I had this same kind of personality / mental condition, and I am going to say, if he is really of the same personality type, 5-hour days are not going to help this author in the long term. What is helping his mood is not really the shorter day, but the hope of having made a short-term structural change that might fix things. The thing is, it won't. He already mentions at the end that burnouts are back. Well, pretty soon the 5-hour days will be feeling too long and he will be 'unable' to do them. Then what? 3-hour days?
The fundamental problem is that he doesn't actually want to be doing what he is doing, despite the rhetoric of "great team and awesome project". Come on, is that really how you feel about it deep in your heart, or is it empty SV rhetoric?
Two things will help this author:
(1) Strike out on your own, following your own motivation only. Yes you have to figure out how to make ends meet financially, but that is your lot in life. Fortunately it is easier to do this with computers than in most other fields.
(2) Meditate, learn to observe your mind and why it does what it does, so that you don't feel powerless or subservient to things like burnout. It's hard to explain the transformation that takes place, but being able to stand next to or outside these mental processes is very powerful.
He also doesn't really think well from the company's perspective, here's an Employee FAQ to complement the Boss FAQ on what's not addressed:
1. There is a fixed cost to having an in-house employee no matter how many hours he/she works. Healthcare, Office Space, Parking, lunch, any subscriptions to systems per-head etc. So inherently it's a bad deal to lower % productivity because these cost stay same. Note that not only these costs don' decline, company now has to hire more people to replace lost time, and incur these costs for those people as if they're full-time. So instead of fixed cost going from 1x->.8, it actually goes to 1.25x to get same amount of work done!! (assuming 80% productivity at 5h)
2. Even if (1) wasn't an issue, splitting a project to a larger team is inherently less efficient. The communication overhead of a 2 person team (1 comm. channel to manage) is 1/3 of a 3 person team (3 relationships/channels). Communication complexity increases exponentially with team size.
3. Time & context are very important to competitiveness in technology. Doing the same project in the same #hours and same $ is irrelevant in the real world if Team1 did it in one 4 weeks real-world time and Team2 did in 6 weeks of real world time, even if total hours worked is same. Likewise, employees build company and project context faster, can iterate faster, acquire relevant domain knowledge faster, and thus become more productive in Team1.
4. Should your stock vest over 5-6 years now instead of 4?
> The fundamental problem is that he doesn't actually want to be doing what he is doing
That was my thought as well. It may sound like trite management-ese, but autonomy, mastery and purpose can be important considerations for employees too. Every time I've burnt out, I looked at the situation through that lens and realized all the things I liked about my job were outside of those intrinsic motivation categories. You can be well paid, on a team you love and actually enjoy the work you do, but if you don't feel you're improving in your craft, don't feel like you have enough control over what you're working on and can't connect deeply with the reason you're doing the work, you may still burn out.
I recognize myself in his comments as well, and I thought the exact same thing when he said the burnouts are back. Just like the status log from a zombie movie... "Day 24: subjects seem to be exhibiting odd behaviors. getting bitey. not sure what's going on..."
I still have a day job, but I get a lot of satisfaction out of running a blog + small product business on the side. I think you're on to something with your Thing #1. Meditation has helped me too, but I don't think it has really stopped the burnout/boredom problem -- but I also haven't been very consistent with it.
Exactly. If you love what you're doing and feel challenged in the _right_ way, 17 hour days will generally feel like a difficult but worthwhile gift.
Back in the day, I used to love working 16-20 hour shifts (unlimited overtime) in a tech-support call center. I was in my early twenties, and while most people hated tech support, I felt like every call I took got people connected to the internet, where who knew what they could accomplish, look-up, research, etc. I was genuinely helping hundreds of people a day get online, it felt great.
Versus, if you hate hate hate what you're doing, you'll feel burned out after a few hours a week. And you could fall anywhere in between too. I've felt both extremes working in the same position at different times, depending on the circumstances.
I guess this hits a nerve. I am serious about liking the company and team. I've made many of my own startups and many thing I've missed there are here now - that's what I mean. I really wish I could be contempt with what I have. Trying to strike out on my own has also caused a lot of stress. Yes, I get the full-on power and passion for 3 days straight, but since none of my projects have gotten anywhere (so far) I've kind of lost motivation there as well.
Meditation? Yeah Vipassana is my friend. Can't say I follow Goenka's daily schedule, but it's here.
Thanks for the thoughts, I shall keep them in mind.
How long do you think you need to give it become aware of what you need vs a temporary state of mind?
Was in my last position for 18 months, and the one before for 3 1/2 years, but now after only a couple of months am back to where I was feeling toward the end of both of those places. It is a great company, and a fantastic opportunity, but do mentally seem to be struggling.
