I effing love what I do. The result is that I frequently "work" 14+ hour days, skip social stuff to code (or sneak in my iPad to research the problem I'm stuck on), and I love talking shop.
I'm this way in my own business and I was like this at the job I had before I left to start it.
Honestly, with all of the slack ass clock punchers out there that can't write a lick of code, the idea of canning someone for working too hard seems pretty silly.
And FWIW, I found time in the last couple years to get my pilot's certificate.
Both the article and you are talking in terms of extremes.
Some people work 14+ hour days regularly because they are excited about the work. There is nothing wrong with this. Working 14+ hour days because you feel like you must do so to "keep up" is bad. In general working well past the point where you are productive is bad.
Some people want to slack off and punch the clock, and do not give a crap about their work. This is bad. Some recognize when they've done all of the productive work they can today, and seek to use the remaining time to balance out their life. There is nothing wrong with that, either.
Basically it comes down to reasons and effective self-evaluation. If you're working 14+ hours while being useful and engaged, great for you. If you're doing it as some badge of honor and hacking together crap because you're tired, you really aren't helping.
Know yourself, and your limits. Use them as tools to do the best you can. The only people you should fire here are the ones who refuse to do this.
I love my "job" too. Although there's nothing I love so much to do it 10 hours a day on a regular basis. Not sleep, eat, sex, listen to music, read, watch Tv, play XBox, nor work. Nothing.
If I can't regularly do what I need to do in 9 hours day, for virtually anything, then I'm doing something wrong.
Some of us "slack ass clock punchers" have lives outside of work. I have friends and family and hobbies that do not involve sitting in front of a computer screen for every waking moment of the day.
> the idea of canning someone for working too hard seems pretty silly
I think you're taking the article too literally. It seemed to me that he was taking the (decidedly silly) polar opposite position to emphasize the extremity of Jason's suggestion, and that there are perfectly legitimate reasons not to follow it, to the extent that the exact opposite could be argued. I don't think he actually expects anyone to fire someone for working overtime, just recognize that expecting overtime has negative effects.
I often work passionately 16 or even 18 hours a day, but that's like for a couple of weeks (or maybe a month) in a year, when we are about to launch something exciting, rest of the year I usually work 5-6 hours a day, sometimes even less, an hour or a couple of hours a day, spending the rest of the time catching up on technology, making art and some music. That said, I get more work done than almost a 100 other people combined.
If I were to work for a fixed number of hours a day every day of the year, I would probably be doing some boring chore of a work, and would likely 'burn out' due the boredom.
I think this was a productive discussion three years ago.
I didn't write my side of it as linkbait, and I don't think the DHH did either.
the truth is we are both right.... you can do a lifestyle business or you can go all in. my style is all in and as fast as possible.
other folks like slow and steady.
sometimes life deals you cards that dictate your approach (i.e. yo have a kids, your dad gets cancer and the Panda update cuts half your traffic... all in the same year).
it's true that some folks work 100 hours a week and get less done than folks who work 40.
it's true that there are folks who work 100 hours and get 2x as much done as someone who works 50.
the fact is, you have to do what is right for you and your goals. me? i love to build shit... and i do it hard and fast with a lot of mistakes and passion.
Firing someone who's always obsessed with work and willing to always spend hours upon hours to get things done might be a good idea for the reasons stated. Better idea would be to send that person on a mandatory vacation during the doldrums between projects. Make them turn in the company laptop and company cell phone for the two weeks they're on vacation. If they protest, tell them that during vacation it's their job to rest, relax & recharge to be ready for the next project. By the time they're back they'll be ready to take on those challenges.
I think the operative words in that article are, "requiring passion." And to that, I would add, "work smarter, not harder."
When I was in my early twenties, I lived in NYC and London. My motto was the typical, "word hard, play hard." I worked 12+ hour days fairly regularly. The work was interesting, the people were cool, and I was learning a lot. I remember leaving work one morning as people were coming in; their day was starting as my day was ending.
On the weekends (and sometimes weekdays), my friends and I would go bar-hopping, catch a movie, attend a festival, etc. While in London, we'd also take weekend excursions to another city or country. I also remember sky diving & bungee jumping trips.
Now that I'm in my thirties, I don't work as many hours, though my work output hasn't decreased. Instead, I like to think that I work smarter now, not harder. I still really enjoy my work - and oftentimes don't even feel like I'm "working." But if I spend too much time on something, instead of slogging through it, I'll stop and look for a more efficient solution. I've learned that time is too valuable for brute force.
