That's very succinct, witty, and more or less diametrically opposed to the point of the OP on StackOverflow. Did you read it? :-)
He's making the point that regular long hours are always a sign of bad management.
I'd tend to agree. Any business can be run in balance with a reasonable lifestyle. If you're working overtime very often on your own business, it's either because you're incompetent, or lazy, or greedy, or failing (see 'incompetent'). If you're working regular long hours on someone else's business, it's because they are incompetent/lazy/greedy.
"If you're working overtime very often on your own business, it's either because you're incompetent, or lazy, or greedy, or failing (see 'incompetent')."
Of all of the successful people I've met (measured in cash, influence, etc), I can't think of ANY who weren't pretty seriously married to their work. I guess many of those people fall into the "greedy" camp and are doing it for the money. But I think most of them do it because they love (or are just addicted to) the game they are playing.
Whoever you're competing with, you've probably got competitors smarter than you and willing to put in long hours. If you're playing to win (many people do, for a lot of reasons), how do you propose to beat them?
To anticipate a common argument: Yes, working hard can lead to stress/bad decisions/burnout. But empirically, it seems to correlate pretty strongly with success.
I think that's a myth of the startup world (a persistent, but mostly incorrect myth). I know successful people with both balanced and unbalanced lives... and the former are definitely happier.
I'm not convinced that regular long hours lead to a more competitive business. Particularly when it comes to running a business (as opposed to being a contractor or freelancer, which is a completely different proposition), spending 1 hour sitting outside and having a great idea that saves you a day of work is much more valuable than spending 16 hours getting it done the stupid way.
Generally, I haven't seen a great correlation between working long hours and working smart - but I have seen a good correlation between working smart and being successful.
Another anecdotal bit of evidence: generally, most of the successful workaholics I've met tend to be in the corporate world, where they often don't have the choice of working smart.
I've been both of those people. I spent 5 years working every waking minute of the day; even if I wasn't at my computer, I was thinking about what had to be done next and constantly anxious to get back to it. I ruined several relationships and generally had a piss-poor life because of it.
Now, though, I work my ass off at my day job, I spend a couple hours a night and the weekends working on my startup, and I spend as much time as I possibly can with my girlfriend. I'm a much happier person, and I'm still making tons of progress in life in general.
That's a bit of a straw man. You don't have to choose between working harder or smarter. And I never said anything about happiness.
Say we fork the universe now and one version of you works 25 hour weeks henceforth, which the other works 50 hours per week henceforth. Who retires with more money and more impact on the world? Both version of you are equally smart. The well-rested you might make SLIGHTLY smarter decisions due to happiness/lack of fatigue perhaps... But surely you wouldn't contend that the success outcomes (professional impact and wealth, for the sake of argument) wouldn't be different.
It's not a myth-- working hard correlates with success (plenty of studies out there to back it up). Working smart correlates with success too... Though one of the things that really surprised me about being in Y Combinator was that the founders WEREN'T universally brilliant/clever. They DID universally work their asses off and generally had irrational stick-with-it-ness.
Happiness is a whole different discussion, of course. Whether "top 1%" success is even worth it is another discussion.
It's my understanding that when people say "working hard" in these discussions, they aren't comparing 25 hrs/week vs. 50 hrs/week. They're usually comparing 50 hrs/week vs. 75 hrs/week.
If I forked my life into a version of me that worked 50 hour work weeks and one that worked 75 hour work weeks, the 50-hour me would win, hands down. The 75 hour work week me would outright miss most of the key strategic decisions that got me where I am. When I look at everything I've done that in hindsight has been a huge career boost - getting involved in the Harry Potter fandom, making friends on the C2 Wiki that got me a job in financial software, learning Lisp & functional programming, founding a startup, and getting a job at Google - they all happened in the downtime between work. Had I simply worked 75 hour work weeks since 2001, I would be a physics grad student right now, hating it, and making a pittance. I'd probably be a damned good physics grad student, but that doesn't help me very much.
Now, I also put in quite a few hours into developing skills and building a track record, and I don't think those opportunities would've opened up if I hadn't. But I wouldn't have thought to look for the opportunities if I did nothing but concentrate on work. You're a big fan of necessary but not sufficient conditions, right? The work is necessary, but so is the downtime.
And you're STILL assuming that the 75-hour work week you would not get a severe case of burnout and turn into a 0-hour work week you for a year, after which going back to the regular schedule would simply not feel like an option.
Even if you didn't assume that, there is still an underlying assumption that working harder and getting more more money will in the long run make you happier than working shorter hours and having less.
I guess it depends on how much you are making. For 300k, I'll work 75 hours a week and not burn out. The incentive is there.
If you con me into working 75 hours a week for 70k, I'll burn out when I realize I've been wasting my time propping up a loser.
I'd imagine most people are the same. Pay them enough, and they will cope with terrible conditions. Con them, and they will lose interest a lot faster.
You can still burn out at 300k. Actually, you might be more likely to burn out with a higher salary, because you will find it easier to rationalize abusing yourself by cutting sleep, healthy food, friends, etc.
Burnout is an unconscious phenomena - you don't realize you're burning out while you're doing it, and in fact it often feels quite exhilarating. It's pretty easy to be making 300k and suddenly find you just can't perform the job duties that net you that 300k. It's not a matter of choice, determination, or coping, it's a matter of your brain refusing to do the things it needs to do.
> Say we fork the universe now and one version of you works 25 hour weeks henceforth, which the other works 50 hours per week henceforth. Who retires with more money and more impact on the world? Both version of you are equally smart. The well-rested you might make SLIGHTLY smarter decisions due to happiness/lack of fatigue perhaps... But surely you wouldn't contend that the success outcomes (professional impact and wealth, for the sake of argument) wouldn't be different.
