Dentsu CEO resigns after overworked employee commits suicide
money.cnn.com
money.cnn.com
"Traditionally, salarymen (and they are, by the way, mostly men) are hired into a particular company late in university and stay at that company or its affiliates until they retire."
"The employee hereby promises the company: Your first obligation, in all things, will be to your company. You will work incredibly hard (90+ hour weeks barely even occasion comment) on their behalf."
"Salarymen work large amounts of overtime, although much of it is for appearance’s sake rather than because it actually accomplishes more productive work. Depending on one’s company, this overtime may be compensated or “service overtime” — “service” in Japanese means “thrown in for free in the hopes of gaining one’s further custom”, so your favorite restaurant might throw in a “service” desert once in a while or you might do 8 hours of “service” overtime six nights a week for 15 years."
The whole post is a great read that comes from a first-hand experience.
That's just stupid. It makes me wonder, though: is the work culture similar for ex-patriots working in Japan?
If you were a cs student in 1995, you pretty much had to work in one of the basement labs. One of the profs liked to come to the lab at 3am before a deadline and laugh at us.
Also we didn't really have many people with laptops, so if you had a group project meeting in the lab was pretty much the only way you could all get computers but still interact with each other.
The social aspects of the old labs made for many memories and lessons.
On the other hand, most of my peers consistently stayed up through the night during examinations. Most of my peers studied in groups. I sat in on a few sessions and discovered that for every hour of study, an hour was spent on petty discussions. I stopped attending them since.
I'm now doing a PhD, so that may all change. I did fine during my first semester, so we'll just have to see.
I had a similar experience. Even through my PhD at a top-tier school in applied math, I didn't do "all-nighters" or cram sessions. In fact, after my first 2 years of PhD (where I regularly put in 80 hours a week because of the course load), I toned it down to 40-50 hours. I also didn't use performance enhancing drugs meant to treat things like ADHD.
I did (and still do) use a lot of coffee in the mornings. I also recommend going out to bars to have those petty discussions, so that socializing is reliably separated study.
I was surrounded by people who, like you said, regularly stayed up all night prior to exams. Sometimes we even scheduled that: the students would organize study-group sessions from 10PM-til.
I had a policy then that, no matter what, I was going to get a full night's sleep. Period. Full stop. I think it served me very well. A quick refresher in the morning gave me probably as much recency in terms of memory, and personally, my brain just works a lot, lot better with plenty of sleep. Even if I didn't know an answer, it was a lot easier to stay calm and rationalize something that often turned out to be right or good enough.
I only felt a little bad about it once - in a math class I left the study group right before my bedtime, while still getting the notes they'd put together the rest of the night. I felt a little uneasy about not pulling my weight, so to speak, but oh well. It could have been scheduled earlier and I would have gladly stayed.
So I'd keep it up.
Nowadays things are a little different for me - a lot of my job unfortunately involves being present regardless of whether there's anything to actually do. I worked two-and-a-half days straight a couple months ago. No overtime pay. :\
I'm exactly the same! Unfortunately, sleep is extremely underrated nowadays.
Someone on Quora asked Jimmy Wales (yes, it's a thing) what he regretted not doing enough during his youth. His answer was getting enough sleep. His argument was that, as you grow older and get more responsibilities, you'll get less and less sleep, so why not get the most rest while you can?
> Even if I didn't know an answer, it was a lot easier to stay calm and rationalize something that often turned out to be right or good enough.
That's a very valuable skill in my opinion, and I think it carries over well to stressful situations in general.
Learning and study, along with their career path, is different for everyone.
> That's just stupid.
That's overtime. Almost all overtime, even in the US, is as much about the appearance of working hard rather than any real gains in productivity.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been involved with or seen a startup that "crushes code 100 hours a week because we're out to win, man", with most of those late nights spent with a room full of people online shopping or on HN.
Works great for manual labor.
Source: woke in construction
I can code 80 hour weeks for a bit. Put out a ton of code. Can't do it for a month straight. But I could do manual labor overtime for a month straight.
Factory sent from 2 8 hour shifts to 2 10 hour shifts. They got quite a bit more production without the full cost of adding a third shift.
As a programmer I'm not sure extra pay would help. My brain can only code so many hours.
If you ever find yourself working in Japan, use your foreignness to an advantage!
I'm at my 3rd company in Japan now and while some of my previous experiences were bad, it was really more the fault of the company with things you could easily find in other countries as well and not "because Japan".
Too bad I don't have perks of using foreignness there...
[0]: https://hideki.hclippr.com/2011/06/02/social-expectations-in...
Even if you work for a foreign company, the way personal relationships work is very different from the states. That had taken me a decade to realize.
