Modern IT work, and the lack of distinct days

Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,869
Location
Hampshire
OK the concept of this thread is going to be difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. It basically relates to a feeling of malaise about working days not having any real meaning in relation to the work that needs doing.

For a while now, I've mulled over modern IT working and the fact that it feels like time off work is stressful because in some cases it just reduces the amount of time you have to do almost the same amount of work in. I've tried to dig a bit deeper and think about the general pattern of work these days, whereby the 'end of the day' isn't really a clean break. It's just an arbitrary cut off point, it doesn't mean everything that needs completing has been completed.

I tried to consider how this might have been different in the past, or in different industries. The example I always cite is the coffee shop barista. If you take a week off work, you don't come back to a queue of people out the door and a week's backlog of coffees to make. Each day is distinct in its own right. You might have a busy day or a quiet day, but generally, you don't have a day that impacts on the next day.

Even in some menial jobs where the work is too much for one day (say, crop harvesting), it's enough that you just fulfil your quota, you worked for X hours and harvested Y kilos of crops. You go home not worrying about the rest of the field that wasn't harvested (if you are a general worker; a farmer might have concerns about the storm arriving overnight I guess).

In IT, I often find that there are 'work items' that span over a long period of time. It's quite difficult to switch off because you never get to the end of the day and go "brilliant, I've cleared my plate, let's see what turns up tomorrow". There's always a sense of unease about these ongoing tasks you need to complete. There's always that backlog there gnawing away at you. Always some activity mid-flight that you dwell on outside working hours. If you have an unproductive day, that's just amplifying your future workload (equivalent of a coffee machine failure one day meaning more coffees to make the next day - doesn't work like that for the barista).

Now you could argue, that this is all perfectly fine, that really it makes sense for the work to fit around the hours we spend doing it, not the other way round. But it often lacks closure, it's not a case of saying "OK I'm done, nothing to do now until my shift starts tomorrow" more "I've reached the end of my allotted time for working, I still need to think a lot about XYZ, and I'll crack on again tomorrow"

Another thing I came to to the realisation on is that your work stack can change when you aren't even working. You finish for the day and then come in to an email requesting you to do something else. Or the 500 emails you come back to after a week off work. You might choose not to prioritise this request, but it's still another drain on your mental energy and adds to the backlog.

I think this problem is compounded by the ease at which people can make requests of you. Someone half way around the world can spend 5mins firing off an email that drastically changes your work outlook. 30 years ago, sure you might get a fax, a phonecall (when in the office) or memo etc but generally this sort of scenario must have been a lot more muted.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this thread is, beyond me wanting to get my thoughts down on paper. I do worry a bit about this emergent scenario whereby work has no natural boundaries and is only constrained by how many hours you spend doing it. Like a sort of nebulous entity with no clear compartmentalisation, just a never-ending dark tunnel of work with no light at the end of it.
 
I'm not sure I agree re: farming, that is a continuous thing, perhaps even more so than IT. If there is some issue with flooding or some other issue with crops or animals at the weekend then that doens't necessarily stop. Sure, for some random farmhand doing a basic job then not so much but for the farmer
Yeah, maybe not the best example which is why I tried to caveat it for the crop harvester as opposed to the farmer.
What I was driving at was, to put it abstractly, roles where for the worker themselves they have a clear dilineation between days and prior day doesn't impact current day.
If you had a crop harvester who was told to harvest 500kg of crops in a week and the only did 50kg on the first day that would be an example of something more akin to the IT worker I describe, where they are now behind schedule and need to catch up.
Maybe a better example would be something like an nurse. My wife used to do nursing and whilst she had some truly horrific days (children she had known for months dying etc) the actual work itself didn't really spill over much from one day to the next. She has subsequently moved into a management role within NHS and I've noticed she now has different horizons, worried about keeping on top of things and things she has to consider over an extended period.

I cited IT in the subject line, but it's not exclusive to IT, it's more about modern working in the connected world.
 
I think you are just describing "management roles" versus "staff roles".
I would agree it's probably more prevalent in management, but it's not exclusive to management. The same applies to e.g. SMEs. As dowie says, it's really about work that is discrete tasks versus ongoing (even breaking down into tasks isn't really the point, if many tasks are interlinked).

But it's also a bit more than that. As I alluded to in the OP, I struggle a bit to articulate this, I can't really get in writing the essence of what I feel. I think it's a perhaps unrealistic desire for having totally standalone, distinct days that have no /minimal bearing on the future days. Like you can have a great day or a **** day and other than your mental wellbeing, or perhaps your relationship with others, it doesn't impact the actual work you need to do in future.

And yeah, there's probably been a lot of jobs in the past that don't offer this either, perhaps even more so when there were fewer large employers and people did trades for themselves.

Something's not right though, and I can't quite put my finger on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom