If one requires interrupting 6 other people to maintain flow, it's probably a good idea to start phrasing (hyperbole intentional) it like:
'To keep my own flow, I need to destroy the flow of all my colleagues'
And not:
'My colleagues destroy my flow when they can't babysit me and respond to my questions asap, how dare they'
It's like driving and then going like: 'Gee, all these other drivers are sure in my way, I need them out of the road so I can get places'. Guess what buddy, they also gotta get places, so damn right follow the laws, wait for your turn patiently and you will get there when you get there. Your colleagues also have stuff to do, and the world doesn't revolve only around YOUR flow.
So write down your questions and observations in a coherent list, stop pinging people one question at a time, or search harder in the docs provided that they exist, sometimes that's even better as a learning experience.
> If one requires interrupting 6 other people to maintain flow
Where is this "6" coming from?
Again:
1) You may be incapable of doing work when someone walks next to you, but this is not the case of a lot of people. It's like driving and then going like: 'Gee, when these cars are putting their blinking lights on and it is distracting me, they should all quickly park before I arrive'.
2) My flow is fine, thank you very much: I don't get distracted by people passing by AND I also rarely ask quick simple questions (people needs to understand my work rather than me needing to understand theirs). It's telling that you cannot conceive that someone may disagree with you without themselves participating to a caricatural behavior that you have in mind.
3) THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT: the world doesn't revolve only around anyone. If you are inconvenienced by something that is convenient by someone else, then, outside of your little person, THERE IS NO REASON TO CHANGE THAT. If situation A means that employee X gets 6/10 and employee Y gets 8/10, and if situation B means that employee X gets 8/10 and employee Y gets 6/10, then situations A and B are the same.
4) I know that your argument is that your inconvenience is huuuuuge and touch everyone in the office and that the benefice for the distractor is smaaaaal and that the distractor is a terrible human being that should be thrown in jail. That's what self-centered people tends to believe.
> 'Gee, when these cars are putting their blinking lights on and it is distracting me, they should all quickly park before I arrive'.
No! Because the accepted thing is to use your turn signal, as it's acceptable to do some research on yourself before asking somebody, or try to keep your voice down in shared rooms, or to not tap people on the shoulder when they have indicated deep work (headphones).
I am upset from people who DON't use their blinkers, who tap you on the shoulder while you have headphones, and who discuss Game of Thrones loudly next to you while you are trying to work, and I have every right to be. People like that make their lack or desire of understanding or following etiquette everybody else's problem. And that's not okay!
The etiquette of new workers is to try to follow the onboarding documents, and the guidance from their assigned "buddy", and if something is missing, distill the questions they have and go over them with the "buddy". If that's what OP's post saying, fine. But I got the impression they simply like to ask questions cause it's more convenient for them. Let the company, however, use that as a learning and drag itself kicking and screaming to update their onboarding.
> That's what self-centered people tends to believe.
The people who don't use blinkers ARE the self centered people, making their hurry everybody else's problem. A person who asks questions can be doing so for many reasons: not complete documentation, getting bad understanding of something, wanting to clarify some info or to be in the same page as the team, etc.
But if they do so incessantly, then there is a problem, and the problem shouldn't be simply solved by saying: "Yeah, just ask John, he's always available and ready to help". As senior devs and leads and VPs of Engineerings or CTOs, we should foster a place where most questions can be answered easily in a self service manner, and our meetings have clarity on at least the big picture stuff.
If all that is already there, asking many questions all the time can rightfully be labeled a "disruption". In that situation, the person asking questions always makes their problem (not wanting to do some work themselves) the problem of everyone else, and that's what self centered people do. In much the same manner, people not using blinkers (illegal, by the way) make their refusal to follow rules everybody else's problem.
> ... as it's acceptable to do some research on yourself before asking somebody, or try to keep your voice down in shared rooms, or to not tap people on the shoulder when they have indicated deep work (headphones).
Again, nobody is pretending that they want to do that.
> I am upset from people who ...
And I'm upset from them too. In fact, I'm upset from people who have childish behavior and ask other people to adapt to their needs. In this conversation, you call "toddler" someone who did not propose anything that corresponds to what upset you. You just work differently than this person, so you childishly reacted.
You are clearly not better than people who don't se their blinkers or discuss Game of Thrones loudly: you also don't have considerations for the needs of others around you.
