Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work.
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
That said, productivity/achievement might be a bit overrated. Will your life be better and will you be happier when you achieve your goal? Will you ever achieve it? Most of us disregard the fact that wealth is not remotely correlated with happiness and still hunt for the big payday.
[edit: lots of folks are asking for data. FWIW, I founded and ran RescueTime, so I was hip dip in this world for a long time.
The data actually shows that, for line workers, hours worked have diminishing returns. However, when you look at people at the top of their game (executives, etc), they work extreme hours. Correlation does not equal causation, of course. But when you look at the most successful/productive people in your circles, how many of them talk about work/life balance, have lots of hobbies, etc? Maybe they're successful DESPITE their crazy work hours, for all I know.]
There are studies out there showing that productivity is proportional to days spent on the problem, not hours. It's likely that for a knowledge worker, sustained schedules with long workdays actually reduce average productivity.
It makes logical sense-- combine the ability to work long hours (rare) with talent and you will blow the normal fatigue-able people out of the water in terms of output and (in a sorta-meritocracy) rise to the top.
I know an entrepreneur that bought a well known franchise. He told me he worked without a day off for the first year before finally taking a Sunday off. My gut was to call bullshit. Employees around from that time confirm. He's very successful today.
It's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember reading something along those lines in "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates...). The thesis is that our motivation to do things is along a spectrum of intrinsic (for the love of the work) vs extrinsic (e.g. money). Generally the former yields better results. Some studies even showed that paying people to do things they love can be detrimental, because you're now adding an extrinsic motivator to something that they are intrinsically motivated to do, thereby making what they love feel like "work."
In spanish, "empirico" means exactly the same thing. Based on well tested observations, not your just "personal experience". Sure it is a little overused some times, but it still means some degree of confidence greater that "in my experience"
Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work.
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
Could you point me to that research?
Coz every time I've measured hours worked against productivity (with a few different dev teams now) insane hours do not correspond to more productive work.
Just coz people do it doesn't mean that they're more productive doing it.
One of the author's (more interesting) premises is that individuals with mild forms of autism like Aspberger's, who came to typify the sorts of personalities drawn to tech in the early years, may be able to effectively work excessive hours, but ordinary individuals will experience diminished quality of work, just like everyone else.
CEOs and directors aren't primarily "knowledge workers", they are networkers/connectors/presenters. It isn't the same sort of concentration as programming or accounts payable.
Running RescueTime is still no data, it is a claim of authority... Have you analysed it properly, was it peer-reviewed, can we see it for ourselves?
I don't believe that people who put in more than 35 to 40 hours of real work will be more productive. A lot of people pretend to work a lot, or are forced to be in the office 50 hours or more, but that does not make them more productive. It just makes them seem more productive, and have less of a life...
When I worked in the US I considered the whole startup-hours-macho culture of the SF-area to be quite pernicious both to productivity and happiness. In private conversation most people I spoke to had the same view, but nobody dared speak about it with the boss within reach.
I mean I loved coding, I was excited about the project, and was on a team I liked, but the forced nature of having to show this love by being there 10 hours a day just reminded me of the two hours a day Cubans had to volunteer (in addition to their day-jobs) to show love for their regime.
No data here either, but at least I don't claim empirically, apart from my own experiences.
Interesting point. I guess, as an extension of this, I have noticed I'm accomplishing the same amount of net work in fewer hours. I can safely say I love my work, and that's definitely a driver in -wanting- to work more, but because it's exciting and fulfilling. (Obviously still balancing my non-work/family life with this.)
Personally, my only goal in doing all of this is to create great things which are fulfilling for me and others to use, and that hopefully have some lasting/tangible benefit in my/their life. In a sense, I've already achieved that. The idea of great wealth is not a driver (and I think would only distract me.)
I'm not sure I buy your ability to understand your own productivity (people are notoriously bad at that). It's hard to believe that more work doesn't strongly (but certainly imperfectly!) correlate with more output... Up until that work exhausts you to the point and you start doing BAD work. Maybe that # is 35h/week. I suspect it's widely varied based on type of work, type of person, depth of love for the work, diet, exercise, etc.
I look at it from a standpoint of what tangible things I need to accomplish, and what I estimate I'll need in terms of time to do them. In the last 3-6 months especially, I've been constantly -under- my estimates. This correlates with starting to work a shorter week, taking more frequent breaks, etc.
Not scientific by any stretch, rather simply my own observations.
And yes - I'm thinking more in terms of folks working insane amounts of hours, at levels that put them well into the "doing bad work & burnt out" realm.
...and a good way to start hating your work is by doing too much of it for the wrong reasons. Working very hard to make somebody else rich, what's the point in that?
If you love/are addicted to your work, you don't care if you're making some else (or yourself) rich. And because we KNOW that wealth doesn't correlate with happiness, why SHOULD you care if you make them rich?