It's hard to tell. Would I work better and smarter knowing that I only have a slim 5 hours a day to get stuff done? I think it may have more positive effects than you think - particularly if the rest of the time was doing things that will restore my energy (e.g. cultural activities, meeting people, sports, relaxing...)
Sure, YC encourages a kind of work-work-work attitude, and I'm not suggesting this necessarily will hurt you - in fact, because every YC founder is basically completely incompetent (at the beginning) and thrown into a maelstrom of challenges, it's not that surprising that there's a culture of working long hours to make up for lack of initial competence. But to suggest that somehow the eventual success comes because of the long hours (rather than because of the connections and wisdoms imparted by YC, as well as the fact that all or most YC founders are very smart) seems a bit confused to me...
I have no doubt that determination and enthusiasm are positively correlated with both success and with working long hours. However, as a rational skeptic, I've yet to see evidence that working long hours has a causal relationship to success.
However, there is evidence to suggest an inverse relationship may exist. Furthermore, hazing is effective in building solidarity, and people are generally more likely to retroactively justify hardship, which makes me think there may be a psychological bias towards overvaluing poor work/life balance.
"However, there is evidence to suggest an inverse relationship may exist."
So you'd bet that if I shadowed 1,000 self-made millionaires while they were building their businesses, and then shadowed a random sampling of (employed) Americans, the millionaires would work LESS than average? Really?
FWIW, I do agree that specialized knowledge work doesn't benefit from tons of hours... As someone pointed out in another comment, entrepreneurial success generally requires a wide variety of different tasks.
"So you'd bet that if I shadowed 1,000 self-made millionaires while they were building their businesses, and then shadowed a random sampling of (employed) Americans, the millionaires would work LESS than average? Really?"
No, I never said anything of the like. In fact, I said that the qualities more likely to make you successful are also likely to predict working long hours. What I would say is that if you could make two copies of the world, one where entrepreneurs work reasonable hours and one where they work extensive hours, they would generally have better outcomes with the former.
In essence, it seems that working in crunch mode for extended periods of time is a bad habit of highly motivated people.
"Entrepreneurial success generally requires a wide variety of different tasks."
Obviously, there are all sorts of businesses and all sorts of entrepreneurs, but I'm not sure that the data available suggests that working with varied tasks alleviates problems of fatigue. Additionally, the penalties of multitasking are generally well documented. If the tasks just need to be completed and are straight-forward, or if you're in a short lead-up to a deadline, certainly there are times when it makes sense to work extended hours.
On the more competitive business part, on average a developer only has about 3-4 peak hours of productivity during any given day. The time when your programming in the "zone" and get huge amounts of work done in minimal periods of time. The remaining time tends to be filler time, minor code cleanup, changes, being stuck on problems you would never encounter when still fresh/awake. etc.
When you increase work hours across the board you increasing this filler time of not especially high productivity work. At the same time you tend to decrease the amount of peak productivity/in the zone hours developers see each day due to the gradual effects of burn out.
It's not good for business.
Starting a business involves a lot more than just coding. Responding to employee emails, getting quotes for various bits of infrastructure, setting up the legal side of things, the banking side of things, all takes up a huge amount of time. It's not difficult however.
I find swombat's generalization incredibly insulting and naive. I've heard from many successful business founders that they often have no choice but to work long hours at the start. I know swombat is talking about regular long hours, but what is his definition of regular? There are always exceptions to the rule.
I don't have a lot of respect for people who make overly-general statements in absolutes. I have even less respect for those who feel the need to back up their statement by characterizing anyone who disagrees as incompetent, greedy, or otherwise.
I agree that in an established business, you shouldn't need to work 10 hours a day everyday. I'm very much for people having a balanced life, and for treating employees fairly. However, depending on the situation, there may be periods where you do need to work long hours. There are no golden rules in life that you can follow and be guaranteed success, no matter how smart you are. Everyone makes mistakes, and a failure doesn't mean you are incompetent.
I'd argue that the reason why you need to work long hours in a new business is because generally, people who start new businesses are incompetent.
Say what you want about the drive and determination of a bunch of 19-year-olds going through YC, but what they are not is competent. In fact, almost anyone, no matter their age and experience, is utterly incompetent at running their own business when they first get started.
I think your problem is that you're taking "incompetent" as a personal insult (not sure why you're doing that..) when it's meant as a statement of fact. I was certainly utterly incompetent when I started my first two businesses - and in fact I am still somewhat incompetent, as exemplified by the fact that I do need to work evenings and weekends every once in a while.
I assume when you say incompetent, you mean lacking in experience. That is correct, and often unavoidably so. Unfortunately, incompetent is typically used in a far more derogatory manner by most. Thus, I fear most people reading your post will take as a synonym for stupid.
But even with that clarified, I'll still disagree. The first 3-6 months of starting a business often involves a lot of busy work. This is not coding or otherwise requiring of immense thought, but it does take time. A great many business owners have said that it requires long hours to get a business up and running.
Of course, that does not apply to regular employees. Nor should it remain constant after you've started. Even so, heads of companies often do spend longer hours working than most. That's not to say their lives are unbalanced. Let me quote Bill Gates:
* It's a nice luxury to get some time to go write up my thoughts or follow up on meetings during the day. But sometimes that doesn't happen. So then it's great after the kids go to bed to be able to just sit at home and go through whatever e-mail I didn't get to. If the entire week is very busy, it's the weekend when I'll send the long, thoughtful pieces of e-mail. When people come in Monday morning, they'll see that I've been quite busy— they'll have a lot of e-mail.*
Working long hours is not always a sign of incompetence or lack of process. It still depends on the situation, and what you do in those hours. I do agree with a weaker statement, it shouldn't be that the majority of your employees always have to work long hours.