I'm glad you didn't make the same mistake I did.
For what it worth, I work for a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese company in the States and I'm doing very well :-)
Expatriates.
I definitely saw salarymen on trains falling asleep or all heading out in packs to bars though, so I have no doubts about there being a very hard-working middle-class that also has extra-office obligations.
To be clear this is not just a company issue it's a cultural issue. If the company does not have a policy of "go home at 6pm" the default culture everyone expects is "work late", especially for men.
My American brain tells me this is an insane way to live. No work life balance. It's horrible inefficient, as you can't downsize, or compete international like this. You're forced to hangout with coworkers.
However, having this long term stability with work is something that is sorely missed in the US. A pension? Job for life?
No one gets these things anymore.
Sure, companies 'evolve' (for better or worse) and theoretically your job changes as you climb the ladder, but surely you job learning and loving work if you do the same thing for 40+ years?
I guess this is the difference between people who see work as an obligation vs an opportunity.
If you don't have a 401k benefit, you can fund an IRA yourself.
Many folks are learning the hard way that you really don't want to bet your retirement on a single company remaining both solvent and honest for the next 70 years.
PROTIP: one can look for remote programming work in the U.S. or Europe, earn a decent living, and still engage in a NEET lifestyle. I have a steady diet of HN, anime, Perl, and reclusiveness and it works great for me.
Japan has a 40 hour work week and a max of overtime a person can volunteer for. In a month this limit is an additional 45 hours. An employee can agree to more overtime but the source refers to some labor safeguards that are supposed to kick in: https://www.jetro.go.jp/en/invest/setting_up/laws/section4/p...
So in essence, she worked more than double the allowed overtime (around 65 hours per week total work time).
For example if you look at EU countries, the ones with the economy in worse conditions are those with longer working hours (Greece, Italy).
Unfortunately these are the only links I can find given 2 min and I don't believe that they cite WWII research:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/12/working-...
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/
https://medium.com/building-asana/work-hard-live-well-ead679...
(What I like about Dustin's post is that he mentions that you can have a boost in productivity if you work longer hours temporarily like say for two weeks. Beyond that, there's no gain in productivity and most often there's actually a net loss)
The worst productivity I ever had was in frantic overtime rushes at the end of projects. There's definitely a link between working hours and productivity.
It seems the economic pressure for supporting this bullshit story is still too strong. Sigh.
Hence, for me currently, more hours is always more productivity.
That doesn't inherently mean you work more than 40 hours a week, no?
And this fits the data: why would companies not dramatically push people to work fewer and fewer hours for this magical increased productivity that you're claiming? They could market it as a perk AND get so much more done!
What I think is happening: there's little cost to companies to encourage workers to work 60 hours instead of 40. Sure, they won't get 50% more done, maybe only 20% or 30%, but the company doesn't pay overtime, so that's a free 20% or 30%.
Of course, there's some point at which overwork does start to impact overall productivity vs standard-40-hours, but it's much, much higher than 40 hours. This study [0] seems to indicate that little extra gets done from 55-70 hours, but from my reading, that still doesn't indicate that someone working 70 hours gets less done than someone working 40 hours. Looking at figure 4 in that study, it looks like you'd have to go to 90-100 hours to see output drop back to 40-hour levels.
It just seems ludicrous to me to suggest that for the population at large, working 40 hours is the optimal amount, such that anything less will result in greater overall productivity, and anything more will lower overall productivity. Really?
Currently leading a team I see different behavior from team members working longer hours. For example, we had a conversion to do that was running into a deadline. Together with a team of 4 we worked into the evenings to get it done. 2 of them 'compensated' by being there but browsing more Reddit, the other 2 actually sat down and got the work done.
I see a lot of comments justifying the first kind of behavior, and it doesn't make sense to me. If you are not productive because you are on HN, you're doing that to yourself. At 40-60h we're in the realm of that being a choice, and then you're choosing not to be productive.
FWIW, I'm not trying to justify people working long just to show that they are there/committed. That's a terrible practice too.
In software development, I'd argue there's rarely a significant difference between marginal and overall productivity. It really boils down to personalities however, let's be real; and I am not gonna claim my point of view is universally true because it too isn't.
The more and more you work, the more BS you start to produce. You are tired, you start to imagine your bed (or girlfriend, or TV, or whatever floats your boat) and you start putting less thought into what you do and just go into "spear mode". One of my former managers used to say "If I see you tired, I prefer letting you go at Friday 14:00 so you don't spend your entire Monday fixing the bugs you introduced during the second half of that Friday".
