function by buying an out-of-the-box actuarial model and services from their reinsurance provider costing them something like 10X in licensing fees. But they don't seem to care. The piece they care about is keeping the peace within the workforce and ensuring that nobody ever has a reason to be jealous of anybody else's salary and by being a one-man-consulting-show I looked to the workforce too much like I was just one of them and shouldn't get paid more. -- This is where the cycle completes itself. The insurance company's willingness to pay 10X for licensing something that the labour market can create for a price of 2X is the reason why this 10X licensing company can easily afford to pay its employees 2X in salaries. Wasting money like that is probably also a big part of the reason why the insurance company itself can't afford to pay anyone who works there more than X.

According to neoclassical economic theory such at thing shouldn't be able to exist. But neoclassical economics assumes rationality on the part of decision makers where it should be assuming petty jealousy.

What compels you to keep on talking after this point? Take your 93 days and do the refactor that you wanted to do.

Now being a techie in a non-tech environment is different (see other subthread).

In your scenario, the "better" way appears to require the same time anyway so just present that as the only way to do it.

I have never given an estimate that was not later called into question and asked to be reduced. Usually much sooner in fact.

In many cases, asking for an estimate is fishing for a way to make the problem easier to solve. But they don't really want to make the problem easier to solve, they just want to get it done quicker (with no regard for whether or not it makes the next problem harder to get this problem done the quicker way.)

Really nobody is thinking this hard about it though, it's basically the "quarterly earnings report" problem. If we don't look good this quarter, then there's not much hope for next quarter, since we already told the boss this one would be done this quarter, and have started talking about what they'll want next quarter, though we're not ready to talk with you about that because they could change their mind at any time, so "93 days" sounds absolutely perfect, as you'll be ready for more soul crushing just in time for next quarter.

Truth

If you have a good manager, you don't want them to be promoted because then it's a crap shoot whether you get another good one or not :) of course the pay raise is a compelling argument

I was only arguing against the idea that you can successfully keep your manager in the dark, you don't want that. You want a good manager who understands the problem domain well enough to anticipate these negative outcomes and who won't fixate on quarterly (or short-term) outcomes at the expense of long-term viability.

(A good manager also optimizes for your long-term success as well as their own!)

And it's not to say that optimizing for short-term goals is necessarily wrong every time. There's YAGNI – which is a perfectly reasonable argument to make at any time, but sometimes You Are Gonna Need It and there's an objective case in favor of not taking the shortcut because it will cost you in easily predictable ways.

I'm not saying libraries are bad in general. But when it comes to dependencies I have seen no sign of change since the left-pad debacle and that concerns me, not only because I think fixing broken dependencies and builds is one of the most frustrating things to do in development.

Preventing problems is even better than solving them, and in contrast to at least some colleagues I know I tend to prefer to "waste" time writing some of my own code, because at least I know how to debug or adapt that.

Wow wow wow, no. I mean I guess it's always possible that anything could be disingenuous, but to me this sounds like a manager who genuinely wants to come to an understanding and figure out what they can do to make things better for everyone, you included.

A good manager understands that people can only be at their most productive when they're happy and working on things that play to their interests and strengths. Firing someone and hiring someone else is extremely expensive. Nine times out of ten they genuinely want to help. Let them!

> The broader question is, how can a company expect to retain employees/contractors if the only work available is the same tedium over a long period of time, and no way to change that?

Most companies I've worked at are happy to let someone shift to another area, for the exact reasons I outlined above (if you communicate with them that you're bored!). If you have specific knowledge that the company in question won't do that then, well, maybe it is time to move on. But why would you just assume they won't be open to it? At the very least raise the subject before quitting!

Especially during the pandemic, I've had people go through varying levels of productivity. Maybe it's depression, boredom, personal stuff, burnout, whatever. We're human beings.

I've been allow to institute mental health days - if the month doesn't have a (US) federal holiday, book a day off. If you're really burning out, let's see what we can do about that - also involves time off.

Depending on what area you're in (I'm in devops), it costs probably 6 months of your salary to replace you, plus it's hard, and all your knowledge leaves with you. Plus people remember when you back them up - it means a lot on a human level.

It's been done for me and I do my best to pass it on.

Good luck.