I actually worked at a company who tried something similar to this (6 hours/5 days) for about ~2 months, and it worked for a little while. Unfortunately we found a lot of problems with this:
- People who started early (~7am), left really early, and people who like to start much later (~10am). This led to only ~3 hour overlap time period when the majority of the dev team was in. There was a small effort to normalize the start times, but we could never find a common time that worked for everyone.
- I felt this put an obscene amount of pressure on some people (including myself) more so than others.
- People hate meetings, people beg and cry that meetings are a waste, but the bitter reality is ether you get everyone on the same page at once, or you need to do it separately, which becomes even more pressure for certain people. Combine this with the limited time when you can guarantee the majority of dev will be in, makes it difficult.
- The coop/intern students i felt got shafted hard by this, since time is so much more valuable during that two months they often got very little direction.
- I also personally found that about 6 of us (team leads/seniors) ended up with much more pressure, and stress due to trying to force 8 hours of work into 6 hours of a day.
In the end we ended up giving up on the idea, due in combination to other departments complaining, some HR payroll issues, and problems with coverage.
This highlights something about our industry that I find a little weird. Collectively we want to be respected as professionals, yet feel it's ok come into work whenever it pleases us despite its impact on the team.
In my view, a true professional shows up and gets the job done, no matter what. Asking employees to show up at 9 am on a reasonably consistent basis so that the team can work effectively seems like a pretty low bar to me (except in the case of special personal circumstances, of course).
Disclaimer: I've never worked for a company that tried this, so this is conjecture.
It strikes me that #1, #3 and a large part of #4 are not problems caused by the reduced hours but purely by the flexible hours. Do you think this system could've been more successful with more coordinated working schedules?
#2 on the other hand sounds like a systemic problem exacerbated by reduced hours, rather than caused by. It seems to hint at an imbalance in resource allocation in general, which is a problem worth addressing even with the increased hours.
Yeah, I have a hard time imagining this working. If anything, I'd like to be able to get back to working the 8-6 days I could before I was doing school dropoff in the mornings.
It's not like there's any dead time, for me at least, although it probably varies by industry. Back when I was in finance, we needed to be around whenever markets were open, if only to be able to run one-offs and answer questions for the traders.
In tech, there's always more to do. The bulk of the hard stuff isn't raw programming, it's doing the data analysis to figure out where problems are, trying to come up with experiments to run, documenting them so you don't repeat yourself six months later, and so on. On top of that, there's whiteboarding out ideas with people, teaching interns and more junior folks, meetings with aligned teams to share knowledge, manager-stuff (1:1s, planning), writing up docs (also to share knowledge), trying to learn how something works, etc.
I don't think I can manage more than a few hours of raw code time myself, but that's a pretty small slice of the things that need doing.
> - I also personally found that about 6 of us (team leads/seniors) ended up with much more pressure, and stress due to trying to force 8 hours of work into 6 hours of a day.
Also worth realising that in a lot of companies you're not being paid for your output, you're being paid for a certain amount of access to your brain.
The value in your job isn't your output, it's the organisational outcomes that occur as a result of you doing what ya do.
Some companies are fine and built around the outcomes of 5 hours a day of your code. Some organisations though really want 8 hours a day of access to those sweet, sweet neurons. Even if the constant interruptions, meetings and feelings of unproductivity are side effects, perhaps they value the outcomes of 2 hours a day of your code and the value sharing that comes from an inane question at 17:59, more than absolute output.
Not saying the latter is more efficient or should be right, but just showing there's different value companies derive from their employees over and above project deliverables.
> you're being paid for a certain amount of access to your brain.
I understand what you are trying to say, but if this would be true, I should be paid for a lot, a lot of overtime. When I left the office, my brain still process some job-related topics. I catch myself thinking about some work issues on weekends, evenings and holidays.
Some of the best ideas for work problems I hadn't had in the office.
Lot of people in this thread saying they'd be willing to work N% hours less for N% less pay. Am I the only one living in a high cost of living area, for which the opposite is true? I'd be totally for working more but getting paid more. At this point in my life, mid-life crisis age, I am starting to notice time stalking me, realizing my inadequate retirement savings, and wondering how many more at-bats I'm going to have before it's time to walk away from the baseball game. Am I going to have to eat dog food when I retire? What's my kid's college going to cost? Will I ever be able to afford a vacation? Who really has comfortable answers to these questions?
Why on earth would you choose to work and get paid less than you can, while you are young and capable?? I look back and wish I had worked multiple jobs when I was younger, not that I had fewer hours.
> I look back and wish I had worked multiple jobs when I was younger, not that I had fewer hours.