I think you're ignoring the group of people who both work smart (as you define) AND work long hours. That combination would probably have the highest correlation with success. It's not either / or.
I think you are missing the point of the thread. The argument was that working long hours gives you trade off with working smart. So it is an either /or, at least to some (in my opinion large) extent.
I can think of a few with ~$1B net worth that still find time to indulge their passions and still remain a regular human being.
The people I know who are highly successful work hard, and they take their work seriously. But they don't let their work consume them. There is still time for hobbies, passions, and human relationships once all the code has been written.
Continuous improvement, seeking out things you're doing wrong and fixing them, and generally paying attention to what you're doing and why you're doing it tend to trump raw hours any day.
That is something I've noticed too. Not a single one of the highly successful people I know is one-dimensional. They're all well-rounded human beings who spend time indulging whatever passions they have.
The only ones I know who are slightly less well-rounded but still successful, as I mentioned in another comment, are the corporate successful types - imho because they have less of a choice about how to manage their time.
I think there is a difference between working long hours and being 'married' to your work. People who are passionate about work will end up spending more time on their craft then those who are not, but they aren't always working. For example I read HN, and feel that it makes me better at work, but it's not work. I spend time outside of work doing things that are work like, but not my job because I really like what I do. No matter how much I like what I do, I can work long hours on any of it without getting burnt out, and if I do that for long periods of time I can feel the psychological drain.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair to call everyone who works long hours incompetent? I've seen point two that edw519 made a few times. If there's not enough work to pay for another employee, but just enough to pay for your kids college tuition if you make a lot of overtime, what should you do? Growing your business can take years before you can relax a little.
If the business can't grow and it's taking all your time, it's a crap business. Do something else with your time - no one's forcing you to continue flogging that particular horse. In today's world of opportunity, there are multitudes of ways to run a business that doesn't destroy your life to make a meagre profit... if you persist in running an unprofitable business which takes all your time, then, I guess that would also fall under "incompetent"...
This breaks down as soon as you have dependencies, e.g. a family, as you can't simply abandon your source of income. But aside from that, just because it takes a couple of years to grow a business into profitability doesn't make it not worthwhile, even if you have to put in a lot of work during those years. A large customer with an gradual payment system based on accreditation would be such a scenario.
Of course it's incompetent to cling to an unprofitable undertaking, but there are valid reasons for working overtime over an extended period.
I think that's generally true, but let's accept that startups aren't businesses. They're potential businesses. I suppose they fall into the 'failing' category in your example, except that's not very fair.. they haven't had much of a shot yet.
Until something gets off the ground, I wouldn't say working long hours doesn't make you lazy, greedy, incompetent or stupid. That said, it can certainly be counter-productive if done for too long.
100% agree. Long hours once in a while is just part of the dynamic nature of life. A job where the hours are consistently longer is ALWAYS a sign of bad management. Always.
This is the fallacy of long hours. You spend so many hours at work every day and every once in a while you have some late night inspiration or collaborative breakthrough or take advantage of some other opportunity, and then like any gambling addict you associate working long hours with the rewards. You ignore all the costs (stress, family strain, sleep deprivation, lower productivity, higher defect rates, etc.) It's classic confirmation bias.
Add to that the machismo notions that working long hours is working "harder" than otherwise and that working fewer hours shows less commitment and less strength. In reality it takes more focus, more smarts, and more discipline to work shorter hours effectively (sure, you can slack off by working fewer hours, but you can also slack off by working more hours too)
I think it's important that these long hours are the exception and not the rule. You do hit a burnout point eventually and this can be devastating for a start-up where you need your best and brightest being exactly that and coming up with new and better solutions to existing problems that will help put you ahead of the current and future competition.
Question, what do the long hours that are part of investment banking fall under. I haven't worked in it but might yet so I'm curious. I know there's a lot to do in a short amount of time in terms of the mood of the stock market like a small business, but c'mon, these are smart people, surely they can streamline some of these processes.
From my conversations with I-banker friends, it sounds like the long hours in I-banking are externally imposed. When a client is facing an imminent acquisition deal, it's very important that they get all their accounting straightened out, all their valuations nailed down while the acquirer is still interested. A delay usually means the deal falls through.
So when companies come to an I-banking firm, they're usually like "I need all your best people on this, stat." And because there're millions of dollars at stake, the I-banking firm will happily comply.
So I-bankers definitely fall into the "working late because of somebody else's incompetence" camp. In this case, it's customers. There're various things that startups could do that would make I-banker's jobs a lot easier: keep good accounting records, make sure they're completely covered legally, have solid revenue streams, don't get all buddy-buddy with potential acquirers. But startups that do all this rarely need an I-banker to close the deal; they just negotiate directly with a potential acquirer, have the lawyers draw up a deal, and sign it.
Basically, the I-banking business model is trading other people's stupidity for cash. It's the same thing with management consultants, and divorce attorneys, and litigators, all also professions that can make a lot of money but have shitty quality of life.
One thing my company has done since way back in its startup days (we're pretty successful at this point) is put an emphasis on working reasonable hours, and it's been successful for us. Some people still choose to work long hours because they're excited about what they're working on, but it's not expected or asked of anyone. There were two reasons for doing that even as a startup, and I think they're both still valid.