"Looks like you're not as productive lately? What's going on? This place (bay area) is small, everyone knows everyone. Your reputation will follow you."

Meanwhile, the only reason this dude joined my (former) employer was that he got a 2X pay raise (they pay F/N/G levels but have a laughably low bar for managers). 3 months after my departure, my entire team leaves and he's fired. As far as I can tell, he's still looking for a job.

He had no reputation whatsoever.

You may eyeroll but if you have a trusted coworker ping someone and they come back with “he was the most unsuccessful junior dev I’ve ever met” (a real personal story) that guy does and did end up at the bottom of a waste basket

I can't think of any case where someone left a job in tech for any reason (fired for cause for getting in a fight, bridge-burning angry walkout, etc.) and didn't emerge someone else better off. I've always assumed it was because hopping around just pays off, no matter the reason, while sticking around (especially when it's not working out) tends to be bad for your career.

Back channel references are a thing, but even they’re becoming less and less common

A job is a means to an end -- nothing more. If you are one of the lucky few that truly enjoy their 9-5 then count your blessings. For the rest of us, we cannot rely on our career to live a fulfilling life. Depression and mental health are not to be taken lightly and often lead to declining work performance. Accept that a job is just that -- a job. Encourage your colleagues who may be down in the dumps to stimulate their spirits outside of work and hopefully the rest will follow.

Also make sure to qualify this with actual examples of underperformance:

“In March you gave a three-week estimate for roadmap item X, but it wasn’t completed until June. Amy from team Y reached out to me several times with questions about its status, so communication hasn’t been up to your usual standard.”

If the manager doesn’t give the report something concrete to reflect on, they will only create more vague angst and frustration that will accelerate that person’s exit plans.

Offer help: “What do you need to get unblocked?” “Let’s sit down together and see if we can figure this out.”

Hold them accountable: “I understand, but we need to be keeping our partners up to date.” “Can you give me a date for a date?”

Teach: “Here’s what I recommend…”

Etc. You as a manager should be actively helping your employee work through the issue - whether it’s external or internal (growth for them).

It's a tough gig. Plan some kind of approach and run it by a friend or partner to see how it might come across from the outside.

I have worked for the company I am with for ~5 years, and I usually take a large chunk of time (2-3 weeks) off at the end of the year to recover and reset. Because of the nature of my work I am pretty busy the rest of the year to take more than a few days at a time for any vacation (read: I work while on vacation).

This year my client was particularly pushy and wanted a butt in a seat over the holidays, and because I was the newest on the contract I was selected to be the person who stayed. This bumped my year end reset into the next year (which almost didn't happen at all).

Come the end of May, I realized I was burned out, only by the way of my clients complaining, and not understanding why I couldn't sit down and give a damn about my work.

I realized I had to do something, or else the cycle would continue and I would end up without a job. I reached out to my manager and said what was going on. Told him I am burned out, I need to take a vacation, I need to get right. My manager took this news with grace, told me to tell my client I would be out sick the rest of the week, and to take PTO the following week.

YMMV, but I can tell you that if you are in a good company and they truly value you, you will get the support you need. Many managers are coming around to the idea that people burn out, and that we need time away from keyboards, phones, and having to worry about work, to truly recover.

If your manager isn't receptive to this, that is a good sign you need to take some time, and look for a new position as well. If you can afford the time, take a week or two between jobs (if you end up leaving), to recover and not just head into your new position with the same burn out you are currently experiencing.

I wish you luck, and hope you are able to get the help/rest you need.

> or if you've been spending more time doing ___

Like, are they referring to other work-related tasks that maybe they shouldn't be focusing on, or are they suggesting non-work stuff is going on (even if that is that case), cause that would seem like a huge red flag to gtfo asap.

If it lands them in unemployment it was likely inevitable in the short term anyway.

As soon as "that feeling" starts, best to keep up with the local job market and be ready to fire off job applications at a moments notice, especially if the money is needed.

As regards to maintaining output in mundane work, I think churn is just 'the cost of doing business'. There's always new as-yet-un-jaded graduates making their way into the jobs market.

Calling this "manager speak" feels a bit annoying to me as a (sometimes) manager, I for one, generally would like people to be happy and work on things they like. And I hope people indicate it if they aren't. Everybody goes through waves of increased and decreased motivation, as long as you are aware of it and try to learn from it, it's fine by me.

