|
|
|
|
|
by t1amat
2469 days ago
|
|
> Companies should be willing to take these kinds of informed risks in order to improve their employees' ability, and therefore the quality of their product. Perhaps they should be willing, but your description of this distraction does not including informing the Company and allowing them to determine whether it’s a risk they are willing to accept. You decided for them because you didn’t want to receive the answer “no” in return. This isn’t right. |
|
I'm afraid the morality of this situation isn't so black-and-white.
In industry, there is always a tension between production and research: cranking out widgets vs. getting better at cranking out widgets.
A dev who spends 100% of their time cranking out widgets is stagnating. That's actually not what your employer wants, despite the fact that their agile process seems to imply that ticket cranking shall be the whole of your focus.
If you ask employers if they expect you to improve your skills over time, they would absolutely say "yes". But if you ask for permission to chase a specific white whale, you will hear "no". Everyone agrees they should be saving for the future, but "not this paycheck".
Taking the naive moral approach here and spending 100% of your time on tickets is not "what's right". If anything, that's you being taken advantage of by your employer -- sacrificing the advancement of your career in the name of short-term sprint velocity gains. On top of that, stagnation is not what your employer really wants anyway.
(edit: the above excludes companies which have explicit "20% time").