I think we're having a disagreement over our definitions of "wealthy", which makes for a pretty boring debate. After reflection I don't think you're advocating for "work for peanuts! money sucks anyway!" so much as "charging market rate, working sane hours, and being OK with the fact that you won't ever have $10M in the bank is a perfectly sane choice", which I'd absolutely agree with.
What's a stooge? Someone who enjoys their life and the byproduct of that is that someone else gets rich? The point is-- that guy you made rich? You didn't make him happy. You didn't impact his happiness at all (long term). So someone who gets rich on the back of your (rewarding/enjoyable work) isn't getting ANYTHING but shiny objects your monkey brain tells you equal happiness. I pasted these into another comment, but here are some studies around wealth and happiness:
The other guy doesn't just get shiny objects, they also get influence and power over other people, along with freedom to do (mostly) what they want.
One very relevant example: you can move to the US and get a green card as an investor, if you invest a six figure amount. This is also true for other Western countries. Money buys you freedom to not work, freedom to live wherever you want, and sometimes it can even buy you laws (or avoidance of existing laws).
Yep. All(most) rich people have lots of power and freedom. Does THAT make them happy? Because all of the data indicates that wealth (and all of its accompanying benefits) do NOT.
Note that $ does correlate with happiness on the low end of the scale. i.e. being very poor correlates with unhappiness. But beyond about $75k/yr, no correlation.
Since wealth won't make the rich happier, but poverty seems to make the poor suffer in very concrete ways (like lacking medical insurance), it would make sense for the poor to be paid better, and the wealthy to have smaller paychecks.
It wouldn't actually help. The reason poverty makes the poor suffer is that they struggle to afford basic necessities of life. The price of those necessities is set by how much money the average person has available to spend on them. If you give everyone more money, then the price of food/rent/medicine will just rise accordingly.
Just look at what's happening with Bay Area rents. Larry and Sergey having a few billion doesn't materially impact them. Google expanding from 20,000 => 35,000 employees and paying all of them $150K+ does. Now there's someone else who makes just as much as you who's willing to pay a premium for that apartment.
The way to drive down the cost of basic necessities is through massive improvements in productivity that suddenly make the supply of a good large enough for everyone to have one. Think of Ford and the automobile, or GE and household appliances, or Apple/Dell/Microsoft/Intel and computers, or the green revolution and food.
The poor by definition make less than average - and right now they make a lot less than average. A median income earner at around 50k per year makes over three times what a minimum wage worker earning around 15k per year makes.
These folks are going to qualify for Medicaid in 2014. They can't participate in the market-based healthcare system. They're just too poor. Give them more money, and they'll be able to participate in a market-based system.
That's at odds with your argument about high tech gentrification in the Bay Area. Those workers were going to start out at the median income, and only earn more over time. So the effect of their getting more money is going to raise prices.
My argument is that the janitors at Google (and other companies owned by the wealthy) should get paid more. My argument is that that housekeeper hired by Meg Whitman should have been paid more, and paid overtime etc.
That applies to food, hopefully medicine in a few decades, but not to rent. Until we adopt some sort of land/wealth tax, or make land/house management public and available to everyone, land is going to be scarse and sold at a premium.
Agree with webwright. Found the article to be sorta silly. When you really love something nothing will stop you from doing/achieving. This seems self evident to me at least.
This isn't to be confused with the world full of different peoples, worldviews and personalities. Only some of us find satisfaction in a productive 14 hour day.
Another way to put it, is that if you can work 60 "productive" hours a week you will most likely be more successful than someone that can only work 40 "productive" hours.
I'm not necessarily unconvinced by this, but I too would like to see some research or stats proving that people who succeed mostly work more than 8 hours a day.
On this theme, I've found having kids has actually helped me be more productive. I don't have the opportunity to work crazy hours. I know I can't catch up in the evening so I have to make every day count. Because my hours are limited to a standard working day I never burn-out, and I'm motivated and ready to go each and every day.
When they were really young it was rough (no sleep, etc.) but now they're a bit older it generally works out well. (Modulo illness. They are both currently coming down with something and it's going to wipe out at least two working days.)
You can artificially create this limitation without having a child.
If you make arrangements at 7pm (e.g. dinner or sports), it forces you to finish everything during the work day so you can go out at night. This deadline can create an artificial sense of urgency to be more productive at work.
You can, and I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think that's what the parent (haha) commenter is arguing.
I'd agree with you even more if the examples better reflect the level of responsibility that parenthood imparts upon you. Being "forced" to go to a dinner vs being "forced" to be home to relieve the nanny are two very different forces. You're more likely to forgive yourself for missing dinner than leaving the kids home alone.
I think that would just turns me into the guy who is always late for events and I hate to be that guy.
Doesn't the 7pm artificial urgency cause you stress?
