Treehouse CEO says 32-hour, 4-day workweek created “a lack of work ethic” | Hacker News Reader

Treehouse CEO says 32-hour, 4-day workweek created “a lack of work ethic”

businessinsider.com

38 pointsdanso23 comments

Not much of value at all in this article, but it’s worth pointing out the actual quote used for the head —

"It created this lack of work ethic in me that was fundamentally detrimental to the business and to our mission," Carson added. "It actually was a terrible thing."

In other words, all we know from the article is that this affected the CEO’s work ethic.

Edit: In fact, I think this is worth a flag for being both misleading and unsubstantive.

It was unclear to me from reading the article whether the thirty-two hour week is still in effect for employees or not. He's abandoned it, but has the rest of the company?

It seems reasonable that a schedule that suits the deep focus and creativity required for knowledge work is not as well adapted to the demands placed on a CEO.

There is a little note in there re: the employees:

"Carson explained to GrowthLab Live recently that the four-day workweek he had for his employees was ultimately nixed in 2016."

And I generally agree that a CEO in particular may struggle with this, which is why I give his personal statement the benefit of the doubt. Beyond that I would expect some sort of actual data to support any other claim about the business as a whole. This article implies a lot and delivers essentially nothing.

As others have pointed out, the CEO killed the 4-day workweek for the entire company. Sure, he (wisely) didn’t comment on his employees’ work ethic, but actions speak louder than words. In my opinion, it is still interesting to see him explain the change. That he doesn’t seem to have an explanation beyond “it’s not you it’s me” is still notable.

I always wondered[1] if shorter days would be better for folks than fewer/longer days would be. 5x6 instead of 4x8.

I figure you would have shorter "monday/friday syndrome" days. Longer hours also make you more mentally tired, etc.

[1]: I have /absolutely/ no evidence to back this up.

There were a study 2 years ago stating that people older than 40 works better if only 3 days a week [0]. Another one told if more than 5 hours a day, work like ours (mainly working with our head instead of our hands) decline in efficiency (sorry, no reference)

So I would go for a « it depends ».

But something is sure, if you have to commute, you’ll prefere working 4 days instead of 5.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/workers-over...

I switched to a 5x6 schedule earlier this year and its fantastic. Less traffic in both directions, more time in the morning to exercise and enjoy breakfast, easier to run errands in the afternoon. I also feel less burnt out and more productive during the time I am at work.

I took a small cut in salary to do it, but it was completely worth it.

It really really depends on the job. A call center job I had years ago was absolutely miserable as a 4 x 10 schedule. Another gig I had used the 9/80 schedule - 5 x 9 hour days, then 4 x 9 hour days, off a weekday every other week. (so every other weekend was a 3 day weekend.)

now I work in a completely different field (fire/EMS) and we have a 24 hour on/48 hour off rotation. 24 hours seems like an awfully long time, and if you're in a busy area, it can be, but for those 24 hours we live at the station.

Did he start the shorter work week in 2006 or 2015?

The article quotes

> Back in 2015, Carson said he was motivated by those findings.

but if you go to the atlantic article (https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/396527/case-32-hour-...)

It says since 06. A 1 year experiment doesnt seem that long or if it was since 06, shouldnt he have noticed it was bad for him before a whole decade passed (ended in 2016)

As technology advances, it seems there will be a need for less work hours. Not yet, though it seems.

As with any other big cultural shift (I see some parallels with remote working), it looks like there must be processes and other practices/support systems/safeguards in place to make sure it runs smoothly.

It's important to note that the CEO makes pains to specify that it created a lack of work ethic in him:

https://youtu.be/CJcTdA55aWA?t=65

Whether or it meant his employees were delivering less work wasn't mentioned. He felt like he had less of a work ethic, so it seemed to be nixed.

Which is kind of shitty tbh, if it was just him. Because I think it's also reasonable to say that the CEO/founder of a startup will probably need to put in more hours than their employees. It's not fair maybe, but then, the CEO/founder is also reaping most of the rewards.

If the 4-day week was good for the rest of his employees, why would he roll it back? I think he’s being diplomatic in his explanation, as it doesn’t look good to insinuate in public that the failure of a bold idea was the fault of the employees.

That's fair enough, it sounds like as with any other big cultural shift (I see some parallels with remote working), there must be processes and other safeguards in place to make sure it runs smoothly.

I work 12 hours on Wednesdays and only 1-2 hours the other days. I’m plenty successful, and most importantly, ridiculously happy.

Do any of these supposedly lazy employees have meaningful equity participation? Or is this just another self-entitled techbro whining that other people aren’t making him richer at the rate he’s accustomed to?

He said it made for a lack of work ethic in himself.

But it’s his employees that he’s making work more hours, so that doesn’t make any sense

So, what, your initial comment had truthiness even though it made a complaint based on not reading or misreading the article?

We aren’t required to automatically accept someone’s claim as the truth when the evidence suggests otherwise. The CEO removed the 4-day week for everyone.

For sure, but the starter of this thread suggested he called his employees lazy. He didn't. He said it killed his work ethic, and that he now worked a 65 hour week.

It might be that for his median employee, it increased hourly productivity -- but by less than 12%. Or that it didn't affect hourly productivity. Or, as a peer suggested, that it just felt shitty to lay some people off while others worked less than a conventional "full" work week for full salary.

It makes perfect sense if the reason it depressed his work ethic was that he was demotivated by the fact that everyone else wasn't slaving away 5+ days a week.

Hmm, I understand your hesitation. Treehouse is famous for their "awesome" work/life balance perks, and a lot of that has rippled through the tech scene. Clearly, he's seen issues with them.

He never called employees lazy. Treehouse went through layoffs, and they felt it was unfair to lay off 22 people and still let everyone else take Fridays off. They also removed their "no managers" rule. It sucks, but a company has to make money to pay people... and if this perk was keeping people from doing their best work, Treehouse had no choice but to fix it. It's not like he's forcing everyone to work 60 hours; he's just admitting his perks didn't work.

I think it's good that he's walking back things he no longer stands by, rather than leading other companies down a bad path.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com