Paradoxically, I just read an Internet comment how your 20s should be a wild ride of backpacking, meeting people, having sex, and living a carefree life.
I don't think your effort should go into maximising work hours; that's a mistake I have made a few times in the past. You maximise the ROI on your effort by climbing the right hill [1]; and it takes some failures before you find the right one.
Personal anecdote, but working less helped me both enjoy life more and secure a better future for myself.
Downtime isn't a loss of productivity. It's when you let your subconscious do its job—making gut decisions, allowing ideas to overlap one another, omitting the non-essential. It's key for creativity, and creativity is what helps you spot opportunities.
It sounds like you're stuck in an uncomfortable loop.
What's working amazingly well in your life right now? What's not?
Double down on what is going well for you and free yourself from the obligation of maintaining the rest. You zero out your inbox, why not your stressbox?
What obligations can you walk away from to give yourself time to do what matters?
>Who really has comfortable answers to these questions?
Depends on your level of comfort and future ambitions, of course, but if you live in a country with low(er) cost of living, strong social safety nets, tuition/healthcare costs minor issues, etc. then spending more of your (young) life outside of an office may be very attractive. Which is probably why part-time work is relatively popular in the Netherlands, that and strong desire for a healthy work/life balance.
sounds like you're in NJ too... I feel this way, but maybe less in "crisis" mode. My focus now is working smarter, not longer.
(and my kids will have to earn their own college money because thats the only option, I'm not certain college will be the same thing in 15 years anyway. I will train them to be robot repairmen/women as a backup plan)
Given a choice, I think 8x4 would be more sensible in terms of benefits. The best use of free time is enjoyable experiences outside work, which is more doable when you have it without interruptions of a work schedule. Five hours a day is awesome if you have a hobby or a side project; not so much if you want to travel. The second reason is the time it takes to level up and actually start working. Honestly, this could be lessened if I didn't check reddit & HN first thing after I start working but I have grown a bit habitual to it.
At any given day, five hours of focused work is much better than eight hours filled with distractions, but I haven't found the magical solution to make that (super-focused work) happen.
Personally, I don't have much of an issue with working hours. The main issue is I can't enjoy long stretches of vacation. Yes, it's possible to sacrifice some of your salary to go wild, but you can't do it without getting a frown from your superiors.
Right now I work 4 days out of 5. I'm paid 4 and my retirement plan will be 4/5th too. But at the same time, I work on personal projects. I also choose my day off on tuesday. Because tuesday is not an extended weekend, so it's "my own projects day" and it's the first day like that in the week so I'm not tired like I'd be on, say thursday.
I have to work until 67 in my country. So when I'll be off, I'll be way to tired to start new stuff. Moreover, after 50 years old, I'll get a good chance of getting cancer or some other life-changing disease. So I think it's better if I take my time right now...
Final note : this holds because my job is not a dream job, so my return-on-time-investment is weak (I don't consider the ability to buy a big car or around-the-world vacations, or top-notch-phone to be a good return on the time I spend at work)
I recently switched to a 36 hour week from 40 hours, which fortunately is something enshrined by law in the Netherlands.
I had the option of working 36 hours each week, but they wouldn't allow more than an 8 hour day. Having one half-day seemed to me like a total waste; not only do I still have to commute every day of the week, I'd only have a short amount of productive time.
So now I do 40/32 and have every other Friday off. It's great. While I work 10% less, and nominally get paid 10% less, the way taxes work out I ultimately only make 7.xx% less.
> Given a choice, I think 8x4 would be more sensible in terms of benefits.
It is, and I'm working 4*9 now which is great for my spare time and great for maintaining proper income/benefits. That said, I very much agree with the sentiment in the article: it feels like cheating the company. The extra hour a day is even less productive.
That said, I don't really feel guilty as the option described in the post is not available here. Work is important to me, but my spare time more so. I'm willing to work on a compromise to optimise the two, but then both sides have to bring something to the table (e.g. pay cut from me, more time off from my employer).
I've worked in offices, now working from home. A few hours a day is enough to be considered exceptionally productive in terms of coding for me, this leaves a lot of time for other productivity, family, work around the house. In an office environment the rest of the time is spent looking busy. A surprising number of people will not admit it and will very adamently deny that they are not being productive, yet output shows differently.
But then there are meetings. Factoring in meetings takes a lot of time. Endless talk about improving process...
The flip-side of focusing on productivity and less so on actively participating in meetings or scheduling them is getting stuck in a coding job, being remote and not active in pursuing promotions the companies I work for usually fall back to relying on me for good code and meeting/exceeding planned output and that's it.