For me I think it's just a recognition that creative work no matter the discipline artistic, scientific, design, software, whatever is just not simply a 9-5 job. But I'm also just as sure that nothing works for everyone the same way.
I find this too. Just recently had a kid, and when I get home I want to spend time with him/wife, so I know I wont get to work at home/won't want to. It allows me to go hard for 8-9 hours, get home and not spend a day. It also lets me rethink priorities and move my schedule. Its a great thing, really is. Makes you think of ways to be more productive too!
This times ten. Not only does having a kid force you to prioritize your time and truly be productive, but it often changes what you consider truly important and worth spending your precious time on.
As a college athlete turned i-banker right out of school, you are spot on. I never had so many productive days in college when I had little / no time to do work vs. never had so many unproductive days in finance working 100+ hour weeks. I love Jason Fried's quote on this topic: "Workaholics aren’t heroes. They don’t save the day, they just use it up. The real hero is already home because she figured out a faster way to get things done."
Agree 100%. Having children changes your perspective and priorities, and you learn to make every second outside of raising your kids count. Parenthood has also taught me how to let go and say no to doing things which has, in turn, compelled me to work balanced days and to grow up.
God, I hope this is true! Wife and I just had our first kid a month ago, and I can tell ya it's hard to find (or justify) time for side projects with that little bugger* wreaking havoc on my shut-eye! :)
Don't worry, your baby's sleep cycle will stabilize soon, even before he or she is sleeping through the night. Pro-tip: go to bed when your baby does. Mine (5 months) tends to sleep from 10 to 6, waking up around 2 to feed. If I followed my pre-baby sleep schedule (1 to 8), I'd get up after just an hour of sleep to feed her, then get another 3 hours until she woke up again. Bad news bears. But if I go to sleep when she does, and wake up when she does, I'm pretty well-rested even with the feeding in the middle. Also: you can use feedings to get a bit of work done (I save stuff I can do in 45 min to 1 hr for night). Just learn to feed the baby while typing.
sleeping through the night? Please say yes. 3 months is my "If I can just... make it..." mark. Apparently that's when you can start letting them cry it out?
Nope, still gets up about twice in the night to eat. Totally normal though.
Got some good advice recently to not change him in the middle of the night. Less stimulation so he goes back to sleep faster which means you get more sleep too. Felt weird about it at first but it's totally fine. That morning diaper will be a heavy one though!
We don't just let him cry yet, but we're also lucky because the kid doesn't cry unless he needs something so YMMV...
That's really interesting to hear. I would guess that it also potentially helps click the switch from "work, then life" to "life (e.g. kids), then work". I can't imagine any amount of work being as fulfilling as watching your family grow.
This. Just had our first kid and it has changed my life for the better. I have no choice but to have a planned/organized routine which actually has made me more productive. Heck I even have the time to start swimming !!
After having kids, I have become more productive simply because you have to be. It seems like I "wasted" the time before having kids. For example, even with - at the time - a three-year-old and 20-month-old twins, I managed to start a very small, niche web-based business all at night after the family went to bed. (It took me about two months to start this side-business.)
This seems to involved something conceptually similar the part of unscheduling (http://www.lifeclever.com/how-to-unschedule-your-work-and-en...) that has one fill in the calendar with all the non-work things one is going to do. Thus one sees how little time is actually available to get something done, and so not wasting it gets easier.
Part of it is that I wind up with the bulk of the parenting because my wife's life is more demanding than mine. Part of it is that I am no longer able to avoid commutes with the strategy of picking odd hours.
But the sum is that everything is much harder for me now than it used to be. However I love my kids and would not trade them in for the world.
your comment about commutes times resonates w/ me. while i agree w/ the OP, once my oldest hit kindergarten things got a lot tougher.
back when i was working at startups, i found it easy feed/bathe/read to/tuck in my kids every, still did dishes/laundry/etc, and relax for an hour or two w/ my wife each night. i usually coded til around 4/5am each night, and slept til 9.30-10am. i got solid uninterrupted sleep and woke up w/o an alarm clock, it felt great. by the time i went to work (around 10.30), traffic was gone, and my commute was 15m tops. on days i worked at home, i'd wake up, have a coffee, soak up a little sun, and start coding w/in 20-30min of waking. i had two hyper productive sprints each day, first being an hour or so after i woke up, and the second being around 1am after everyone else was asleep. if i got fewer than 5hrs sleep the night before, i'd take ~20-30min nap after putting the kids to sleep. everything rocked.
then my kids started school. although i was working more normal hours at an enterprisey dev job again, but now had to be up at 7-7.30 to get them ready, and walk kid[a] or drive kid[b] to school. on mornings i drive, i spend ~55-65min in the car and wouldn't get to work until i'd already been up 2-3hrs. my window of morning productivity is killed. moreover, since i'm up 2-3hrs earlier, i'm tired earlier and usually just say f-it to working at night. i'm in bed for a longer length of time each day, but feel far less rested. i spend at least an extra hour each day in the car. while i don't need to work as many hours as i did in my startup life, i find myself behind more often b/c i struggle to find productive blocks each day. it's also worlds harder to find time to do things like dishes/laundry/cleaning, whereas i always could squirrel 5-10min here and there when i didn't have to worry about getting my kids somewhere on time. damn you elementary school, damn you.
my 2 cents. either way, kids rock. hardest times are the best times.