Reason #1 is that working long hours often becomes an excuse to not prioritize properly. Working under realistic constraints forces you to really decide whether some feature is worth it, or if spending 40 hours on Feature A is better than spending 40 hours in Features B, C, and D combined. Too often the answer at companies is, "Well, A, B, C, and D are all really important, so just work harder and do everything." That's a very seductive trap to fall into, but it's absolutely the wrong escape valve. At least in my view a failure to focus and prioritize properly is far more often a cause of failure for startups than "we didn't work hard enough."
Reason #2 is that you want to avoid burning people out if you expect to be around for the long haul. Our company just turned 10, and we still have a surprising number of long-tenured engineers, which I'd attribute in large part to the work environment and the relative sanity of the work/life balance people can have. If you expect people to work 60+ hours a week every week, they're not going to stick around for 10 years; they're going to get burned out and bored and they'll feel like the only way to get a break is to quit.
You can quibble with the second reason, but I think that even in a situation where you feel like you have to get a ton done and working 40 hours a week isn't an option, it's very important not to use "we'll just work harder" as an excuse to avoid making the hard decisions around priorities.
My biggest problem with long hours (aside from the long hours themselves), is that like most programmers, I'm not constantly productive for 10 hours a day. It frustrates me that I have to sit in my desk for long periods where I'm unproductive before my muse hits and then I enter hugely productive periods (which often take place outside of normal business hours).
I don't think some m-f, 9-5 union type situation is the proper answer, but theres gotta be a better way. Sitting at my desk when I'm not being productive is a waste of my life.
Used to do this all the time at my old job. There were so many distractions during the day that I would just come in late and code all by myself. It was awesome.
I'm curious how efficient most coders are even in an 8 hour work day. I find that I can only log about 4 - 5 hours a day (on average) of solid coding time (or marketing/business work). This is because I limit myself to an 8 hour work day, but of course there are breaks and inevitable down time.
Our startup team of 10 has kept pretty strict time logs for the past 3 years. We have an official policy of 40 hour work weeks, but yeah, no developers are able to have that much productive time. Usually we see about 25-30 hours of solid development time, 5 hours of meeting/admin time, and 5 hours of lunches/coffee/break time.
I'd like to hear more about the choice to keep strict time logs in a startup environment. Especially strict ones that provide enough granularity to see 5 hours of break time/wk.
If you can honestly spend 75% of your office time doing actual development, and divide the rest evenly between breaks and meetings, I'd like to see how.
I've recently got into pomodoro timing. I set the timer for 45 minutes, focus totally on work, then take a fifteenish-minute break. I can't do it all day though.
I know the classic pomodoro technique is supposed to be 25 minutes on, 5 minutes off, but a five minute break is too short for me (I like to get out of the building) and the rhythm of the half-hours just goes by too quickly. 45 minute serious-work periods work much better for me.
I was just thankfully let go from a startup that expected extra hours on top of running an open-plan office and coworkers who lived by the "who can interrupt the loudest?!" method of project management. 4-5 hour stretches were never once achieved during normal business hours in the 2.5 months I was there. A 2 hour stretch was a gift, but more often than not the quietude would be broken by one of a small group (3-4) loudest coworkers.
Open floor plans are evil for developers. Whoever started that trend needs to be strung up by their nose hair. There is no better way to ensure no work gets done than putting 10 people in an environment that every two person conversation interrupts (and I believe that "15 minutes to get back into the zone" is a bunch of crap).
I think 37Signals is completely accurate with their assessment of working time. It mirrors your take of a maximum of 4-5 hour blocks that can effectively considered "productive work".
Same here. Any time you are working a difficult problem, especially one that is difficult because of its complexity, you have to keep a lot of context in your head. In that situation, keep going as long as you can and are still making progress. This is the same problem, but in a more extreme context, as the "getting back on track" problem caused by interruptions that was discussed in Peopleware, and frequently since.
There was a discussion program on radio here in Finland (Eftersnack on YLE Vega) where they talked about heavy jobs and one job, along the other works job that contained physical challenge, was the job as a software engineer. They compared it to playing chess all day long; "the next move is yours and you cannot get it out of your head, you think about the move (read problem in your code/application) all day and night long". Although they went a little bit over the top with the comparison they still hit the nail.
Which is why I don't like the 9-5 nonsense either. Also programming isn't just done at the computer. When I am working on a problem, I am working on it at lunch, on the bus, on my cycle, sitting out side starring into space, etc. Left to my own devices I would "work" infront of my work pc 60 hours one week 5-10 the next 40 the next two. Being forced to be in the office a set time is no good for anyone in my position.
Or even due to awesome coding. I would hate to miss out on my occasional bouts of can't-drag-me-away-from-the-keyboard inspiration simply because someone "fixed" my work ethic and shut the office at 5pm.
But yeah, I appreciate the sentiment that no-one should be allowed to pillage their workers' evenings and weekends simply because they don't want to tell their boss "I promised something I couldn't deliver."
I know a lot of people who seem to like working long hours. It allows them to think they're getting more done, but I suspect that many of the processes involved could be optimized if they thought about it a bit. For me, I work long hours but it's spread out over the course of a day (so removing breaks/bs it's probably not much more than 40 hours p/wk), and I love what I do, so I do get a lot done (and it feels less like work than other jobs I've had).
For other jobs, like being a big firm lawyer, long hours are kind of baked in: You get paid a salary (a big one), the company you work for bills you out by the hour, person with the highest billables doesn't get fired. That's probably not likely to change, it's not a process problem per se, and I suspect there's plenty other jobs generally like that.
