Stop working so hard
medium.com
medium.com
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.]
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.)
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.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.h... (tl;dw: After a brief burst of happiness, wealth has the approximately the same long-term impact on happiness as losing your legs in an accident (i.e. NONE))
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776 tl;dr the wealthy don't believe that money buys you happiness.
http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html "Wealth, fame and good looks may be a formula for anxiety rather than happiness, a new study suggests."
There's TONS of data on this.
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).
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.
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.
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.
[and there are a thousand other reasons that money helps out in life, but I use the above example to show that your argument is self-defeating.]
(tl;dw: After a brief burst of happiness, wealth has the approximately the same impact on happiness as losing your legs in an accident (i.e. NONE))
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776
tl;dr the wealthy don't believe that money buys you happiness.
http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html
"Wealth, fame and good looks may be a formula for anxiety rather than happiness, a new study suggests."
There's TONS of data on this.
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.
Citation needed.
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.
http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profi...
There may be some exceptional people who can defy this rule, and it's possible they are concentrated in startups, but I'm dubious.
Right. They are concentrated at the top. Here's one study (doesn't include work time at home or weekends): http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/CEOs/presentation.pdf
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.
To me that sounds like a very typical work week without spectacular overtime, crunch, hustle, whatever.
It says that some CEOs work more hours, but doesn't correlate that with higher productivity.
It says that few work less than 40 hours per week discounting meals and travel.
50 hours per week is 10 hours per day. Maybe like 8 to 6. Anyone complaining about expectations for crunch time would relish hours like that.
That's gotta fuck up the average.
That's what "empirical" means: a statement based on observation or experience.
C'mon folks...it's not clever or insightful to "refute" personal opinions by pointing out that they're opinions.
Maybe the previous author had the same confusion.
http://lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?id=hTXhUCMS1DXX2DI3MWRd empírico, ca. (Del lat. empirĭcus, y este del gr. ἐμπειρικός, que se rige por la experiencia). 1. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a la experiencia.
No, that's not what it means at all:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
None of the three definitions mention "structured observation", and the second definition directly contradicts that assertion.
Read this fascinating history of the 40-hour workweek and its demise: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_...
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.
For $12.9 million a year, I'll let people be as condescending towards me as they want!
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.h...
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.
The trick is to know your limit.
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.
Thanks, and congrats, for RescueTime. Just got the e-mail "RescueTime alert for All Distracting Time", so gotta get back to work!
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.)
I've done this naturally for years (since I was quite young), but most people just don't believe me.
* I do so love him It's totally worth it
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...
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.)
Edited for clarity.
I think it's easy to make the mistake of trying to cram the unmodified pre and post-child self into the same 24 hours.
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.
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.
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.
After kids, there is no time to be sick. You need to save sick days for the kids. :-)
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Who's winning?
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.
Mistake! You need to count your thinking time as work, too!
Anecdotal, to be sure, but I found the inverse relationship between hours worked and quality of product quite interesting.
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.
If I hadn't taken a break during which it occurred to me that I was doing it all wrong, there are problems I'd still be working on!
Another team with more experience might be able to do the same thing straight away and write it in an extensible way.
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.
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 made no implication it was either or. You can certainly have a passionate, cool headed and calculated player on your team.
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.
It's a "factory production" mentality transplanted into the modern workplace - where our fruit is our creativity, not a number of units produced.
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?
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.
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.
Regardless, start looking for another job in the meantime. The culture of where you work sounds completely inhumane.
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 know this sounds crazy, but I feel like I have a lot more energy left after the day is over.
I also notice no one really wasting anytime during the day, since there's one less hour to get work done. No hour of chatting, surfing HN, etc.
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.
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)
Or maybe there's some other aspect to this trend I'm not seeing.
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.
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. :)
In all aspects of life, success is about performing at your peak at just the right time.
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.
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?
-Senior Undergrad Studying CS
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.
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.
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.
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
And that is why most people here on HN (me included) might not ever get know what it is like to be in the "zone".
Hence this whole debate of working hard or not working hard or productivity is all really BS.
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.
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?
Meditate. Work 3hrs. Eat/Relax. Work 2.5hrs. Gym. Eat. Relax. Work 3hrs. Read.
He's a bit of an outlier most people shouldn't go off of.
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.
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.