Here's one way to think of it. Suppose you're working on a new product, and you have to decide whether to spend 30 hrs or 60 hrs / week on it, over the next two years.
If the difference is between failure in the first case, and success in the second case, then it's either a bad product, or you're bad at planning. If you work half as much, then maybe it will have less features, but a good product should still be viable. And everyone knows predicting how your software will adhere to a schedule is impossible, so the chances are good you wouldn't even get it to work at 60 hrs/wk.
Obviously, an order of magnitude difference in effort should produce a qualitative difference in your product. You can't replace ten good programmers' time with just one.
But picking startup ideas that require you to be working 80 hours a week, is just bad planning -- it's waaaay too risky. When you live in a first world country, and are doing this out of choice (not survival), it's insane to sacrifice your health like that.
If an idea is really good and really sustainable, truly a good business idea, then there are much healthier ways of finding success than working 80 hours weeks -- finding partners, networking better to get investment, etc.
I'm not advocating anything silly like a 4-hour workweek. I'm just advocating realistic expectations, realistic risk management, and realistic work-life balance.
You might get hit by a car two years from now. You don't want to have neglected all the wonderful things in life, like relationships and experiences with people, in exclusive pursuit of a startup over those two years. Even not getting hit by a car, there's a large chance your startup will fail. Don't throw away your life in complete pursuit of a single thing -- healthy balance is key.
I see this again and again and I just don't buy it in all situations. Say in my own company I take your advice and stop working at the 30 hour mark each week.
I am going to have to cut back somewhere, I program and take on support when stuff is thrown to me from other handling it full time. I also like to go through our support to keep a feel for how things are trending and what sort of issues we are having. I also like to stay in the loop on high level business decisions or strategy.
So in cutting back to keep development and the business moving I would probably have to get more hands off with support, which may negatively impact customer satisfaction and business direction at times. I also feel that hiring right now isn't the right option and running lean is somewhat of a competitor advantage for us.
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't feel that I could make it work right now with reduced hours and I assume a lot of startups feel the same.
I agree, it does feel that way. However, it is known that our feelings on this matter do not correspond to reality. Whenever actual performance measurements are taken, it turns out that the productivity loss from chronic fatigue, more mistakes and more time spent trying to fix same etc. more than outweighs any benefit from the extra hours. In other words when you work long hours, you're actually damaging your company as well as your personal life.
In a legitimate land grab style business model you could be working lots of hours for a rather good shot at very large amounts of money. I don't see anything wrong with burning the candle hard for a few years on a well calculated risk for high payoff. However, those situations are quite rare and for the most part people are working themselves to the bone for an expected value payout of peanuts, IMHO. In the 90s software and internet booms there were lots of clear land-grab plays going on where among a handful of entrants first to market with a strong product was going to finish rich, and that was indeed ultimately the case.
After working on a few startups, my experience is that when you operate in crunch mode for a long period of time the line between "crisis" and "normal" blurs and you simply can't distinguish or effectively scale your effort to the situation. This is especially harmful for entrepreneurs when they have to deeply consider their strategic options or programmers when they are trying to refactor code.
I can't tell you how many hours of development I've wasted simply because I didn't want to spend an extra hour thinking through the implications and instead tried to "get 'er done."
I DON'T agree that this means you have to work less than 35 hours a week and take long walks on the beach. I've had really productive times working 100 hours a week. But when you feel burned out or stressed, when you have trouble prioritizing your efforts, when everything feels like it's "way behind" you are going to make mistakes and put effort in the wrong place. It's important to stay balanced, but "balanced" means different things to different people at different points in their career.
I agree, which will be much to the chagrin of the community. I spend less time working, and more time thinking. I find that I am able to get more things done in a shorter amount of time if I have fully thought through exactly what I am doing before I do it. I don't just mean the normal thought process, I mean the meta thought process (is what I am thinking truly accurate). It makes my work a lot better, and I often have to work a lot less to make something that is higher quality. I often out work the people who work twice as much as me, and my work quality is higher. Getting things done is important, getting things done right is more important. If this takes me more time, then so be it. The market doesn't go who gets done first, it goes to the person who does it best.
> The market doesn't go who gets done first, it goes to the person who dos it best.
Except when it goes to the first movers. If your product's success depends on a virtual land grab, it might be better to work those 100's of less productive hours, to get something out the door first.