I've known at least a few guys who did indeed like working long hours in the office, since that was less stressful than going home to a house full of cranky kids at bedtime. One co-worker even relished his 1.5 hour commute as the only relaxing parts of his day.
I often like to hang around the office to take care of personal business-but-not-work stuff between 6 and 7 pm. Things like personal finance, doing accounting for this one volunteer organization (I'm treasurer), browsing and booking personal travel. I never want to do that stuff once I'm at home, so putting that into the 6-7 pm window both lowers temptation to do it during the business workday and pushes out an urge to keep working on work stuff late.
I would call that selfish (avoiding the kids at home, that is). Sure, there are plenty of days I'd probably just rather hole-up in my cube and code late into night, but I don't because it's more important that I be an engaged parent. It's not like my kids are going to get a do-over on childhood.
At the company I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the biggest proponents of long hours were a couple of (hourly, natch) contractors who were practicing the most aggravating form of Mortgage-Driven Development I've ever witnessed firsthand. Then salaried people were hounded to work extra hours to keep up with their sh-- code.
There is an opposite though. Legal projects don't really seem to have budgets like software projects do.
I know at my rates, if I work 14 hour days, my productivity shoots down, and I blow the face and upper body off the budget in no time. I tell people this, but they still want it sometimes. But really, it's usually better to cut expectations and go at a measured pace all the time.
Law firms are changing. They are moving away from billable hours and towards fixed price contracts. They are making better use of non-partner track lawyers to handle routine stuff, and those lawyers get sane hours and lower salaries.
You're right, some are moving away from billable hours because they have to. However, I haven't heard much about a reduction in working hours. Lots of out of work lawyers and biglaw firms are back to offering 160k+ to summer associates--business as usual but less of it to go around. Non-partner track seems same as it's ever been, except you're less likely to have a job. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer...
Any time you have worked long hours it is a sign of a broken process.
--------------------------
I see the point they're trying to make, but this is the problem with speaking in absolutes ...
My personal preference (and I suspect other developers do this too, but I could be very wrong about that) is to work when I'm in the zone ... sometimes I can go for 8 hours, others I can go 24 hours straight without any trouble (other times I don't get anything done for a couple of days) ... during projects when I'm knee deep in building something, its not uncommon for me to do 10 - 14 hour days ... not because its expected of me, but because that's how I work.
As long your employer isn't forcing you to do death marches/ insisting you work on weekends and you're getting good rest, exercise and eating well, I don't see a problem.
Honestly I think the real answer is "if you're asking that question, it's time to find a new job"
I've been through this very same ringer recently and strongly believe that changing from within is far more trouble, far more stressful and far more difficult than the effort is worth.
If you've got so many options, leave.
I've very happy in my new role and it took getting out of the old one to fix it.
How about in a cyclical project start -> project release process?
I am not referring to "crunch time" where you realize everything is broken and your schedule was unrealistic; rather, many projects I have participated in have an escalating work load as you near release, because a lot of the work simply cannot be done before previous stages are completed.
Unless you are a large entity that can heavily "pipeline" by running 10 or 20 projects at once, and shuffle people around as a project's workload changes, to avoid ever working overtime you'd need to either have to hire too many employees, or hire/fire regularly. Not entirely dissimilar to trying to balance a server cluster with load spikes.
To start with working 40 hours in itself is probably too much. I do not have studies to back this up, but I think after 5 working hours it is best you stop for the day.
I have this vague recollection of reading a study that claimed people in research and development should be working around 25 hours per week for best productivity. And I've never been able to find that study after that =( I think it was German. I keep wondering if I dreamed about it...
A lot of nice feel good answers on this post. But for some of us, too freaking bad if you have to work long hours.
I'm not personally a fan of long hours, but not everyone can work for a LinkedIn. And in many shops, long hours are unavoidable regardless of how much well-intentioned process is in place.
I realize it's rarely this simple, but get a new job if you care. The labour market is a market, and unless you leave, citing whichever of manager incompetence or lack of money is the problem, it won't get fixed because /it doesn't need to be fixed/.
If I'd count all the over hours that I did for my current company over the years, I think it would be the equivalent of one year of work. And yes, most of that wasn't necessary but bad planning and a fraked up process.
The punch line is that this is how LinkedIn grew, however I know for a fact that the operations guys put in some odd hours :-)
That being said, its symptomatic. I've been places where the hours were modest and lots got done, and places where the hours were insane and nothing got done.
So the title (and the point the OP makes) don't really hold up. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that if you can't get done what you need to get done during nominal work hourse, then one possibility is that your process is broken. Of course that isn't as impactful :-)
One of the worst articles I've ever seen posted on HN. I'm not going to even read through the comments, but I hope most are simply stating that this is complete BS. Otherwise, you're arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Not everything should be argued, not everything should be over-analyzed. Working long hours is often a choice; you do it to get ahead, you do it to improve your product, you do it for any number of reasons (and yes, maybe you do it because something is broken). Any argument to the contrary supporting this stupid argument is simply BS.
I've seen this at companies where the boss or manager either doesn't understand the development process or just wants to make money and doesn't care. So you have situations where a feature should take 2 weeks to implement, but they want it in a week (so you need to work extra hours to make up for it).
This is one of the reasons I hate working for other people. If I'm going to be wasting my youth away for something, I'm going to be getting all or the majority of the profits.
Um, that's what is supposed to be. It is not a chat room. It's a place to get answers (or give them).