"if you've been spending more time doing ___"

Is the underlined blank something you aren't supposed to be doing?

For example, if the statement was:

"Just wanted to check in and see if you'll still be doing new features from here on out, or if you've been spending more time doing work to cut down our tech debt"

That could be an innocuous question with no hidden criticism. Just curiosity about who is doing what. I'd ask for clarification if that were the case:

"Yes, I've been working on tech debt items, as I can see that nobody else is. Is my intuition right, or would you rather I work on new features?"

If the work is repetitive and rote, a tech person should take initiative and automate it away!

There’s always human problems behind the tech problem - stop writing yet another CRUD api/microservice and find out the human issues and automate those away!

If I am your manager, my goal is to make you long run successful. That means if you are burning out, or are busy doing things that you don't need to worry about - it's my job to help you fix it.

What I very often see with people is the metaphorical trash on the floor problem. Being good employees, they pick up a piece of trash in the lobby. This is good. But over time, they may accidentally get sucked in doing janitorial work full time and ignoring their real job.

I see the manager's email as looking into this - what is going on with the employee, are they doing something wrong that's stressing them out and how can I help?

A lot of people in this thread tell you yo take the managers email at face value and I think they are right at least as the first path. Notice that you are probably reading this wrong as evidenced by your own outcomes - you always lose the job or quit which may be evidence that your ability to navigate this situation is poor. Your instinct to ask others (us) for advice is right and you should stick with it even if the advice feels counter intuitive to you.

There's also the question of how you find meaning in your work and I do think it's mainly up to us. If the company needs you to do X and you need the money and can't find another job, then part of your responsibility to yourself is to figure that out. For example, can you do X while learning how to do X more efficiently so you can do it in less time? Can you bond to your colleagues more? Is there truly no lateral movement in the company, etc?

My personal experience however is this - people who are genuinely interested in a wide range of experiences and roles already structured their career to maximize that exposure. If someone is mid-career and hasn't bothered to do it , chances are it's not their primary motivator. So likely it's not "the job" that's boring per se, it's the temptation to not work, to be outside in the sun.

By the way - have you tried the simplest approach? Take the laptop outside so you can work and enjoy the weather at the same time?

I am throwing a lot at the wall here but it's the same advice is give a friend who was "struggling" through this.

Either way, there isn’t much you can do if the burnout is real, other than being honest. Explain why you’re feeling burned out, perhaps even come up with suggestions to how it potentially could be mitigated. A good manager will try to accommodate you in some way. If they’ve been with the company for a long time, they might even have experience with dealing with burned out staff or have the option to shuffle some tasks around to give a tiny bit of variety. If he can’t and just lets you go, then the deadline just moved - if you were burning out, it would eventually have come to this anyway. Hard to hear, harder to experience but nothing to do but look for something new with more meat on it :)

I can relate to that. And my solution is simply to work outside very often.

But the conditions need to be right, distraction free. (and of course it depends on the kind of work she is doing)

I have a place outside, hidden from sight and noise by rocks and trees. I can only hear the river softly flowing down in the valley - this is just a perfect distraction free environment for me.

But I moved specifically to this place, because of those conditions. You say you life in a apartment? Maybe you can rent out a garden plot somewhere, where you can set up a nice place in the shade, so that she can at least spend some working hours outside and not feel trapped inside?

This might help in general, whether she stays with the current job, or not.

> how can a company expect to retain employees/contractors if the only work available is the same tedium over a long period of time, and no way to change that?

Actually, once you've established that you're capable you can usually ask for assignments / work that interests you more. This also requires additional communication. Even if there's nothing immediately available, your manager will keep it in mind when looking forward to the kinds of work you express interest in.

Once she gets back from her time off, she'll get to the more practical side of things. Companies retain employees for even tedious labor because of labor supply and demand forces. Those forces are strong enough in the direction of labor for certain technical vocations that labor has the advantage.

For others, the reverse is sometimes true. You may be seeing that play out in action right now.