The first mover advantage is actually quite rare, though. For example, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook were not the first companies in their domain. First movers only have the advantage when you have strong network effects and strong lock-in.
Sure; I'd rather lose the landgrab, get 10% of the market so I can then steal it back with a more quality product in the end. It depends on your goals, if you goal is make a sustainable business that will be around for a long time, its best to think of the long term, which is almost never won by the landgrabber.
The smartphone market is characterised by a 2 year upgrade cycle, it is a lot harder for a company to generate long term loyalty when the consumer is fairly free to pick whichever phone they want after a contract.
Apple also move the market with a mostly new class of phone which changed people's expectations. Which is generally a way to beat a land grabber.
My last semester of college, our capstone course saw me at the head of a team of 5 CS students building a video game. Some of the other teams frequently pulled all-nighters trying to meet the course's ambitious deadline, but the whole semester my team and I never did need to work through the night. We ended up doing better than most teams, too. In fact, the team that "won" spent even fewer hours working than we did.
Anecdotal, to be sure, but I found the inverse relationship between hours worked and quality of product quite interesting.
It might also have been that some groups were coming from further behind. They might have to first learn how to do something in their game then hack up an average first go which works but will need to be refactored later.
Another team with more experience might be able to do the same thing straight away and write it in an extensible way.
Intensity is certainly important and you can lose that if you push too much for too long.
This entirely anecdotal, but I probably wouldn't have graduated with if it weren't for the solutions i 'worked out' during naps. Maybe there's also something to be said for working while not working, not to be too round about.
My boss (Academic scientist) told us that we had to work a 70-90 hour work week to be successful in this business.
I found that funny as I don't count my productivity in hours work, but in the amount of "product" I produce. "Working hard" shouldn't be a function of time, and I think more people need to appreciate that.
This tends to be a little more difficult for people to do however, as it typically requires a lot of hard work up front. For example, it took me a month to figure out how I could make a 45 minute procedure turn into a 7 minute procedure while still maintaining the same quality. But I got it working and I can do 6 times the amount of work in the same amount of time.My free time can now be spent doing other things, such as working on a startup:)
People just don’t do this for some reason. Put the initial investment into what your working on, make it as efficient as possible, and then reap the benefits while being productive AND having enough time to post cat videos on facebook:)
At my current age (25), I don't necessarily agree with this. I do understand the philosophy behind "work smart, not hard", but when I come across these posts where someone is claiming "work less, do more", i question whether they're truly passionate about what they're doing.
My personal opinion as a startup founder, is that there is no such thing as work/life balance. Your startup is your life and your work should contribute to it.
That aside, the post is rather misleading. You're giving advice to others on working less hours and smarter but had you worked smarter previously, you may have a different opinion.
I prioritize my health, take a 5 minute break every 25 minutes (pomodoro technique), and get at lest 7 hours of sleep each night, all things which you seemingly didn't do.
For now, all I can say is that I hope my competitors are reading this and nodding their heads.
Why should you care about whether they are "truly passionate"?
It seems like in your working interactions with people, either they're delivering enough (and delivering what they promised) or not, and they can be judged on that, rather than on abstractions of feelings.
I'm not sure if the guy is American or not, but Americans are more ideological than practical. Being "passionate" about something is more valued than being good. Contrast this to other countries like Germany and Switzerland where a cool headed and calculating competence is seen as more of an ideal attitude towards work.
American, yes. Do I compromise quality at the cost of passion? Most certainty not. But there is something to be said for the value of hiring with a criteria of passion for the idea and space.
I made no implication it was either or. You can certainly have a passionate, cool headed and calculated player on your team.
>passionate, cool headed
These terms are pretty much exclusive, you may want to check a dictionary for "passionate". Unless it's used in some secondary sense different from the usual definition.
He's a startup founder, im posting in this context. Even that aside, I'm aware (most) founders look to hire individuals that are passionate about the space and idea, not someone to simply serve a purpose. That's what outsourcing is for.
One of the things I quickly learned when I started working from home was that if I listened to my body, I was massively more productive when I was at my desk.
Tired? Go nap. Restless? Go run. Stuck in a rut? Go hang out with a friend or play a video game or watch a movie or find something to get your focus off your work.
I found that I could work more and be more productive simply by stopping working when my body(/brain) said "hey, quit". We're not built for 8-5 shifts.
hi HN, I'll take the opportunity of this thread to ask for some advice. My current employer (a billion $ startup, ~200 employees) is asking all of us to work Saturdays (on top of the 12-13 hours I already work daily).
I value my weekends, a lot. It's not that I don't want to work. I love work and on weekends, I still do. I have spurs of intense creativity and code productivity, but I want to keep those weekends for myself.
How do I tell my employer that my weekends are not for sale? What should I expect from them if I say no more?