"All questions on Stack Exchange are expected to be objective and have concrete answers; we’re not a place for conversation, opinions, or socializing. We also expect questions to represent real problems, not just imponderables, hypotheticals, or requests for opinions."
I think they miss out on an opportunity there, just tag them differently or put them in a different section or something. The question and answer stuff is great for searching but when you have put together such a knowledgeable community it seems like a waste not to allow them to engage on topics like this.
Just because LinkedIn was a success does not mean a blanket statement can be made for all. I would have titled it "All too often". Too many outside factors can have an impact. I would use Wordpress for the example of working long hours and also being a success.
The broken process may not be company-specific. We are in an industry that is driven not just by getting things to market, but by getting things to market faster than the other guy. As we all know, software does not really scale too well to adding people to the problem. Thus, being to market faster is often achieved by coaxing more work out of the same number of people, this results in long hours.
Thought experiment: Imagine some sort of truce declared among startups to skip this part of the arms race. Or, imagine a law passed capping work weeks for software engineers at 50 hours, no exceptions (again, the reason this happening by law would be to eliminate the arms race). What would it do?
That's a good thought experiment.
I imagine we would very suddenly see an explosion of automation solutions for making engineers accomplish more with less time. We would also see an almost perfect eradication of most time-sinks in software development.
"This one time, at one job I had, I was able to work 9-5 Monday-Friday. The company I worked for was successful. Therefore, ANY job that requires extra hours is the sign of a broken process."
Why would anyone hire a dude like this with such poor reasoning skills?
I am surprised no one has quoted something from Steve Blank
http://steveblank.com/2009/06/18/epitaph-for-an-entrepreneur...
"Work Smarter Not Harder
As I got older I began to realize that how effective you are is not necessarily correlated with how many hours you work. My ideas about Customer Development started evolving around these concepts. Eric Ries’s astute observations about engineering and Lean Startups make the same point. I began to think how to be effective and strategic rather than just present and tactical."
I don't know - and I absolutely loathe statements like these.
Sometimes, I prefer to work 18 hours in one day and enjoy 2 days free, rather than 9 to 5 it for 3-4 days. At this point, you're insulting my personal preferences, not my process.
<rant>
What a bunch of B.S. In fact I cannot believe it is even here in Hacker News.
"Any time you have worked long hours, it is a sign of a broken process."
This is a such a horrible generalization. Successful people always work hard/long hours to make something succeed. Imagine telling your kids that to be successful you should work just 40 hours and no more. They will be easily steamed rolled by other kids that are willing to work harder/ go the extra mile.
>>Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.'' I simply slunk out of the office!<<
>>What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this.<<
Yes, sometimes it may mean that working long hours there is something wrong and the title should reflect that rather than just generalizing.
I remember there was a study done at one point that the best piano players had worked longer hours per week practicing as opposed to the so so piano player.
You want to work 40 hours and be happy? Good! But I doubt you will be able to achieve greatness like that. Achieving success requires sacrifices.
Edison is another example of a guy that would work really long hours. Look at everything that he accomplished. You want to be mediocre, work 40 hours. You want to be great like Edison, work your ass off. Don't listen to the little people that tell you not to work your ass off. That is the road to mediocrity.
Now, if you are saying that you want to have time for family and be another cog in the machine, 40 hours are great for you.
</rant>
edit - OK, after further reflection I think that what the title means is that IF you are just a cog in the machine of a large corporation AND you are working long hours then something is terribly wrong. If that was the original intent then I completely agree. Is OK to do it once in a while but if it is normal then something is terribly wrong.
Now, for academics, athletics, other competitive fields and even startups at least in their earlier faces you still have to work long hours or the other guys will steam roll you. Eventually though you do hit a point of diminishing returns so you have to watch for that.
So you take a few edge cases and make them the example for the main stream?
I doubt you should ever use Edison or Einstein to ever refer to the average person. Let alone put yourself in the same camp, you'll probably do yourself mental harm via exhaustion. Fine if you have abnormal drive and intelligence go for it.
But chances are you are an average person and need to obey the rules of what makes average people happy. Or you won't be happy. Maybe you'll throw yourself at your work in the hope of finding happiness.. something I'll admit to doing myself.. chasing dreams of a better life.
Theres plenty of research that states the exact opposite of what you are saying, enough that France even had laws banning working over 35 hours (and its 48 hours for the rest of Europe). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Western_Europe
What works for some people doesn't work for others. I remember listening to my friend talk about working in Japan during the late 80's early 90's and described the people he worked with as having an ingrained apathy towards the long work day, and most just mucked around all day. Took 2 hours to even start work, the work force was extremely unproductive for the hours they where doing. I'm sure theres different stories in different industries but thats a story I take as 100% as the person isn't known for being a liar or exaggerator.
Just because you can make people work long hours doesn't mean things get better, it often means things get worse. And thats the moral of his story about Japan.
The stories of how industrious and loyal they are... just stories... they are just people like everyone else. And as a majority they'd rather be at home with there families and friends than at work making someone else rich.
I'm in Japan now and Japan is still like this. Actually, a lot of SE Asia is like this - Korea, HK. When I talk to people about this they even admit it. They realise they are goofing off a lot of the day because they know they have to stay late so there is little incentive to be productive.
I believe that people can only work productively for a set amount per day and keeping people at work after that doesn't lead to any more work being done.
In general what you are saying is true, but its not the general public your must fear in the competition.
Its always the exceptional guy who is going to win the prize any day. And that is why people always run into exceptionally productive people and don't find it easy to compete with them. Multiply this with the drive and energy which keeps them productive over time and suddenly things get very difficult.
