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.