This is essentially what I do, and I enjoy it! I like my work to be a bit boring so that I can save my energy and creativity for things outside of work. I convert designs into functional websites. Somebody recently likened my job to being a construction worker or general contractor. Maybe 2-3 times a year I get something challenging, and I either jump at the chance to learn something new (if it’s something interesting or for a client I like) or I dread it (if the documentation is unclear or the client is exceptionally difficult).

I've been on both sides of the table.

My advice isn't orthodox, but it's real.

The first question is, is your manager some kind of psychopath? If they are then just quit and move on. It's painful. Maybe it will work out so you should stay. They're really nice underneath... all that stuff. No. Just quit. It won't get better. They won't change. They won't suddenly care about you. You're done. Move on.

If they aren't a psychopath then just level with them. Be completely honest that you're burning out right now and you need a break, or a different role, or you don't know and you need help. They will either fire you immediately and you can move on, or they'll figure out a way to help you. From a managers point of view this is fantastic - a report is telling you what they need, or they need help. The worst employees are the ones that are just a continual problem. If you flag that you're a short-term problem, or a solvable problem or a problem that needs help this is 1,000x better than someone who's a problem every day.

A good manager is a human being. They truly want to help. They'll ignore or figure out a way around the corporate stuff. If they aren't a human being, just move on. If you are a continual problem, don't be mad if they move on from you.

Most managers, I think, have only had two types of people with "performance problems". Type 1: A real problem. Your cat died. Your parent died. You broke a leg. Your car crashed. You just don't like your role. All of these are ok. We're all human. Your human manager will support you through it and figure out leave or a new role or whatever else is required.

Then there's type 2: You stop coming in. It's not clear what's going on. You don't talk. Different problems every week - your ankle hurts then your dog got bitten by a snake. Then something else and then something else. Then something else. It's endless.

Managers... we just don't really know what to do. There's no clear problem. We try things to help you. We try more things. And more. And more. Then it's six months later and we're burnt out and we fire you. But we don't want to. We're still human. We've been there too.

So help everyone, be clear and up front. If your manager is kind they'll figure it out. If they're not then you're better off moving on.

The medium is also everything. Talk in person, talk over email, talk over chat. Make a phone call. Video. You don't know how people like to communicate. It's easy to take things out of context. Try to connect as much as you can.

But don't be afraid. Just level and see what happens. It might be messy and painful like any human interaction but at least you'll work through it.

Again - yes, there are psychopath managers. They're not confined to fast food restaurants. The sooner you figure out you have a psycho manager, the better. Just move on and pray for them, in the best way. Truly pray for them to be better because you should be grateful you don't live in the personal hell they seem to.

........

on this:

"Hey X, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to check in and see if you'll still be doing N things from here on out, or if you've been spending more time doing ___. If there's anything I can help with please let me know."

They're trying to connect with you and balance the corporate written communication balancing act. Be kind. Video call. Chat in person. Find a way to connect and be honest about what's going on and if they're a good person they will help, and if they're not a good person, leave.

Not everyone needs this, but in most companies you could just say what's wrong.

Eg. In Belgium, it wouldn't be a valid reason to fire someone and i don't think it's in the benefit of the employer.

Say what's wrong and try to get a solution.

If the company is bad and you don't trust them, look for another company :)

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. The OP situation looks like burn-out. If someone has reached actual burn-out, a mere 2 weeks isn't going to be enough.

I think a lot of people are going through this now working without boundaries and no real vacation, it leads to really bad outcomes. Burn-out is serious.

Can be restated as an upside: "makes things clear"

Coming back, however, is going to be difficult. If the workplace is setup for inescapable "nose-to-the-grindstone" KPI's that have consequences for someone that has been underperforming, it could get ugly if the OP needs more time to reset themselves.

In many places, however, a few months of slump isn't going to lead to a PIP if the OP can go through the motions and practice enough self-care to gradually get better. I think enough folks are going through this now that employers are aware it's widespread problem. Some will handle it better than others, of course.

That's what they don't want you to understand.

I got nothing against managers as people. But as a role, it is highly person dependent and most people are utterly bad at it, same as teaching.

You can always go work at a park with wifi or something for variety.

I know it's well-meaning, but whenever someone suggests that I work outside when I feel that way, I feel like they are missing the point. I don't want to be outdoors on my computer, I want to be outdoors experiencing and engaging with the world.

You _can_ decide to just go outside instead of working, but then you're stuck with no money. Unless you end up making FU money, I see no way out of this conundrum.