For most people 5 hours of productive work will see them by, but you should not expect that to be sufficient to be the best or to be sufficient enough to beat the best. For that you will have to do something extra.
>>So you take a few edge cases and make them the example for the main stream?
I could show you many more but why?
>>But chances are you are an average person and need to obey the rules of what makes average people happy
Yes, do what makes you happy and yes I am an average person but that doesn't mean that I cannot tell you that the sky is blue even if I were blind (I think you know what I mean). What I disliked is the blanket statement. In very competitive fields if you want to be top dog you have to work long hours and even that may not be enough. Of course, if you work on a sweatshop working long hours really makes no difference. Top dog against who? Lets just not make blanket statements.
Some people are happy working 40 hours others are happy working 80 hours. And if you are in a competitive field 40 hours will not do the job. Happiness is besides the point. If that doesn't make you happy don't do it. I'm not telling anybody to work 80 hours to be happy. I'm telling you not to try to convince other people that they should not work 80 hours a week because you don't like to work 80 hours a week.
I'm saying that if you want to stay ahead of your peers, say, athletics, academics, you better train more, study harder than the other guy. Is almost a self evident truth so I don't understand what we are arguing about. If I'm wrong please enlighten me.
But as a matter for fact we need to define the term 'Happiness', a lot of people measure happiness by how much minimum they can achieve(Which makes them happy) with how much minimum effort they put. For example, if you put in 5 productive hours of work a day and end up achieving a, what you describe as a happy life, you would consider that success.
But a lot of people tend to measure success in a different way. For example, Even though during atleast two days in a week I might have opportunity to go back early. I purposefully use the free time to check if I can do some extra work which will give an edge to my career. Generally its something like this, I check if I can add some feature that has a direct impact on revenue or some bug that I can fix or something I can read upon which will help me take more informed decisions later.
I was not a very brilliant kid in the school, nor in college nor during my engineering. In fact I was almost on border, but I would always make it. How? By multiplying effort over time. Most of my friends back in school when I meet them today, find it astonishing that I have made it so big in the industry, while even many high scoring folks haven't.
At work my philosophy is very simple, Seize every work opportunity as it comes. Ensure you multiply effort with time. Thereby, completely hedging for my low IQ by sheer work alone. Indeed as they say opportunity multiplies as you seize it. I also see a lot of high scoring people straight out of college who don't do it big in the industry. Because intelligent people expect, brilliance will make up for everything. But the fact is, Intelligence only acts as a catalyst in the path to success. The bulk of everything else is sheer hard work.
Apart from this its important to understand things like management. Especially time management. Its important to plan, review and track your life time, decade, yearly , monthly and weekly goals. Measuring your productivity is important. Reviewing it constantly, and course correction is the key.
The great thing is today you can achieve anything by sheer work. This gives me great hope for the future.
We're mixing things here a bit. Theres always merit in pushing and improving yourself, but the article was about putting in extra hours for other people, and the linked response was about over time being linked to bad process and decisions.
And hence in a sense chasing someone else's dream and not so much your own, and even worse putter a wager on the return of that extra effort.
Accomplishment is nice, but there's a lot more to it than simply working hours. A consistent thing: long hours without consideration of whether you could do even better with a change in process are always a mistake.
If you're doing the work in a situation where adding staff or changing commitments really will not help you, by all means, continue to work, and find whatever tricks you need to stay focused in that time.
Edison had a whole company helping him do his work, and I bet the best of piano players have a cleaning lady, a chauffeur, and a specialist in tuning pianos all helping them to spend more time mentally preparing (including via sleep) and with hands on keys.
If yo want to work 9 to 5 that is fine. Is your choice. But I think is unfair to claim that working 9 to 5 will increase your chances of success. Now, whether you don't care for that is another matter. Fine with me if you are happy. Working long hours in a sweat shop is bad obviously. Working long hours practicing in athletics, music, academics is necessary. If you don't do it somebody else will. Assuming you want to reach the top else why even discuss it.
No long hours are not necessary. The study written about in this thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2900301 - is about how the best violin players only practice for 4 hours per day but the good players actually practice more.
The link claims that one of the best violinists in the world would practice 7 hours a day. The complete opposite of what you are citing.
From the link:
>>Such dedication is also apparent in musicians. Maxim Vengerov, 34, is one of the world’s greatest violinists. He was born in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk and, after being given a miniature fiddle at the age of four, displayed outstanding aptitude.
His talent was matched by an immense work ethic. He practised seven hours a day, giving his first recital at the age of five and winning his first international prize at 15. Vengerov said: “My mother would get home at 8pm, cook dinner and then teach me the violin until four in the morning. As a four-year-old boy it was torture. But I became a violinist within two years.”
<<
Also, different professions probably have different definitions of long hours. Four hours practicing on the violin must be pretty exhausting since it is a physical exercise. Therefore you must also take that into account. Four hours playing the violin and four hours programming are not the same thing. Four hours for a violin player is already long hours. Four hours for a programmer sitting in front of a computer is nothing. Specially if you are debugging code, you could easily spend more than 24 hours debugging a problem, I doubt a violinist could do the same.
Another example is marathon runners. Running two hours everyday is already long hours. You cannot equate two hours running a marathon with two hours of programming right.
So my point still stands, you have to put in long hours. The definition of long hours changes by profession.
An easier way to see it is that you have to put in more hours than what your average peer puts in. Of course, you also have to do it smart.
-Edit
This is a tangent but I just thought of this and seems important enough to share. Even though the runner and the violinists are practicing they are not really being productive because they are not producing anything that the world can use. A programmer in the same amount of time is being productive because he is actually generating things that can be used by the world.