In my experience, if you have the goal of moving up a company hierarchy, you have to put on a show that you are a busy which has little to do with output (code) and lots to do with appearences (lot's of talking).
I track all my billable time for last 7 years. My average is 4:30 billable hours a day and I can confirm that every period of over-working ends with equal or longer period of under-working. So the 4:30 is like a gold number. I stopped to fight with this, and now after 4:30 hours I happily clock out and go home. (Yes, I'm self-employeed). This way the only reasonable strategy to earn more without having health issues is to bill more per hour. Exception to this 4:30 rule is non-programming work that doesn't require high concentration: visual design, reports, configuration, CSS tweaks etc - I can do it pretty much non-stop for whole day.
My contract specifies a 7.5h workday... But I do only 6h/day, and so do most of my colleagues. I am very lucky: I live in France, this country has a strong culture of "stay late at work and the boss will like you", yet my firm does not care about that. It cares about getting sh*t done.
This is a broader subject than "work hours": my firm thinks that staying more hour to procrastinate is not not useful, and it believes that employees are more efficient when they are happy!
In order to have an efficient workforce and less turnover, I think any business should try to answer: "for each employee: what conditions does he/she need to be happy at work?".
You definitely have a dream job for France! I live here too but I am "lucky" to work for US employers remotely but from what I have seen at traditional French companies your situation is unusual. I hope that those ideas start to spread across French business culture!
I've tried both 5 short workdays and 3 longer workdays. I like 3 longer workdays better. A full day for work and a full day for something else mean, to me, that I can focus more fully on work and then focus more fully on something else. A "half work, half not work" day means, to me, that I can't quite focus on either.
TFA presents the shorter week [the alternative to a shorter day] as 3 consecutive days; I prefer interleaving work and non-work days, so as to neither be absent from work for 2 days in a row, nor work for 2 days in a row.
I really wish more companies would be willing to do this, as a childless adult I have no need for more than 20 hours worth of pay, and my health definitely benefits on a lighter schedule.
Currently I'm achieving this through contracting but I would much rather have a more typical employment situation to reduce the administrative burden and the need for sales.
I wish more companies offered less than 40hrs/wk. But, hey, most places don't like even giving vacation.
I'd rather commit seppuku than go back to a 40hr office.
There is another point to consider: Getting 20% less money, doesn't necessarily also mean 20% less money after taxes.
When I was working part-time (20h per week) while studying, working full-time during summer meant this: ~90% more work (from 20h to 38.5h) but only ~60% higher salary (after taxes).
So I just continued to work part-time in holidays and enjoyed summer.
In my country higher salary means higher taxes, working less hours therefore means paying less taxes because of a lower salary.
Taxes don't consider the number of hours you work.
Although you need to consider that you also pay less e.g. into your pensions fund, some of your additional salary is "just" taxed away.
When working 20h the difference for me was substantial, right now not so much. But that may be different for you.
But... Ctrl-F "commute"? Nope, don't see anything. Are you either remote or living very close to the office? Having more than a few minutes of commute does potentially change the trade-offs.
I am very very interested in this myself. I proposed something similar to my current company but got refused.
I experimented with different hours off on certain days and found that the thing that would turn me into a productivity monster would be a 4-5h work day with remote option. But now try to find something like this (especially in Asia). Despite loving my current job, I think if I would get a counter offer from a company with these benefits, I would probably quit right away.
I am personally not a office bee and dislike leaving when it's dark. I'm drained of all my motivation and the darkness makes me just want to go home, watch a YouTube video and sleep, just to repeat the same cycle again. I managed to counter this fairly successfully by working outside of cafes that have terraces and picking a new location every day. My motivation and productivity level stays up longer and the drain is reduced, but now if I just had more time...
But since I'm giving the company the best hours of the day I would ask 80% of pay for the 60% of workload.
The author states that he's able to work with fewer distractions and better concentration when it's a 5 hour day, so everyone's a winner - he gets more time, he gets the same amount of work done, and the company saves money. I can imagine it works very well in the author's circumstances. But how many workers are in the same situation?
For a start, very few people can afford a 20% cut to their pay. Anyone in that situation is out.
For businesses that pay people enough that they could afford a 20% pay cut, such as the big high profile IT companies, the business is usually awash with cash; they need people to do more work and are willing to pay overtime for them to do it. Saving 20% of the wage bill is no incentive.
Lastly, as dasmoth points out, if you have a commute then you'd just be increasing the relative amount of time you're travelling compared to working, which I imagine would make it feel much worse. I have a 30 minute commute each way and when I do a half day it feels like a huge waste of time.
As a solution when it's appropriate I think it's great, but I doubt it's applicable to many people.