As I've said in my first comment on this thread: what if someone is in their flow and just need a quick and simple answer to a quick and simple question. You call these people "toddler" even if they will never ask someone they know does not like to be disturbed.
> But if they do so incessantly
Who is proposing that they do it incessantly?
All I'm saying is that when A needs to ask a question and get an answer immediately and B needs to not be distracted, both to keep their flow, then, logically, there is no solution where someone doesn't lose their flow. And my point is that you act as if someone here has more right to their flow than the other, which is just self-centered childishness.
> and the problem shouldn't be simply solved by saying: "Yeah, just ask John, he's always available and ready to help".
Should it be solved by "if you have a simple and quick question and Jack told you several time that he loves answering these questions and that you should not hesitate, you NEED to book a meeting, otherwise, according to ath3nd, you are a toddler"?
> If all that is already there, asking many questions all the time can rightfully be labeled a "disruption".
WHO IS SAYING INCESSANT QUESTIONS IS NOT A DISRUPTION?
This is very simple:
yes, incessant not pragmatically useful questions is disrupting, and people who do that are self-centered.
yes, asking people to "book meetings" or "write a message and wait hours before getting the simple unblocking answer" is disrupting, and people who do that are self-centered.
Just be a grown-up and accept that, no, people have no reason to cater to your little comfort. Someone tap you on your shoulder when you hear your headphone? Though sh*t little baby! Are you really arguing that these people are the problem when you are the one not able to deal with that. There, a little trick to you: "hm, John, next time, maybe you can ...", and problem solved (and if John does it again, guess what: WE ALL HAVE THESE KIND OF PEOPLE IN OUR LIFE, you are not special enough that the human condition should not apply to you. And based on you calling "toddler" someone while not even saying anything bad, I'm pretty sure you are the "John" of someone else)
> WE ALL HAVE THESE KIND OF PEOPLE IN OUR LIFE, you are not special enough that the human condition should not apply to you.
And I (and most other people in this thread) am fed up with them and trying to actively remove them from my life. Hence, when people suggest I should deal with it, I tell them that I will most certainly not deal with it. That there are things that can be done to make their and mine life easier.
There are people who put their soda cans on the ground, there are people who talk loudly in the train, there are people who park their cars wrongly. Yes, it's a mild inconvenience. But I won't be dealing with it and accept it, I will actively shame them for the spoiled babies that they are, making a spectacle of their needs and accepting everybody to cater to them. Follow.Societal.Rules or get out of society!
> Just be a grown-up and accept that, no, people have no reason to cater to your little comfort
Me putting out all possible social clues that I don't want to be asked questions at the moment is not people catering for my comfort. It's people going through my boundaries so they can get their little comforts themselves.
> Are you really arguing that these people are the problem when you are the one not able to deal with that.
Yes, because they are breaking established social norms and work etiquette. I have clearly indicated by wearing headphones that it's not the time to be asked questions and I have indicated what's the best possible way for me to be asked questions: email, slack, a scheduled meeting, and many questions in bulk.
I most certainly will not cater to how somebody prefers to ask ME questions just because it's more convenient for them to do it ad-hoc. The same way developers of open source want you to use THEIR issue tracker, and fill THEIR code of conduct, and follow THEIR coding guidelines, and not you doing whatever the heck you want.
If you want something from somebody (like information), better follow their preferred approach of how to be asked, and not act like a spoiled little baby when you are told NO.
> And I (and most other people in this thread) am fed up with them and trying to actively remove them from my life.
And OP does that too, but suddenly, when OP does that, they are a toddler, but when you do it, it's fine.
> There are people who put their soda cans on the ground, there are people who ...
and there are people who will call "toddler" people who have just a different way of working and are not imposing nothing bad to anybody else.
> Me putting out all possible social clues that I don't want to be asked questions at the moment is not people catering for my comfort. It's people going through my boundaries so they can get their little comforts themselves.
Again, the person YOU called a "toddler" has done nothing wrong. YOU are the toxic person who jumped on the conclusion that just because they have a different way of working, they will "ask you incessant questions even after I've said it's not how I work".
It is very very difficult to believe that you are not a little baby just after you acted like a little baby when no one proposed anything that has any negative impact on you.
> because they are breaking established social norms and work etiquette.