On the surface, it may not seem like I'm working as much. I work anywhere from 8-12 hours a day now, but in aggregate, I get much more done. And none of those hours really feels like work.
I attribute this to having passion for what I do, and learning how to work smart.
You sound a lot like me now. I'm a typical "work hard play hard" twenty-something, and if it was possible for me to be working smarter, I don't see it. I probably spend my first 40 hours solving/understanding the problem, and the next 30 hours refactoring the code to look like my mental model of the solution. I'd love to slow down but it's just doesn't seem possible to ship a high quality product given our schedule. Some of the senior folks work saner hours, but it's not at all obvious if their output is higher quality than mine, or even equal quality (this isn't a slight--i'm getting twice as much zone time as them!). If they're 'working smarter' than me, I can't see how, other than having already paid the learning curve for a large class of problems.
Can you give concrete examples of how you work smarter now, compared to your twenties?
How much of your "working smarter" can you attribute to your earlier "working harder" years?
With computers, I believe that almost all of my "working smarter" can be attributed to the sweat-equity I placed in working long hard hours when I was a young tot -- I didn't know any better, and I loved tinkering on a computer into the wee hours of the night.
People who always work late makes the people who don’t feel inadequate for merely working reasonable hours. That’ll lead to guilt, misery, and poor morale. Worse, it’ll lead to ass-in-seat mentality where people will “stay late” out of obligation, but not really be productive.
I don't have this problem (assuming a reasonable management team). In fact, I can usually outdo the workaholics in less time. They always forget that not working is oftentimes the most productive thing you can do. I can't count the number of times I've spun my wheels on a problem for hours, went home and rested, and came back to realize just how stupidly easy the problem is.
Yes! Most problems don't require you to grind away for hours on end. If I don't get anywhere within 45 minutes or so, I'll just walk away. The unconscious mind is a wonderful tool, but it needs breathing room to do its work, it seems.
Why do people pride themselves on the number of hours they work? It's like being proud of how long you can go without food, or how long you can hold your hand over a flame. What exactly does it prove? Would Calcanis be happier with his employees if they gave themselves 30 lashes every morning before work?
Thanks! I surely hadn't notice that now we have a search box. Teaches me that It should have stroke me as a bit odd that it wasn't posted on HN already, and that rellying on HN identical URL "was posted already" mechanism is not really relliable.
I don't agree with the article. If my employees were showing signs of workaholism and I didn't send them home, then their burnout, lack of creativity, and drag on morale would be my fault, at least in part.
At least send them home when they start smelling bad after a 3 day stint. I wish I was in my early twenties again I could use that time far better then what I did.
Fire them? Uh...no. Here are my responses to his points:
1) I work 80-100 hours a week, and enjoy it. For the past 7 years. No burnout yet. I find time to exercise and unwind.
2) If you are just throwing hours at the problem, you are not passionate about the problem. Workaholics are (most often) passionate about their work.
3) Those people who feel bad that someone else is working more than them need to get over themselves.
4) Workaholics often "put in their time" in an attempt to retire early. Not a bad judgment call, IMHO.
5) Even workaholics know how to unwind, and do. You can work 80 hours a week and still have days off (168 hours in a week, 112 waking hours).
I think it's just inflammatory link bait, in the same vein as Calacanis' OP. The bottom line is there are many ways to run a business. Personally I would not fire a great person regardless of whether they worked 20 hours or 100 hours a week, but I understand that there may be social dynamics at play that shouldn't be ignored.
Workaholics are (most often) passionate about their work.
It's interesting to see how often the word "passion" comes up with regards to worker productivity, especially when written from the company's perspective. The common refrain seems to be that "more time spent at work = sign of a more passionate employee". I have a hunch though that if all companies had to pay overtime rates for every hour an employee spent over 40 hours per week, you'd see fewer articles that equate "more time at work = more passion", and start seeing more more articles that equate "more time at work = bad time management skills".
As it is though, companies arguably have an incentive to focus on measuring the amount of time you spend at work, simply because the more time a salaried employee spends at work, the less it costs the employer on an hourly basis.
For instance, given 52 weeks per year minus 4 weeks vacation/holidays/sick-leave, a salaried employee has around 48 weeks per year to work, which translates into the following number of hours:
Going forward with this, let's say the employee's annual salary is $85k, then disregarding benefits/social security/etc. he's costing his employer the following:
40 hour work weeks: $85000 / 1920 hours = $44/hour
50 hour work weeks: $85000 / 2400 hours = $35/hour
60 hour work weeks: $85000 / 2880 hours = $29/hour
"The more hours you work, the less I'll pay you (on an hourly rate)" doesn't sound quite as good as "passionate employees spend lots of time at work." Of course, the salaried employee could be working longer hours in anticipation of future rewards such as a raise, cashing in stock options, etc. The point though is that simply framing employees who spend lots of time at work as being more passionate is a little disingenuous.