Back when I worked for someone else, I switched to part time after I had been there several years. I would work Mon, Tues, Thurs and got paid 60% of my previous salary. I was more productive than ever and came to the office having thought through things and ready to type it out.
I also didn't notice the drop in salary because I had time to repair things and didn't "buy" progress in hobbies. I also had time to design things for work while sitting in a convertible by a lake rather than a drab office. It was one of the best experiences of my life. Sometimes I wish I could do the same thing working for myself but the situation is different.
The only tough part was not having time to socialize with coworkers. They would take breaks and talk about things but I felt my time was so precious that I wanted to get my work done.
One issue is that most companies would take a person asking for a lighter work hours as lazy, or not motivated
No matter the company, there will always have "that" vibe when wanting less hours, unless they are specifically seeking a part time
"What's wrong, don't you want to work 50 hours a week like the rest of us ? What's the matter ? Not motivated ?"
For a different perspective, consider the Netherlands where the right to work part-time is enshrined in law. It's really common for people to switch to 36 or 32 hours having previously worked 40 hours full-time, and it's culturally acceptable and isn't seen as lazy or unmotivated.
I started doing four hour workdays about eight years ago. Every day is a potential workday, and some rare workdays are two! I don't find it burdensome to have a month-long streak of working every day at this pace. And if I "miss" a day (or week), it isn't the end of the world.
I have a seasonal side-hustle that includes the occasional 12-hour workday and even multi-day 24 hour stretches. Funny side-effect is an increase in code quality and productivity during the season.
I went through some kind of burnout as well last year (more related to personal stuff than work itself) and decided to take a long vacation. I didn't want to go back to the usual schedule and risk having the same issue again in a year or two, so I decided to work part time when I came back.
So, now I work Monday to Wednesday and have Thursday to Sunday free. This means I only have three days per week to make an impact on the company (as opposed to the ones who work full time), so I find myself really focused. My productivity vs before has skyrocketed.
What do I do on my extra days? Sometimes I go out, sometimes I just do nothing and relax, sometimes I do small side contracts or personal projects. I hope one of these takes off one day and allow me to recover the money I gave up when switching to part time. At least now I've got the energy to work on them.
[+] [-] jblow|8 years ago|reply
The fundamental problem is that he doesn't actually want to be doing what he is doing, despite the rhetoric of "great team and awesome project". Come on, is that really how you feel about it deep in your heart, or is it empty SV rhetoric?
Two things will help this author:
(1) Strike out on your own, following your own motivation only. Yes you have to figure out how to make ends meet financially, but that is your lot in life. Fortunately it is easier to do this with computers than in most other fields.
(2) Meditate, learn to observe your mind and why it does what it does, so that you don't feel powerless or subservient to things like burnout. It's hard to explain the transformation that takes place, but being able to stand next to or outside these mental processes is very powerful.
[+] [-] dkural|8 years ago|reply
1. There is a fixed cost to having an in-house employee no matter how many hours he/she works. Healthcare, Office Space, Parking, lunch, any subscriptions to systems per-head etc. So inherently it's a bad deal to lower % productivity because these cost stay same. Note that not only these costs don' decline, company now has to hire more people to replace lost time, and incur these costs for those people as if they're full-time. So instead of fixed cost going from 1x->.8, it actually goes to 1.25x to get same amount of work done!! (assuming 80% productivity at 5h)
2. Even if (1) wasn't an issue, splitting a project to a larger team is inherently less efficient. The communication overhead of a 2 person team (1 comm. channel to manage) is 1/3 of a 3 person team (3 relationships/channels). Communication complexity increases exponentially with team size.
3. Time & context are very important to competitiveness in technology. Doing the same project in the same #hours and same $ is irrelevant in the real world if Team1 did it in one 4 weeks real-world time and Team2 did in 6 weeks of real world time, even if total hours worked is same. Likewise, employees build company and project context faster, can iterate faster, acquire relevant domain knowledge faster, and thus become more productive in Team1.
4. Should your stock vest over 5-6 years now instead of 4?
[ edited for paragraph breaks ]
[+] [-] curun1r|8 years ago|reply
That was my thought as well. It may sound like trite management-ese, but autonomy, mastery and purpose can be important considerations for employees too. Every time I've burnt out, I looked at the situation through that lens and realized all the things I liked about my job were outside of those intrinsic motivation categories. You can be well paid, on a team you love and actually enjoy the work you do, but if you don't feel you're improving in your craft, don't feel like you have enough control over what you're working on and can't connect deeply with the reason you're doing the work, you may still burn out.
