[diminoten]

Is it possible your approach to instant messaging is wrong?

[BeetleB]

Article is espousing the benefits of asynchronous communication. If the expectation is that I respond within a minute or so, then it is synchronous.

Can you suggest a better way to use IM that doesn't require me to respond quickly?

I'm fine with IM for sending over quick URL's, etc while doing a live debug or something. But if you just have a "quick question", email me if not urgent or come to my cube if it is. If you are located far away, call me. Both email and phone are more efficient for simple questions. IM is in the unhappy place where it's worse than both.

[diminoten]

"Sure, let me get back to you later."

[BeetleB]

That's a guaranteed way to be disturbed again in an hour or two.

[diminoten]

Async doesn't mean "never", you do need to respond to your colleagues eventually.

[BeetleB]

If they need a response within an hour, then they need to indicate that (and ideally why) in their initial contact.

If they expected a response within an hour and didn't get it, they can call me or physically come to me.

I've told two of my bosses while being interviewed: Assume I'll check email only 3 times a day. Is that workable?

No one says "No" (even though it may not be workable).

One of my bosses actually suggested to me that I should have "office hours" and be available in those hours, and simply not respond all other hours.

It all depends on the need of the job. And most engineering/SW jobs do not need you to "be available to respond within an hour" for any request.

[diminoten]

Sorry, but your inability to interact with your co-workers makes you a difficult person to employ. A ton of folks don't need this kind of special treatment.