Hacker News Reader

Comment by edw519 | Hacker News Reader

In addition to the usual work-day schedule, I expect all of the members of the group to work evenings and weekends. You will find that this is the norm here at Caltech.

Then you're doing it wrong at Caltech.

We are often quick to assume that MoreHoursWorked = MoreWorkGettingDone. This is true up to a point, but false beyond that point. Personally, I believe that evenings and weekends are usually beyond that point.

I used to work 90 hours per week. But when I decided that I needed to get more done, I started working 60 hours per week. Results per hour and quality of results have both improved dramatically, so I'll never go back. And I would never work for anyone who doesn't understand this.

View on HN

I recall that some studies showed that long term productivity is maximized at around 40 hours a week (at least on average) [citation needed, please]. When we go from 40 hours to 60, productivity rises temporarily, then falls. The fifth crunch time week is even less productive than a standard 40 hour week. After 2 months, the benefits of the first week are cancelled out. Finally, when we go back to 40 hours a week, productivity plummets, then rises to it's standard level.

But the most interesting thing is that long term perceived productivity is higher at 60 hours a week than at 40. Because of that, it is very difficult to realize that overtime is a mistake (emergencies aside).

I would also understand that not all people are alike. Some may be most productive at 35 hours a week. Some may be most productive at 50. But 60 hours sound like much. Maybe you could try to work even less for a month and see the results? (And of course try to measure your productivity reliably. Going from 60 hours to 50 or 40 may be beneficial, but less so than going from 90 hours to 60.)

Here's a meta-citation for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=971708

In short, Henry Ford did experiments in his factory and decided that 40h/week was optimal. Unfortunately, this figure has stuck, even though newer research indicates that for knowledge work and creative work, less than 40 is more appropriate. (35-40 suggested by these slides: http://www.lostgarden.com/2008/09/rules-of-productivity-pres... )

I know the same numbers, but they are for programmers. There are jobs where number of hours worked is by far the best predictor of output. OP's work may or may not be among them - sometimes science is a lot more like picking cotton then creative design.

Then they need to change the way they operate their labs, because they don't need someone with 25 years of education picking cotton.

Wow, if one can increase productivity by reducing hours from 90 to 60, then again (as you say) from 60 to 40, then what really is the optimal hours worked per week? I would think it largely depends on the task at hand - manual labor or academic. I know when I framed houses I could do 6x10s and was wasted beyond that and useless, but mental work can be exhausting also. I know with practice one can build up the ability to work longer hours physically and I suspect with training you could do the same mentally. The bigger question, however, is people are expected to have a life outside of work, too. Personally, I'd like to see 35 hours as you suggest as the law.

For the software industry at least Steve McConnell's classic Code Complete cites several studies showing that total productivity (not just per hour productivity) is maximized at just slightly above 40 hours per week, and bouts of prolonged overtime don't generally translate to greater output. My own anecdotal evidence tends to support this.

My personal limits hover at around 30/35 hours a week. Any additional hour is spent surfing the web, struggling the urge to sleep, drinking tea, in brief various task that may easily pass for work but aren't productive at all.

I wonder if a typical trait of successful founders is to be excited/determined enough to do good work (=results/time) while putting in obscene hours. Is this true?

No. Pretend otherwise if you want by saying 'well what if it is this kind of work' but consistently working more than 40 hours per week is counter-productive. Every study shows this.

And there's no need to put in obscene hours, or expect it. As it's counter-productive... See where this is going...

These studies were done during WW2 to investigate ways to increase productivity in the US arms factories. Note that this was with a workforce that wanted to produce as much as possible, not a workforce that was coerced to.

Their conclusion to maximize productivity was to work 40 hours most of the time, with occaisional bursts at 60.

My view is everyone is built and wired a little differently. I love these behavioral management studies too, but certainly there exist people who can stay very productive at the 80 hour a week mark for a few years.

If the professor mentioned properly selects for such people out of his mountain of applicants and the group's culture thrives on it, then he's running a tight ship.

Well, this is dated 1996...so you have a 14 year management theory edge over Professor Carreira. Additionally, he's no longer at Caltech, but now heads a lab in Zurich, though it gives off the same 'patent factory' vibe (http://www.carreira.ethz.ch/).

We are often quick to assume that MoreHoursWorked = MoreWorkGettingDone

That assumes sustainable productivity as our highest goal, though. I think that's a good one and plainly you do too. But external measures of productivity are not always their own reward: some will sacrifice external position for internal strength. Working the juniors like slaves, with the resulting high turnover, means fewer competitors for publication credit or questions about your strategic approach: those who hate you leave as soon as they can, those who remain are inclined to do what they're told. Look at countries which are dictatorships; they know quite well that open societies tend to be substantially richer, but conversely they're much harder to boss around and it's often safer to be the big fish in a small pond.

Not saying this is true of the professor in question, but his tone certainly suggests an authoritarian demeanor.

>> ...You will find that this is the norm here at Caltech.

> Then you're doing it wrong at Caltech.

at Caltech.

This isn't really about the 90-hour workweek. Occasionally, it transpires that you have 90 hours of work to do and only one week to do it in.

What's repellant is that the words "at Caltech" add no meaning to that sentence. They are included purely to argue from authority:

"You will find that this is the norm here."

"You will find that this is the norm here at Caltech."

"You will find that this is the norm here at Caltech, and who are you to violate the norms of such a prestigious institution?"

Scientists are supposed to know better than this.

Scientists are supposed to know better than this.

Maybe we shouldn't suppose so much.

I don't understand this mentality. He is focuses on hours worked not on results. Are research grants given based on number of hours spent researching by grad students?

I'm perplexed how you fail to grasp such a simple concept as is our laboratory's quality standards. I will however notify you again - that you are always expected to perform at highest levels of performance. Or shall I have to remind you, that you should be amongst elite students. If you are unable to perform to these modest standards, I will have to replace you with some uneducated poor asian farmer. Who will be more than willing to fulfill my simple requests. There are people out there who would be able to show some gratitude for such opportunity.

If you are unable to perform to these modest standards, I will have to replace you with some uneducated poor asian farmer. Who will be more than willing to fulfill my simple requests.

I don't know how long I'd be willing to stick around doing work that could be done by a poor asian farmer.

Tell that to the millions of World of Warcraft subscribers.

They're just implementing his brilliantly conceived research program. As long as they have their hand-eye coordination, they can continue to churn out the fruits of his vision. All the names on the following his on the resulting papers and patents are the scientific equivalent of "sent from my iPhone."

One thing you (and others here) may be overlooking is that chemistry is largely an experimental science. Performing experiments takes a lot of time, because the experiments take time, but often they take on the order of hours and you can use that time for other stuff. When I was graduating in physics, I often went to the lab on evenings, in weekends, hell, even on Boxing day. However, when I was there, I usually wasn't working on my thesis; I was just running experiments. In the meantime, I read books, went to the gym, surfed the web, etc. It's far from ideal, as 'the job' is on your mind 24/7 and it ties you up a bit, but it is not as bad as it may seem to an outsider not realizing what actually went on when I was at the lab.

Results per hour improved, but did total results improve? I think you're implying they did, but you kind of stated it wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com