Interestingly I never found playing the cello exhausting - well, very occasionally if I had been playing a lot (several days running of a couple of hours practise, many hours rehearsing, couple of hours performing). On the other side, singing could be very tiring (though again, all-day sessions, always standing up).
Edison was famous for bragging that he only needed 2-3 hours sleep a night. Then when Tesla came to work with him he once remarked to a reporter "Yes, he only sleeps 2-3 hours a night but he naps for 5-6 hours during the day."
Edison Vs Tesla debates often end up going no where, this is because the debates take the nature of debate between two school of thoughts. One which believes that learning the body of knowledge and using proper academic approach to research is the right way to success(Tesla), other approach is to take a interesting problem without having no background and prior knowledge of what you are going into, but as you go deeper you begin learn and do things by experimenting on the way(Edison).
Edison approach takes time, a lot of work and thereby you need to find ways of being more productive. Both methods have their plus'es and minus'es.
But.. If you find some body very hardworking, going over the counter to put effort in his work to achieve something and he ends up being more successfully than everybody else. That shouldn't look surprising. And that precisely what happened with Edison and Tesla.
Although Edison lost the war of currents, but comparing their lives as a whole Edison ended up achieving far more than Tesla.
I'm lucky, I can't remember doing overnight or weekends, but for the first time we will have to do, but I'll get paid 50% of my salary for two extra working weekends.
It really confuses to see kids with red bulls typing code all day and night. I mean, how can you think clear and be productive that way ?
You may do more, but do you do it better and deliver quality code ?
That confused me. Am I overlooking something that makes the problem non-trivial?
On further reading I'm pretty sure I'm not, but perhaps the very triviality of the problem confuses people enough that they have difficulty with it. ("Is there some weird edge case I'm not considering?")
The other big question with FizzBuzz is whether it's worth making your code more complicated in order to make it slightly shorter. That is, do you start off with a "if i % 15 == 0" or not? My inclination is yes, because I'd rather have ten lines that obviously work than eight lines that might not.
I interviewed someone, and following a hunch, asked him to write FizzBuzz, and he couldn't do it within a half hour. He wasn't overthinking it; he just couldn't decompose the problem.
Certainly, if you work on an assembly line. If you work in some industry where you have to come up with solutions to problems, the workload may be more lumpy because nobody has figured out how to build a production line for it yet.
It's nice that LinkedIn has a great process: regression testing and the like, but what if you work in an environment where you can't afford to test every single little thing, and where business models, let alone requirements change constantly (ie. a startup)? What if a competitor just launched a feature that will put you out of business if you don't implement the same thing in 48 hours? What if there is a mission-critical bug that has to be fixed by the end of the day or else all your customers will bail out?
Secondly, most who work in Wall Street will tell you it's not about the process. It's about the culture. People don't work until 7 or 8 because they're fixing bugs, or because development is so slow. It's because they're expected to and if they get up and leave at 5, it leaves a bad impression on management and their co-workers.
That bookmark service that did great out of the del.ici.ous fiasco (sorry I honestly can't remember your name!).
trunk.ly? They certainly weren't the only ones but were in the right place at the right time to attract a heap of users and as a consequence did some crazy weeks to bring forward a heap of planned features to keep the newly attracted users.
Those sound like outliers and they happen. I think he was getting at chronic long work days.
However, I'd like to make a few points.
regression tests should be baked in from the start, especially easy at a startup starting from fresh.
Features that can be implemented in 48 hours have no business being in the way of your success.
Mission critical bugs are a symptom of a broken process. They happen, but shouldn't be pathological.
Yes, and that culture stinks. Luckily for software developers at this point in time we have MANY options and don't have to be subject to shitty working conditions.
If a feature can be duplicated in 48 hours, it's a trivial feature. If your business is that dependent on trivial features, it's a really precarious business.
* but what if you work in an environment where you can't afford to test every single little thing, and where business models, let alone requirements change constantly (ie. a startup)?*
Constantly changing requirements are exactly why you want tests. Not only do they help you find regression bugs when requirements change, but they help tremendously in writing code that is easy to maintain. If you can't test a piece of code, it's a red flag that you can't easily change it either.
Furthermore, I don't buy the notion that writing test code adds significant time to the development process. I do not have metrics, but I would argue that a good test suite actually reduces total development time, since the time writing tests is more than offset by the time saved testing manually and fixing bugs later.
A pretty good example of what you are talking about is AirBnB, sure they may have had some of the security features in the pipeline but the pressure was really on them to at least get something out the represented a step in the right direction shortly after what happened. I'm pretty sure they must have had people pull some big hours to put together such a comprehensive security features overhaul so quickly.
I'm not necessarily taking a side here, but the arguments might be along the lines of a. how is it that you didn't think of some feature capable of killing your whole business in 48 hours ahead of time (poor planning) b. why did you launch a mission-critical bug (not enough testing) ?
As for Wall Street, they do many amazing things sure but I'd hope that the WS culture is not the one we're all aspiring towards.
One of our most successful clients (grew from nothing to 200+ employees in 5 years) has always had a very strict 6pm closing time. Everyone must be out of the building at 6pm and there's no 'working from home' or 'work on the weekend' allowed.
I'm sure this cut people off in the zone when 6pm hit from time to time. As others have said here I think that the best is a happy medium, no enforced long hours but no enforced breaks either.
Enterprise: Incompetent management, lazy co-workers, and spoiled users.
Small Business: Tough competition and limited resources.
Startup: Taking advantage of opportunites that may not pass this way again.