Make sure it’s a good fit.

HN has a growing problem where ADHD is suggested as the root problem on virtually every question from someone struggling with work lately. We really need to stop suggesting this diagnosis for everyone and leave it to the professionals.

I’ve seen too many friends and peers mistake burnout or depression for ADHD. There’s something about an ADHD diagnosis that’s easier to accept than depression or burnout. If someone specifically seeks an ADHD diagnosis instead of presenting the root problem and letting the professionals diagnose it, they could miss the real problem and worsen their situation.

Worst case, I’ve seen many people mistake burnout for ADHD, seek stimulant prescriptions, and then try to use increasing doses of stimulants to power through the burnout. This doesn’t work, and actually leads to much deeper and more prolonged burnout when tolerance sets in. Please don’t use stimulants to try to overcome burnout.

I said:

>For what it’s worth, you might have ADHD if you’re always quitting or being fired because of an inability to perform to your own abilities. Or you might have some other different issue.

I stand by that. Someone suggesting that to me is what finally got me help.

Has anyone here tried www.betterhelp.com ?

But that doesn't mean nobody should see a therapist. It isn't all snake oil.

A good therapist can help you identify where you need to get to for your own sake, and what skills will help you get there. They can help you realize when you're putting stumbling blocks in your own path and figure out how to stop doing that. They can help you pick out goals, point you in the right direction, and sometimes offer some help getting started on the way. The rest is up to you, of course.

You don't have to be mentally ill to benefit from a therapist's help. In fact, I think you're likely to benefit more if you're basically pretty healthy than if you're not, simply because you're more functional, and therefore better able to make use of what you learn.

That's my perspective from having seen a therapist for a while a couple of times earlier in life, from having encouraged my offspring to see them at difficult moments, from having a friend who is a licensed clinical counselor, and from having gone to graduate school in clinical psychology before I became a programmer.

Caveat emptor, of course. There are good therapists and there are charlatans. Look carefully and use common sense.

Mental health professionals are available if you or your partner would like to talk. Therapists would be a better place to start than jumping to a psychiatrist and medications. Definitely don’t try to get ADHD stimulants and power through burnout in a job she hates. That would make burnout exponentially worse.

If your partner decides to try therapy, it can even be done over video calls now. Depending on insurance the video therapy is often quite cheap, too. Of course, it’s up to you if you want to pursue that route. I agree that jumping to specific diagnoses based on a few sentences of your question is inappropriate.

Some people hate working, period. And the kind of job that's fun or engaging for you might not be available to you. For the overwhelming majority of people, their lot in life is to toil at something they'd rather not be doing. But normal people are able to put their heads down and get it done. If you can't and it's causing problems in your life, that's something you should see someone about. Finding a more enjoyable job might be part of the solution, but remember that such options are often a luxury of the elite.

Them suggesting medication is not necessarily a red flag. But if it's important to you to try other techniques first, then tell them that. If you don't want to start with the medicine route, consider seeing a psychologist instead of a psychiatrist.

Either way, you want to see someone with a conservative outlook. If they put you on medication, they should start with low doses and be obsessed about whether you are having side-effects. If they're talk therapists, you don't want some Freudian or similar bullshit. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which is just modern talk therapy that focuses on identifying your dysfunctional thought patterns and fixing them, is probably what you want on that end of things.

Don’t fret about picking the perfect doctor or trying to parse reviews of doctors on the doctor review sites. You want whoever is nearby with availability for appointments. You can always switch providers later.

It’s extremely important that you go into any appointments with an open mind. Present your problems and symptoms, but don’t go in expecting a certain diagnosis or certain medications. Steering toward the wrong diagnosis (example: seeking ADHD medications when your problem is actually burnout, depression, anxiety, or even physical health issues) can actually worsen your problems

How an employee responds to that depends on many factors: The relationship employee and manager have, the trust between them, the motivation on employee side to be open and honest and look at mutually-beneficial alternatives, remain in that team/company, etc. It also depends on culture of the company, and hugely on just the person - what they want and how they want to approach it.