Tell them that in exchange for 20% more time you expect a 20% pay raise. Talk about all the things you're going to have to give up if you take that extra time, and how that makes you unhappy. Since they're asking for something from you, they can't get mad at you for negotiating something in return. No one can call that unfair with a straight face. Most likely if you do this they probably won't actually give you 20% but will may offer you something much smaller. You can decide to either accept this, or, you can say that their counteroffer is not good enough for you, so you can't take the extra time. That way your reason to refuse is completely impersonal, and not because you don't care.
Regardless, start looking for another job in the meantime. The culture of where you work sounds completely inhumane.
I've been in the same position and it sucks a lot, especially when you aren't even being paid for the extra hours and you don't want to have to leave a company you feel invested in.
Please you need to stand up for yourself and likewise all of us, employers need to know that if they want quality engineers they need to treat them like quality human beings.
We cant let this become the new normal in our industry, the more of us that demand our right the less likely employers will be to try to take them in the future.
How do I tell my employer that my weekends are not for sale?
You could try selling him your weekends. And your nights.
Negotiate your position into a contract where you bill by the hour. That way he can have as many weekends as he likes. He can request you charge him for as many non-productive sleep-addled hours as there are in the week. Offer to "work" 24/7, so long as he's willing to pay.
The other way to pull this off is to get your entire team on board with the concept of "free time", "weekends", and "life". If everybody on your team were to slowly ramp their hours down to 40 per week, your employer would have but two choices: fire everybody or deal with it.
I've done both those things at various companies over the years. Both work nicely, provided you're prepared to land on the open market if things go south.
I'd expect them to show you the door. If you want to stand firm on this point, be ready to look for a new job. (I'd personally be looking for a new job anyway if I was asked to work weekends; there's more to life than work.)
"I'm sorry, that won't be possible." --Miss Manners
Also, if you're in the US and a normal software developer, and depending on your salary, your existing 12-13hr/day schedule may make you eligible for overtime and back pay.
He seems to present a polarized interpretation of work. Either one can race towards burnout by working 100 weeks or they can enjoy 6-hour days, frequent vacations, etc. Both of these are untenable for most people. The majority of people work fairly diligently and their jobs take up the preponderance of their time, but aren't necessarily working hours that are unhealthy. People who work 40-70 hours per week generally fall within this category.
He also doesn't confront the fact that many if not most time commitments are immutable. Most people have certain tasks and obligations need to be done periodically and take a relatively static amount of time. This time expenditure is stable and unlikely to change or disappear anytime soon.
For instance, I know that, between school, various scholastic obligations, and the occasional bit of freelance or personal work, I put in roughly 65-75 hours per week. Obviously, this takes up the majority of my time, but is not all consuming; and I don't believe that it is having any substancial adverse effects on my health. Moreover, these hours are unavoidable, and I couldn't circumvent them even if I wanted to.
In its essence, this post is advocating for the right things insofar as it is encouraging work-life balance and discouraging subjecting oneself to dangerous working hours, but takes a fairly myopic view of work and makes suggestions that aren't really tenable in many situations.
Too much argument over this. Yes, for the majority of individuals over working is going to physically, mentally and emotionally drain them as they're generally trying to balance a separate life. The individual who wrote this article stated that he has a wife. Perhaps spending less time with his wife had some repercussions associated to it. Perhaps he likes his business but isn't completely in love with it. You can't really speak for everyone, that's for sure. It all depends on your purpose, your motive. What's your driving force? Why are you conducting business to begin with? I myself am a business owner and have been working non-stop for the last 10 years (from 18-28). When I'm not working, I'm still mentally engaged. I don't unplug or clock out. To me, it reminds me of when I was a child addicted to gaming. I would blissfully spend 12 hours playing my Sega or Super Nintendo in pursuit to beat whatever game was at hand. When I was at school I was thinking of ways to beat the level that I might have been stuck on for a few days. This is called passion, it's rare but it does exist so although I appreciate the article, I must ask to not advise everyone this same idea.
This advice requires some serious caveats, so be very cautious about following this. I would go so far as to say that this some really bad advice. Here's why:
Once you reach a certain station in life, it's possible to sit back and think about being more effective while not working long hours. In fact, it's probably a great idea since it's easy to get addicted to working 7 days a week with very little sleep and that can wreak havoc on your health, relationships and happiness.
However, barring luck, people don't generally get to that station in life without working those long hours. If you want to be really good at something, it generally requires extreme dedication (yes, I know some people are just naturally talented, but I'm not talking about them). Unless you are one of those lucky ones, you _should_ be working really hard to master whatever it is that you need to master. Ignore people who are already successful trying to tell you to take it easy.
Also, unlike what Kyle says, people are not always working those crazy schedules to out hustle their competition. Often it's just passion and addiction to their own work and the desire to create something good (competition be damned)
Just because you really want to create a great product, why does it follow that you should work 7 days a week? What is this SV obsession with haste? If your business won't be as valuable if you bring it to market 28% slower than you were planning to, maybe it sucks.