This is a real phenomena. Granted it doesn't apply for everyone, but IMO you discard way too quickly those of us that do need some freedom and some "slack" to actually be more productive. And it's very generous to call the normal legal requirements not to work over 40 hours a week "slack".
This is also real: when I am having a very hard time and I can't solve something and I get nervous and stressed out, and if you're my manager and tell me "Dimi, just call it a day right here, you can do it tomorrow" -- you can be VERY sure I'll do it tomorrow. While conversely if you tap me on the shoulder 10 times for the remainder of the day, I can guarantee you I'll get absolutely nothing done. Different strokes for different people.
So no, "the free 20-30%" isn't something that the company can get from everyone.
Or are you actually in agreement about the shape of the productivity vs hours worked curve but you disagree where the peak is for software developers? If so, where is that peak do you think?
It's the latter from your comment -- I disagree where the peak is for software developers. But I can't give you absolute numbers that I can claim are true for everyone. There's no such thing. I am a proponent of the per-individual approach.
That being said, if we try and devise a good median number -- I've read quite a few articles several years ago that claimed that 27-32 hours of work are not only the peak of the programmer's productivity but that's also the working schedule that makes people want to work more in their free time. So in terms of your "free 20-30%", for people like myself a 30-hour work week would likely result in free 50% once every several weeks.
Not feeling forced into unproductive schedules gives your brain and psyche a good leisure time during which you occasionally find yourself thinking about the work problems in a chill state -- and it's also often the case you reach for your laptop on the couch to try and solve them outside of the working hours.
Again, it's subjective. I knew several people who worked best when they were given tight schedules and impossible work hours. I have to somewhat gloatingly add that all of them ended up in hospitals and subsequently became very strong advocates of low-to-medium working hours. So IMO the "punch the sun!" people don't live a sustainable work life.
Now in this situation one can try to get that bump again by going to 60 instead of 50. Or one can reduce hours from 50 to 40 and suffer (in the short term) a negative bump with the idea that it will bounce back. Given that the short term bump is immediate, and the readjustment takes some time to make itself shown; and given that short term results dominate ones thinking, we can see how one will continue to choose longer and longer hours.
Greece is in a crisis because of the combination of:
a) massive, pervasive tax evasion
b) insane overspending in the public sector.
Or, well, cooking the books.
Also: Knowing what I've learned about Greece the past five years I wouldn't really put much trust in government-collected data on how much they work.
But in some way it's a small reflection of an inefficient society.
I think it should make sense to have extended working hours in tourism, but it doesn't make sense in office work.
===
Y = zF(K,L)
Output = Total Factor Productivity * Function of (Capital, Labor)
===
Think of TFP as all the environmental variables that make up "technological dynamism" or the economy's technological infrastructure (horse -> steam -> coal -> oil, human capital/education, etc.) that increase productivity in fundamental but intangible ways, and that can only be calculated indirectly.
If you hold TFP (z) and Capital (K) constant, an increase in Labor (L) (total number of hours worked) should increase output.
If investment in capital is decreasing (which it currently is) and subsequently the stock of capital decreases; or, if the TFP is decreasing (which is currently is), an increased amount of labor is required to keep output constant.
Weak/declining output = slow/negative GDP growth = "bad economy"
The "Cobb-Douglas" output model takes this simple model one step further by embedding the output elasticities of labor and capital into the production function, allowing one to build in diminishing marginal returns. I.E. every hour of labor or unit of capital above a certain point produces less output than the previous hour/unit. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_productio...
This is the economic explanation for the diminishing marginal returns of labor.
(Both in terms of government subsidies and extreme working hours. And: contrary to the opinion of the united socialist workers of HN, extreme hours sometimes are sometimes actually needed in order to build something new, desirable - well before anyone else. The fact that "extreme hours" are also employed when that is not really the target does not really change things.)
[0] http://www.internationalman.com/articles/what-is-face-in-asi...
Somewhat less sarcastically, if you're going to attempt to apply "Oriental" concepts here, I'd go with wa here: there is a set order here and it's not the junior's role to disturb it.
Sure, Japan has a strong concept of avoiding causing trouble to others, and of respecting your superior by waiting for them to leave, but that's not the main cause for overtime.
Excessive worktime (長時間労働) is a very hot topic right now in Japan and I've seen several surveys popping out in TV shows. Here are some I found online: https://jinjibu.jp/article/detl/manage/226/3/ http://www.jil.go.jp/institute/research/documents/research02...
All this surveys give more or less the same picture: the number one reason stated for working long hours is "Too much work to complete in normal working hours". "This type of job requires overtime by definition" and "I want to do my work properly" come second. Unlike Western tech companies, deadlines only come in the middle, and "Not wanting to leave earlier than my peers or my superior" comes dead last.