Breaking established social norms and work etiquette is one thing. Throwing a tantrum because someone has broken established social norms and work etiquette is something else.
Personally, I would say that the socially handicap person that get upset because someone tap them on their shoulder is the one who is breaking the established social norms and work etiquette: socially, the etiquette at work is to try our best to get along, even when the person in front does not deserve it (I dislike this norm, but it exists).
> I most certainly will not cater to how somebody prefers to ask ME questions just because it's more convenient for them to do it ad-hoc.
Let me use an as stupid and as caricatural view as you here:
I most certainly will not cater to how ath3nd prefers to be communicated to just because they are incapable to provide proper onboarding and proper documentation. If someone tap you on your shoulder, it is because you are not able to do your job. Why someone will have to adapt to your failure?
End of the caricature view, now something more meaningful: you deserve to be communicated with in a way that is respectful of your needs and ways of working. BUT you need to respect others people needs and ways of working too and accept that sometimes they will not read your mind.
You keep coming back to the caricatural picture of someone asking incessant questions after you explain them your way of working. As I've said, these people are disturbing and we should not cater for their childish behavior. The problem is that you are treating EVERYONE that way (as proof is you treating OP as a "toddler" when OP did not show at all any behavior you complain about here), and it makes you a child also.
As already said, 2 things can be true at the same time: 1) people asking incessant questions are toddler, 2) ath3nd is a toddler.
> If you want something from somebody (like information), better follow their preferred approach of how to be asked, and not act like a spoiled little baby when you are told NO.
You are talking about people who will say "NO" because they have been tapped on the shoulder. Who is the baby here?
Again, we are talking about tapping someone on the shoulder _once_, and not doing it again if you explain you don't like it. You are just a grumpy baby, the existence of other babies will not change that.
> Again, we are talking about tapping someone on the shoulder _once_, and not doing it again if you explain you don't like it.
I don't think I should be touched in the first place. I have put a clear signal that I am deeply working: headphones. The accepted social norm is NOT to bother somebody when they have indicated they don't want to be bothered. I am, of course, going to answer the questions, but can't you simply wait until I indicate I am ready to accept your questions?
The benefit of remote here is palpable: you simply don't have the option to tap me on the shoulder, and you can only call me (in which case it's important enough to call), write me an email (which forces you to have a coherent point, and I can respond to it later) or slack me (which, again, I can postpone for later).
> You are just a grumpy baby, the existence of other babies will not change that.
I don't know about babies, but do you know who doesn't like being said "NO" to and who throws a fit ever time when somebody expresses a boundary? Bullies! People who gets upset when you express a boundary and expect that you should just submit to THEIR way of answering, those are the real babies!
Occasionally asking questions (for which it doesn't matter whether it's office or remote) is okay, especially when starting your job. On the other hand, expecting others to be readily available for your ad hoc queries repeatedly, day in and out, trying to actively persuade them that it's okay, and guilt trip them to continue doing so because it's "their work duty", and throwing a fit when people express a boundary to you, that's what real babies are made from!
Learn to ask questions like a decent worker, batch them, write them down, and with as little disruption as possible, and don't bother people who are deeply focused. Your question can wait, the world doesn't revolve around you, and value your coworkers time! I won't back down from this!
> Your question can wait, the world doesn't revolve around you, and value your coworkers time!
…right, but the world doesn't revolve around you either though. You should be willing to sacrifice your time to help your coworker and value their time as well.
Headphones, in my experience, tend to indicate a person is listening to audio, not that they don't want to be bothered by anyone. Maybe your expectations do not line up with societal norms? Just something to think about.
You could consider adding a visual indicator to your workspace that says "focused on something, please do not interrupt" or "available for questions". Our offices have little stoplight things by the door that can be used to tell someone whether or not it's a good time for an interruption. Having something easily visible like that can communicate more clearly to your coworkers that you're trying to focus without interrupting your focus.
OP said "asking quick questions and getting an instant answer. vs chat where I may not get an answer for hours"
It's ALL they have said.
They did NOT said they will "touch your shoulder", they did NOT said they will "interrupt you when you clearly don't want to be interrupted", they did NOT said they will "interrupt you after you made clear you don't like working like that", they did NOT said they will "ask incessant questions that are easily found in the doc", they did NOT said they will "ask you to answer day in day out", they did NOT said they will "guilt trip you to do something obviously unreasonable", ...