[+] [-] dceddia|8 years ago|reply
I still have a day job, but I get a lot of satisfaction out of running a blog + small product business on the side. I think you're on to something with your Thing #1. Meditation has helped me too, but I don't think it has really stopped the burnout/boredom problem -- but I also haven't been very consistent with it.
[+] [-] Danihan|8 years ago|reply
Back in the day, I used to love working 16-20 hour shifts (unlimited overtime) in a tech-support call center. I was in my early twenties, and while most people hated tech support, I felt like every call I took got people connected to the internet, where who knew what they could accomplish, look-up, research, etc. I was genuinely helping hundreds of people a day get online, it felt great.
Versus, if you hate hate hate what you're doing, you'll feel burned out after a few hours a week. And you could fall anywhere in between too. I've felt both extremes working in the same position at different times, depending on the circumstances.
[+] [-] kristerv|8 years ago|reply
Meditation? Yeah Vipassana is my friend. Can't say I follow Goenka's daily schedule, but it's here.
Thanks for the thoughts, I shall keep them in mind.
[+] [-] wastedhours|8 years ago|reply
Was in my last position for 18 months, and the one before for 3 1/2 years, but now after only a couple of months am back to where I was feeling toward the end of both of those places. It is a great company, and a fantastic opportunity, but do mentally seem to be struggling.
[+] [-] Azeralthefallen|8 years ago|reply
- People who started early (~7am), left really early, and people who like to start much later (~10am). This led to only ~3 hour overlap time period when the majority of the dev team was in. There was a small effort to normalize the start times, but we could never find a common time that worked for everyone.
- I felt this put an obscene amount of pressure on some people (including myself) more so than others.
- People hate meetings, people beg and cry that meetings are a waste, but the bitter reality is ether you get everyone on the same page at once, or you need to do it separately, which becomes even more pressure for certain people. Combine this with the limited time when you can guarantee the majority of dev will be in, makes it difficult.
- The coop/intern students i felt got shafted hard by this, since time is so much more valuable during that two months they often got very little direction.
- I also personally found that about 6 of us (team leads/seniors) ended up with much more pressure, and stress due to trying to force 8 hours of work into 6 hours of a day.
In the end we ended up giving up on the idea, due in combination to other departments complaining, some HR payroll issues, and problems with coverage.
[+] [-] matrix|8 years ago|reply
In my view, a true professional shows up and gets the job done, no matter what. Asking employees to show up at 9 am on a reasonably consistent basis so that the team can work effectively seems like a pretty low bar to me (except in the case of special personal circumstances, of course).
[+] [-] lucideer|8 years ago|reply
It strikes me that #1, #3 and a large part of #4 are not problems caused by the reduced hours but purely by the flexible hours. Do you think this system could've been more successful with more coordinated working schedules?
#2 on the other hand sounds like a systemic problem exacerbated by reduced hours, rather than caused by. It seems to hint at an imbalance in resource allocation in general, which is a problem worth addressing even with the increased hours.
[+] [-] trysomechai|8 years ago|reply
Ex: 9am to 1pm are core hours. You can adjust your hours around that time frame.
[+] [-] oddthink|8 years ago|reply
It's not like there's any dead time, for me at least, although it probably varies by industry. Back when I was in finance, we needed to be around whenever markets were open, if only to be able to run one-offs and answer questions for the traders.
In tech, there's always more to do. The bulk of the hard stuff isn't raw programming, it's doing the data analysis to figure out where problems are, trying to come up with experiments to run, documenting them so you don't repeat yourself six months later, and so on. On top of that, there's whiteboarding out ideas with people, teaching interns and more junior folks, meetings with aligned teams to share knowledge, manager-stuff (1:1s, planning), writing up docs (also to share knowledge), trying to learn how something works, etc.
I don't think I can manage more than a few hours of raw code time myself, but that's a pretty small slice of the things that need doing.
[+] [-] rmc|8 years ago|reply
Isn't the point to do less work per day?
[+] [-] mjevans|8 years ago|reply
Force the sync mechanisms and processes to be "remote only" oriented.
* Instead of meetings, have discussion threads and deadlines for achieving a decision goal.
* Instead of face time, document requests and responses in a more formal way (and have an informal channel as well for sounding out ideas).
* Use a corporate owned chatting mechanism. IRC, Slack, some xmpp nightmare, just find something that works. Preferably run your own server.
* Maybe some jobs where already over capacity, divide the workload further.
[+] [-] settsu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristerv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wastedhours|8 years ago|reply
The value in your job isn't your output, it's the organisational outcomes that occur as a result of you doing what ya do.