When I arrived the bug software had 40 open bugs. When I ended my contract, the bug software had 4 open bugs and 36 bugs awaiting QA resources to be assigned. I'm not exaggerating.
I've seen companies with departments that work 40 hour weeks, and accomplish pretty much nothing at all. For various reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWX6--sQtsA
In it, you see how all the lights automatically turn off at 10 PM. You can judge how many offices still have workers in them by the lights being turned back on.
So how can people feel a need to work 100hrs?
It is very difficult if not impossible to move one company to other mid-career, especially past certain age (job listing in Japan may can list upper age limit), as Japanese hires are very focus on graduates on given year.
One reason is because it is not easy to fire people, one wouldn't find opportinities elsewhere, so they are often forced to put up with their situations without much controls.
People who get sent to those "do nothing" room (they call it many ways to sounds politically correct, things like "career development department") are those company wishes to fire. There are scandals on these time to time, but instead of letting them watch TV all day it usually consists of meaningless tasks or simply forbidding to do anything to force them quit voluntary, but these are certainly newsworthy extremes.
I will omit reasons for long hours as these are discussed elsewhere in other threads.
What happens in Japan if you put in a simple 40-hour week, do good work, and then leave at the end of the day? I also understand their government makes it very difficult to fire employees. And I can't imagine they'd reassign you to watch the paint dry if you're actually doing good work. Would you mainly miss out on promotions?
Is it just a social thing, or is it economic? Since it's harder to fire people in Japan, there's a lot of risk to hiring a new employee. So maybe the culture helps weed out uncommitted people, which helps derisk hires? Or, to a certain extent, lets you get more productive hours out of them.
The little I know about Japan is from Anime, books, articles and online comments.
In Japan, leaving before the boss is distasteful. Also, going home early instead of socializing after work is frowned upon even by one's spouse.
I've also read that there's no job hopping. Employee for life is still a thing there. And an ex-employer's comment is heavily weighted by prospective employers.
Additionally, loyalty is highly valued, probably more than ability.
This Wikipedia article is a good summary of Japanese work environment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_work_environment
My personal management policy is I get in before and leave after all my employees incase they need me and to show them that I am there for/with them (within reason - if someone is putting a really late night I may leave first).
The idea of not leaving before the boss leaves is weird to me. I get higher pay and more stock options, why should I be leaving early when my team is working their butt's off?
Edit: I realize this could be taken as a ploy from me to get the team to work more hours. But I also don't shame employees for leaving before me. It's not a contest. If they get their work done they shouldn't feel guilty leaving at 5:00.
If they get their work done, should they feel guilty leaving at 3:00?
People who don't like what they do won't do this, of course.
I had people who got in at 7, left at 3. No problem.
Should they feel guilty leaving early if they finished their work?
Should they feel guilty leaving late if they haven't finished their work?
Good for you. Do you spread this message widely? OA5[1] on a t-shirt or something?
[1] Scott Adams Out at Five as an organising principle.
No, but as I pointed out in another post. The average number of hours worked is barely more than 40 so I think people get it.
As far as "out at five" goes... we have flex hours so some people don't even get in until 10:30... if they left at 5 it would be a very short week for them.
For two reasons:
- You get higher higher pay because hopefully you are more useful to your company than the other people in your team.
- You are probably forcing your team to work longer than they would if you left before them.
More precisely, some people come in late (10:30 or so) and some people come in early (7AM or so)... I come in before the 7 AM people and leave after the people who came in at 10:30. But none of them work excessively. (except for me)
Close but not perfect. My correction would be "even if they don't get their work done, they shouldn't feel guilty leaving at 5:00."
The reason I say this is because one could easily argue that there's always more work to be done. That's always been the case for me anyway. But tomorrow is another day. When you've put in a full workday already, nobody should make you feel guilty for leaving just because there's more work to do. There's always more work to do!
Further, Japanese people work long hours. Some will due to peer pressure. Some will cause they have nobody waiting at home. In some workplaces your colleagues are like friends. So, they socialize a lot during work hours. I think there is no single reason why Japanese people work longer hours than Europeans for example.
I am convinced however, that on the average a Japanese employee takes a huge amount of pride from doing a good job. The point: How to judge if a job was executed well or not? I experience this not to be so easy mostly due to the Japanese style of communication, which leaves a lot of space for ambiguity. Maybe long work hours stem from this.
In some ways, I admire the French approach to work/life balance.
How many of us know people in North America who are putting in those kinds of hours? You know, gotta "go the extra mile" for the startup, and all.