And, YOU, YOU called them "toddler". YOU DID THAT. If now you are changing the goal post to "people who guilt trip other people are not nice", yeah, everyone agrees with that, but WHY DID YOU CALL OP TODDLER?
WHY
DID
YOU
CALL
OP
TODDLER?
What is the thing that OP have said (really said, not something in your mind) that according to you is not compatible with a respectful and sane work relationship?
> who doesn't like being said "NO" to and who throws a fit ever time when somebody expresses a boundary?
Yep.
Me: your colleague needs to work, if they are blocked by something that can be easily solved with a simple quick question and that they are being reasonable with their requests, they should be authorized to just ask you. They should not have to walk on egg shells to cater for ath3nd social inabilities, it's not their work, it's not their mental charge on their shoulders, there are boundaries.
You: NO, they should just submit to MY way of being asked a question.
The situation is EXTREMELY SIMPLE: just don't be a prick. You and everyone else.
Don't ask incessant questions.
But also, don't ask people to care for your fragile person who is not able to get one or two questions a day that will help everyone progress.
Not liking question is fine. Just act like an adult about it: discuss and tell them. Don't jump on the first person who passes and says "I find quick question convenient" and yield "well then you are a toddler" without even knowing if this person is a prick or not.
ALL your explanations, ALL OF THEM, they are ALL about YOU, YOU, YOU. You only present situation when you are reasonable and when the interlocutor is a prick. Yes, we know, incessant questions are disruptive (daaaah, it's obvious). But there is more than one way to be a prick. One other way is to be a self-centered idiot who is incapable to help the team because they view everything into distorting glasses (like when you call OP "toddler" for behavior they never had) or because they view their work relationship in a competitive way instead of collaborative (like when you say that the person who ask the question "owns" something to the person who has the knowledge)
My solution is: Bob should try to ask with moderation, and Bob and Alice should work together in a situation where Bob does not need to distract Alice. If Bob needs to distract Alice, then Alice just needs to live with it. If Bob has questions but does not need to distract Alice, then Bob should not ask the question and just needs to live with it.
What confuse me is that some people here just answer: obviously Alice is right and Bob is wrong, all the time except exceptional cases.
I believe we should examine why Bob needs to distract Alice on a regular basis, and attack that problem with the might and fury of 1911 raging bulls and 420 mosquitoes.
> What confuse me is that some people here just answer: obviously Alice is right and Bob is wrong, all the time except exceptional cases.
Joking aside, I do agree with your point. It's not black and white and there shouldn't be fear/hostility connected with simply asking a question. However, 100% being open to questions all the time is simply disruptive for everybody.
If I was Alice's employer and valued her (and other employees) being able to do deep work, I'd have a policy whereby employees could schedule do-not-disturb time (large blocks of it, depending on their needs) where they could shut their doors and turn off IM. Have a red light on the outside of the door, like a film production booth. Book end the day. First 1-2 hours are disturb time. Middle of the day is DND time. Last part of the day is disturb time.
All scheduled meetings have to happen in disturb time.
Now, that doesn't really work for a customer-facing role, at least not without the cooperation of your customers, but having managed a customer-facing team before, I'll say I encouraged my people to schedule office-hour time with their customers to try to channel the interactions in a more predictable period of time.
In my experience, the typical picnic table sized open-plan/hotdesk furniture usually seats six (three per long side) so, in practice, six people seems like the most common group sizing.
there are 6 people in the room, but as I said, it does not mean that the 6 persons are all distracted. (by the way, the initial comment was implying that the question is coming from one of the 6 persons in the room, so at worst, it's 5 persons distracted)
the question can also be useful for one other person in the room, so instead of being distracted, the person has been helped.
'To keep my own flow, I need to destroy the flow of all my colleagues'
And not:
'My colleagues destroy my flow when they can't babysit me and respond to my questions asap, how dare they'
It's like driving and then going like: 'Gee, all these other drivers are sure in my way, I need them out of the road so I can get places'. Guess what buddy, they also gotta get places, so damn right follow the laws, wait for your turn patiently and you will get there when you get there. Your colleagues also have stuff to do, and the world doesn't revolve only around YOUR flow.
So write down your questions and observations in a coherent list, stop pinging people one question at a time, or search harder in the docs provided that they exist, sometimes that's even better as a learning experience.