Or maybe there's some other aspect to this trend I'm not seeing.
I think in the future companies will realize they can retain exceptional talent by implementing a four day work week. As more and more hackers get older and have kids they will be drawn to companies that support an actual work/life balance, as opposed to the status quo of "its startup life of course you work 60 hour weeks."
That's assuming that you are not expected to simply extend the hours in those 4 days so that your hours per week remain the same or decrease only slightly. . .as some companies currently do.
Just like this post tries to claim "The Hustle™ is bullshit" so is this post.
It's not work hard vs work smart. It's both.
For me, if I sleep less than 8 hours I'm brain dead => 0 productivity.
I am more productive at night than during the day.
I need to change regularly the project I work on, so I am always working on several things at once.
For instance, I am less productive 50hrs a week on the same project than 100hrs a week on several one.
And the list goes on and on..
It's up to each and everyone to see where you start loosing productivity and what makes you a better worker.
As a CEO, this ability of self improvement is something I am always looking for in my employees. (but it's rare)
The last thing I am looking forward to do, is checking the clock. When you pay someone the big bucks, it's not to be changing diapers.
The only thing that is for sure is that in term of productivity, there is no black and white truth or rule.
I can second that. I've been working 30 hour weeks since last year and am more balanced and relaxed since then. Working less also helped me downsize my depression and (as of lately) procrastinatory tendencies. It also gives me more energy to work on my own projects and interests.
If you know exactly what do to, be it writing a pitch the whole day or writing a new feature for a week, you can not shower for the whole week and only eat junk food.
The essence of the post for me however, is that you shouldn't just sit in front of the screen figuring out what to do next. If you arrive at that point, take a brake, hit the gym, reorder your brain. The best ideas come when you do something completely unrelated to your startup and you should do something like this at least 1-2/week.
There's no use in accelerating when you're going in the wrong direction and 5h spent on a great new idea that you just had, is much better than 100h that still won't work. :)
There are such things as "big days". If you have a degree to finish, a conference paper, a demo, a seasonal feature, a lucrative work project, etc. Those are the times when I might neglect my body for 1-2 weeks, sometimes up to 4. Sure, you do have to return back to a normal, stable life after that and maybe have a little break.
In all aspects of life, success is about performing at your peak at just the right time.
While I agree with the author's general sentiment here, he doesn't offer any evidence for his claim (besides anecdotal). Many successful people do put work first, plain and simple.
I choose to spend time not working because I value things other than wealth/power/work (as most people do). But if you want to make a lot of money, working 100 hours a week is a pretty obvious way to do that, IMO.
Can someone please explain to me how this applies to students? I have read a lot of articles talking about enjoying life more and working more efficiently (the 4-Hour Work Week is perhaps the most convincing literature I've read on this topic), and although I actually wholeheartedly AGREE with this mindset, I can't see how I can start applying these ideas until I'm out of school.
Are students forever bound to their over-demanding schedules? Or is there some way for us to embrace the philosophies of freedom and joy prior to joining the real world?
So how do you do this if you get paid by the hour? Obviously you can raise your rate and decide how much you need to work for your sanity and for how much you want to earn, but is there anything else?
Once your skillset is good enough, you can charge enough so that those hours you do work are enough to get you by. Sanity and health are huge. I've also had health problems by working too many hours nonstop in the past. Not worth it in the long run.
I think the issue of productivity extremely depends on the person.
For me: I like to work 4 14hr days with a 2 hour gym break in the middle. Not 4 days in a row either.
This works for me because the gym really breaks up my work day and I am most efficient when I get "in the zone". Also, when I am in the zone, I hate being interrupted or leaving work. It takes 2-3 hours for me to get into the zone some times though.
I am 24 years old, the lead engineer at my company, amateur personal trainer, and power lifter.
This article isn't very convincing. (I'm not saying he's wrong.) His point is that working less makes you happier and more productive, but he doesn't really talk about how or why or give any cases illustrating such. All he really ends up arguing is that overworking is bad, which is nothing new.
For what it's worth, though, I agree with what he's trying to imply. If the amount of time you work is increasing by n and your work quality is decreasing by n^2, you're screwed.
I tried shifting from measuring how long I work to measuring results. And it was more traumatic. I would be agonizing everyday that I was taking so long to come up with anything concrete. It was especially true for doing anything creative, where its not really correlated to time spent.
What I would really like to know is how to shut off the entrepreneur guilt. There's always something to do at any time, and you're perennially guilty.
I think this is all true, but you could also make a viable argument for working more. I personally love the satisfaction you get after working those long days. It's like a high you get after an intense run. It helps that I personally love the work I am doing, so working 16 hour days feels like 5 hours. I am only 21, maybe it catches up with you the older you get, but for now 16 hour days are fine by me.