Some companies are fine and built around the outcomes of 5 hours a day of your code. Some organisations though really want 8 hours a day of access to those sweet, sweet neurons. Even if the constant interruptions, meetings and feelings of unproductivity are side effects, perhaps they value the outcomes of 2 hours a day of your code and the value sharing that comes from an inane question at 17:59, more than absolute output.
Not saying the latter is more efficient or should be right, but just showing there's different value companies derive from their employees over and above project deliverables.
[+] [-] kornakiewicz|8 years ago|reply
I understand what you are trying to say, but if this would be true, I should be paid for a lot, a lot of overtime. When I left the office, my brain still process some job-related topics. I catch myself thinking about some work issues on weekends, evenings and holidays.
Some of the best ideas for work problems I hadn't had in the office.
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
Why on earth would you choose to work and get paid less than you can, while you are young and capable?? I look back and wish I had worked multiple jobs when I was younger, not that I had fewer hours.
[+] [-] shubhamjain|8 years ago|reply
Paradoxically, I just read an Internet comment how your 20s should be a wild ride of backpacking, meeting people, having sex, and living a carefree life.
I don't think your effort should go into maximising work hours; that's a mistake I have made a few times in the past. You maximise the ROI on your effort by climbing the right hill [1]; and it takes some failures before you find the right one.
[1]: http://cdixon.org/2009/09/19/climbing-the-wrong-hill/
[+] [-] stevenkovar|8 years ago|reply
Downtime isn't a loss of productivity. It's when you let your subconscious do its job—making gut decisions, allowing ideas to overlap one another, omitting the non-essential. It's key for creativity, and creativity is what helps you spot opportunities.
It sounds like you're stuck in an uncomfortable loop.
What's working amazingly well in your life right now? What's not?
Double down on what is going well for you and free yourself from the obligation of maintaining the rest. You zero out your inbox, why not your stressbox?
What obligations can you walk away from to give yourself time to do what matters?
[+] [-] cr1895|8 years ago|reply
Depends on your level of comfort and future ambitions, of course, but if you live in a country with low(er) cost of living, strong social safety nets, tuition/healthcare costs minor issues, etc. then spending more of your (young) life outside of an office may be very attractive. Which is probably why part-time work is relatively popular in the Netherlands, that and strong desire for a healthy work/life balance.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mholmes680|8 years ago|reply
(and my kids will have to earn their own college money because thats the only option, I'm not certain college will be the same thing in 15 years anyway. I will train them to be robot repairmen/women as a backup plan)
[+] [-] shubhamjain|8 years ago|reply
At any given day, five hours of focused work is much better than eight hours filled with distractions, but I haven't found the magical solution to make that (super-focused work) happen.
Personally, I don't have much of an issue with working hours. The main issue is I can't enjoy long stretches of vacation. Yes, it's possible to sacrifice some of your salary to go wild, but you can't do it without getting a frown from your superiors.
[+] [-] wiz21c|8 years ago|reply
I have to work until 67 in my country. So when I'll be off, I'll be way to tired to start new stuff. Moreover, after 50 years old, I'll get a good chance of getting cancer or some other life-changing disease. So I think it's better if I take my time right now...
Final note : this holds because my job is not a dream job, so my return-on-time-investment is weak (I don't consider the ability to buy a big car or around-the-world vacations, or top-notch-phone to be a good return on the time I spend at work)
[+] [-] cr1895|8 years ago|reply
I had the option of working 36 hours each week, but they wouldn't allow more than an 8 hour day. Having one half-day seemed to me like a total waste; not only do I still have to commute every day of the week, I'd only have a short amount of productive time.
So now I do 40/32 and have every other Friday off. It's great. While I work 10% less, and nominally get paid 10% less, the way taxes work out I ultimately only make 7.xx% less.
[+] [-] Vinnl|8 years ago|reply
It is, and I'm working 4*9 now which is great for my spare time and great for maintaining proper income/benefits. That said, I very much agree with the sentiment in the article: it feels like cheating the company. The extra hour a day is even less productive.
That said, I don't really feel guilty as the option described in the post is not available here. Work is important to me, but my spare time more so. I'm willing to work on a compromise to optimise the two, but then both sides have to bring something to the table (e.g. pay cut from me, more time off from my employer).
[+] [-] markatkinson|8 years ago|reply
I am not even convinced I am getting more work done at work. Oh well.
[+] [-] puranjay|8 years ago|reply
Recently, I joined a coworking space.
I used to think that I'm "unproductive", but after seeing how others actually work, I'm surprised that businesses get any work done at all.
I'll be amazed if most employees work at more than 60% productivity.
[+] [-] 3princip|8 years ago|reply
But then there are meetings. Factoring in meetings takes a lot of time. Endless talk about improving process...