Not knowing any of those factors, I cannot suggest how you or your partner should approach it; however, how I would approach it, and how I hope my team members approach it is:

1. Be as open as comfortable, as detailed as productive about:

a) What you feel is your impacted performance, e.g. "I don't feel I'm creating code to my standard of quality" or "I've noticed it's become difficult for me to concentrate in afternoon meetings" or whatever it may be

b) Circumstances / causes you may be of that. Again, personal comfort and relationship/trust are a factor. I would feel comfortable talking to my manager "My newborn is keeping me up at night, and the 7am daily standup puts me between rock and hard place", or "My A/C is not working and I'm finding it hard to mentally focus when my office is 30C", all the way to something as longterm as "I don't mind remote work on daily or weekly basis, but i've noticed over last 12 months that I've lost some subtle motivation, internal vision of the goal and camaraderie" (fwiw, I've discussed these three with my manager last 6 months). Your relationship may be more formal/distant however, so you may be more comfortable being more generic or abstract. Note managers are highly constrained in HR and rules WHAT they can ask you; that doesn't mean they don't want to know/support - it just means burden is on you to volunteer that information. Here, e.g. Manager CAN NOT ask you if you have a medical problem and what it is; but you are allowed to volunteer it (NOTE: this is specific to my province in my country; check your local religation) and they are then allowed to support you with it.

2. Come prepared, if possible, with proposals and compromises. It's awesome if you come to manager not just with problem, but possible solution

"Would it be possible for me to skip 7am daily standup, to ensure I am rested and productive rest of the day?"

"I think I might be more productive on QA then on development for next few months as it would motivate me and engage different part of my brain"

"I cannot maintain the tempo of operations in the long term, but I think my ops experience could really make me a productive release manager / developer / whatever to support this team"

etc etc etc

3. Be positive, open, non-confrontational. Explore possibilities together. Give their proposals a chance; sleep on them if that's what it takes to remove initial negative gut-reaction.

... Hope this helps a bit, and good luck! :)

Or 4-day 30-hour week.

The 30 hours is important for America -- because of health insurance.

If none of that works, try to get 20 hrs/week part time, so you don't starve, go homeless, etc.

I doubt it's actually enough to fix burnout, but...worth a shot?

I wonder if there are any 9-5 jobs out there that are still interesting -- where you get to do more than just 'x'. I'm thinking - in a comfy corporate setting - the one with health insurance.

I guess some jobs are genuinely more interesting than others, but...getting one that you're never going to be seriously considered for -- don't know what the answer is for that.

I don't know if it was more Taylor or Ford or whoever, but Adam Smith did warn that capitalism would lead to humans who would naturally lose the desire to do braindead work, and become "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."

So from that POV, burnout shouldn't surprise.

I think managers are on the good/bad spectrum -- but that's totally missing the point.

Even if you're sexing your manager, you might get a rude awakening when your performance start's affecting your manager's/sex partner's career.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Take week vacation, or more, maybe you can do a week or two to recharge, unpaid, etc.

All the usual stuff applies and likely won't help - eating right, exercise, sleep, socializing, getting outside, enough B12, get blood work done if/while you can, see if you have deficiencies affecting energy levels.

Maybe meditation? I'm a believer, but don't do it.

Or, try to transfer within the company. Last time I tried that, it didn't work, I stayed too long, should have bounced, was a complete disaster, literally almost killed me, etc.

So that's probably my best advice -- try to be willing to consider doing those things which you won't consider doing to support yourself while you un-burn-out -- drive for uber, stocking grocery store shelves, etc.

One thing I realized now that I'm an old -- people go thru crazy stuff. Like, I'll say something pretty revealing about some stuff I went thru in life or work or whatever -- casual convo at the bar, American-style, whatever -- and someone will be like, "Oh yeah, me too, but [insert their 10x story here]."

I'm like, 'J** F** -- like how are you still here??' :-D

People at work have gone thru and are going thru that.

BUT...trusting that to your manager? Sometimes it's the only play you got, and usually, imo and experience, I would _not_ recommend playing that card.

Instead, you're fine, you're energized, you _love_ your job and always will and are energized for more work -- it's just that you "want new challenges".

I feel like it's super-easy to quit yourself out of a job, especially when you're low-energy/depressed/burned-out/intellectually-and-emotionally-defenseless when your manager or your manager's manager says, "So I hear you're not feeling motivated??"