I was like that at 21 (10 years ago) -- sad to report it won't last!
My theory is, at the hormones of late teens to mid-twenties, anything is awesome. A stoner with a PlayStation and 3 boxes of donuts all day at that age has the time of his life! A DJ feeling out new tunes has. A coder doing 16-hour days has. An athlete does. A bro at a sports bar, too. Everything is just amazing at that age because pretty much nothing affects your well-being in any way, or rather, recuperation from any kind of abuse is at its all-time peak.
Enjoy the ride! And yeah, take a day off every once in a while to ride bikes with friends and travel on the cheap. Better to burn out at 28 than at say 23 ;D
Wow! The audacity on two things:
1. Stop trying to cap my passion by throwing a number of hours I can spend doing it.
2. You built a "Task" app. I'll consider any opinion from you when you're actually contributing to the advancement of our species rather than tagging along old created technologies.
No, no, no. What you should do is work smarter. Instead of blindingly working hard, just work hard on the things that provide results. I work 12 hours a day (at the least), but only on the things that get results. I learned to just let go and re-focus quickly.
kyle if you read this then please answer me. I am going against your voice. It's not make me thing that you are right.
For you You are "Former Founder". I am sure you have a lot of penny and future safe in your pocket.
What about people who new newcomer and newbie. Is this applied to us. I am weak in English and programming both. Are this applicable to everyone who just got started. I means this strategy help them to do.
You make me confused.I hope someone can tell me the difference & reason about mine and their thoughts.
I think that it applies to everyone. To me, it's about the quality of your work vs. how much you're working. I think that even as someone newer to programming (or English), building a routine of a few "smart" hours of work (that is, being productive and effective) will almost always have a better outcome than working many, many hours but not being effective in how you're working. Get into a routine. Develop a system for yourself. Set realistic goals. I think you'll be surprised at what you're capable of accomplishing.
If you are new to something you should work a lot and hard at it. The only way to get better at something is to do more of it, not read about it, not talk about, just do. Just make sure you like what you are doing and that it's worth it and satisfying for you to work at it. I think at the end of the day its a question of wanting to be good or great at something.
It's not easy finding that right balance, if there is one. Some people (like me at times) also like to work by doing sprints (2/3 crazy weeks) then resting (3/4 days vacation).
Finding the right balance is the hardest part, IMO. There's certainly no "right" answer, so long as you're doing work for the right reasons and can keep sight of the things which truly matter.
But if you want to be the next Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates or Elon Musk, do you work smart but not that hard or do you work smart and work hard like they did?
Its not about how you manage your week, its about how you manage your day. Instead of working 4 days hard, and then 3 days of workouts, paleo and meditation --- try blending.
Meditate. Work 3hrs. Eat/Relax. Work 2.5hrs. Gym. Eat. Relax. Work 3hrs. Read.
These articles periodically work their way up HN's pages. People argue. In this very thread as in most others, "You should work hard" posts are greeted with "show me the data", while the article and comments to the effect of "slow down" are greeted with feel-good affirmation.
All I know is that in my 25 year career, the periods where I worked my ass off were the ones that I'm most proud of because of the contracts won, projects completed, and general sense of accomplishment.
I am highly skeptical of this "work less to achieve more" meme working its way through the industry. It seems to be one of those things where developers are trying to convince each other of its validity for obviously selfish reasons. It reminds me of the religiously minded folks who latch onto any justification that will reinforce their notions of a glorious afterlife.
In my 25+ year career, the periods where I accomplished the most and am most proud of my accomplishments are in fact those times I averaged somewhere between 25 and 30 hours per week.
Those times when I've been part of a team that valued ass-in-seat-time(tm) have been the times when I'm most embarrassed of what we produced.
Where I work now, there's a pair of workaholics who produce insane amounts of code.
Management loves them.
They are the only ones who can understand their code and of course management thinks that's because they're smarter than everyone else.
I'll be nice and suggest that perhaps there is a different reason nobody else understands their code.
Ohh please, it's a mess over there (I have family who has lived there for almost 20 years who I talk to regularly). France is on a steady decline. If this was so great - why are things getting worse over there rather than better?
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
That said, productivity/achievement might be a bit overrated. Will your life be better and will you be happier when you achieve your goal? Will you ever achieve it? Most of us disregard the fact that wealth is not remotely correlated with happiness and still hunt for the big payday.
[edit: lots of folks are asking for data. FWIW, I founded and ran RescueTime, so I was hip dip in this world for a long time.
The data actually shows that, for line workers, hours worked have diminishing returns. However, when you look at people at the top of their game (executives, etc), they work extreme hours. Correlation does not equal causation, of course. But when you look at the most successful/productive people in your circles, how many of them talk about work/life balance, have lots of hobbies, etc? Maybe they're successful DESPITE their crazy work hours, for all I know.]