The flip-side of focusing on productivity and less so on actively participating in meetings or scheduling them is getting stuck in a coding job, being remote and not active in pursuing promotions the companies I work for usually fall back to relying on me for good code and meeting/exceeding planned output and that's it.
In my experience, if you have the goal of moving up a company hierarchy, you have to put on a show that you are a busy which has little to do with output (code) and lots to do with appearences (lot's of talking).
[+] [-] IshKebab|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristerv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n1vz3r|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbill|8 years ago|reply
This is a broader subject than "work hours": my firm thinks that staying more hour to procrastinate is not not useful, and it believes that employees are more efficient when they are happy! In order to have an efficient workforce and less turnover, I think any business should try to answer: "for each employee: what conditions does he/she need to be happy at work?".
[+] [-] briandear|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yosefk|8 years ago|reply
TFA presents the shorter week [the alternative to a shorter day] as 3 consecutive days; I prefer interleaving work and non-work days, so as to neither be absent from work for 2 days in a row, nor work for 2 days in a row.
[+] [-] jrumbut|8 years ago|reply
Currently I'm achieving this through contracting but I would much rather have a more typical employment situation to reduce the administrative burden and the need for sales.
[+] [-] theparanoid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dceddia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readittwice|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasmoth|8 years ago|reply
But... Ctrl-F "commute"? Nope, don't see anything. Are you either remote or living very close to the office? Having more than a few minutes of commute does potentially change the trade-offs.
[+] [-] dvcrn|8 years ago|reply
I experimented with different hours off on certain days and found that the thing that would turn me into a productivity monster would be a 4-5h work day with remote option. But now try to find something like this (especially in Asia). Despite loving my current job, I think if I would get a counter offer from a company with these benefits, I would probably quit right away.
I am personally not a office bee and dislike leaving when it's dark. I'm drained of all my motivation and the darkness makes me just want to go home, watch a YouTube video and sleep, just to repeat the same cycle again. I managed to counter this fairly successfully by working outside of cafes that have terraces and picking a new location every day. My motivation and productivity level stays up longer and the drain is reduced, but now if I just had more time...
[+] [-] kareemm|8 years ago|reply
Here's his 5 year plan:
Year 1: work 4 days a week
Year 2: work 3 days a week
Year 3: work 2 days a week
Year 4: work 1 day a week
Year 5: cash cheques, spend time with his family, and do adventure sports full time
[+] [-] onion2k|8 years ago|reply
The author states that he's able to work with fewer distractions and better concentration when it's a 5 hour day, so everyone's a winner - he gets more time, he gets the same amount of work done, and the company saves money. I can imagine it works very well in the author's circumstances. But how many workers are in the same situation?
For a start, very few people can afford a 20% cut to their pay. Anyone in that situation is out.
For businesses that pay people enough that they could afford a 20% pay cut, such as the big high profile IT companies, the business is usually awash with cash; they need people to do more work and are willing to pay overtime for them to do it. Saving 20% of the wage bill is no incentive.
Lastly, as dasmoth points out, if you have a commute then you'd just be increasing the relative amount of time you're travelling compared to working, which I imagine would make it feel much worse. I have a 30 minute commute each way and when I do a half day it feels like a huge waste of time.
As a solution when it's appropriate I think it's great, but I doubt it's applicable to many people.
[+] [-] waivej|8 years ago|reply
I also didn't notice the drop in salary because I had time to repair things and didn't "buy" progress in hobbies. I also had time to design things for work while sitting in a convertible by a lake rather than a drab office. It was one of the best experiences of my life. Sometimes I wish I could do the same thing working for myself but the situation is different.
The only tough part was not having time to socialize with coworkers. They would take breaks and talk about things but I felt my time was so precious that I wanted to get my work done.
[+] [-] EZ-E|8 years ago|reply
"What's wrong, don't you want to work 50 hours a week like the rest of us ? What's the matter ? Not motivated ?"
[+] [-] cr1895|8 years ago|reply
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/05/ec...
[+] [-] kenbolton|8 years ago|reply
I have a seasonal side-hustle that includes the occasional 12-hour workday and even multi-day 24 hour stretches. Funny side-effect is an increase in code quality and productivity during the season.
[+] [-] arien|8 years ago|reply
So, now I work Monday to Wednesday and have Thursday to Sunday free. This means I only have three days per week to make an impact on the company (as opposed to the ones who work full time), so I find myself really focused. My productivity vs before has skyrocketed.
What do I do on my extra days? Sometimes I go out, sometimes I just do nothing and relax, sometimes I do small side contracts or personal projects. I hope one of these takes off one day and allow me to recover the money I gave up when switching to part time. At least now I've got the energy to work on them.