When companies hire contractors there is often a clause in the contract that limits the number of hours the contractor can bill. This isn't because companies are trying to limit how "passionate" a contractor can be. It's because, unlike a salaried employee, a contractor's hourly rate doesn't go down over 40 hours/week.
You get paid for making the right thing, not the most thing. If long hours is accomplishing that, and making you happy, go nuts. But it's not the only, or necessarily the best, way to get there.
I'm so tired of all the speculative psycho crap. Why don't we just make a judgement based on someone's output and admit that the rest is always going to be a totally subjective matter of personal sympathy?
Working hard on something you are passionate about is a lot like running in a race. The minute you ease back on the throttle, you better hope that your competition doesn't pounce. You better have a big enough lead on your competition to allow yourself to relax. That relaxation time needs to be earned. Too much relaxation breeds complacency. And if you are not in an environment in which you are competing with someone, you really aren't working toward a worth while goal, but just spinning your wheels. You are either living off the spoils of some prior success or inheritance. Work like you are about to be attacked by a pack of rabid dogs or seek out such an environment. Don't get it? Go watch a horse race. Every split second counts. That winning rush of adrenaline is like no other. Should everyone seek out such an environment? No, not everybody all the time. But to never have done so is cowardly. Nobody is successful by working 100% smarter than everyone else 100% of the time. Those that say they do are liars. To do so is like saying they never had a failure, and everything came easy for them. Achieving success is a complete bitch. Those that have the energy and stamina to succeed in the end are the ones who earn the right to slack off. Execution is everything.
Do remember that sometimes the "workaholic" is actually doing the jobs of other people or double checking that they got their stuff done because the "workaholic" is blamed for the failure of the system. It happens a lot and some organizations are not really good at finding where it all went south. It also happens more in bad economies (no other jobs) or highly political places (friends before truth).
Lots of people regret not accomplishing anything. Sometimes accomplishing things requires work. Creating a successful startup is an example. Earning enough in a regular job to be able to fund your own startup is another.
I tend to work as little as possible. Playing is important. Family is important. Living is important.
Might be dead tomorrow and would be thoroughly miffed if I'd worked through my life. I believe life is the reward and must be lived, not some religious fantasy.
I totally hear ya. I always lived my life as if each day is my last. Although for me, work is important too - though I see it less as "work" and more as a passion or calling.
I've noticed that the points on this post go up during "european awake hours" and down during "American awake hours". I think there is definitely a work ethic divide there.
[+] [-] crikli|15 years ago|reply
I'm this way in my own business and I was like this at the job I had before I left to start it.
Honestly, with all of the slack ass clock punchers out there that can't write a lick of code, the idea of canning someone for working too hard seems pretty silly.
And FWIW, I found time in the last couple years to get my pilot's certificate.
[+] [-] awj|15 years ago|reply
Some people work 14+ hour days regularly because they are excited about the work. There is nothing wrong with this. Working 14+ hour days because you feel like you must do so to "keep up" is bad. In general working well past the point where you are productive is bad.
Some people want to slack off and punch the clock, and do not give a crap about their work. This is bad. Some recognize when they've done all of the productive work they can today, and seek to use the remaining time to balance out their life. There is nothing wrong with that, either.
Basically it comes down to reasons and effective self-evaluation. If you're working 14+ hours while being useful and engaged, great for you. If you're doing it as some badge of honor and hacking together crap because you're tired, you really aren't helping.
Know yourself, and your limits. Use them as tools to do the best you can. The only people you should fire here are the ones who refuse to do this.
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
If I can't regularly do what I need to do in 9 hours day, for virtually anything, then I'm doing something wrong.
[+] [-] cipherpunk|15 years ago|reply
Working to live, vs. living to work.
[+] [-] T-R|15 years ago|reply
I think you're taking the article too literally. It seemed to me that he was taking the (decidedly silly) polar opposite position to emphasize the extremity of Jason's suggestion, and that there are perfectly legitimate reasons not to follow it, to the extent that the exact opposite could be argued. I don't think he actually expects anyone to fire someone for working overtime, just recognize that expecting overtime has negative effects.
[+] [-] tathagata|15 years ago|reply
I often work passionately 16 or even 18 hours a day, but that's like for a couple of weeks (or maybe a month) in a year, when we are about to launch something exciting, rest of the year I usually work 5-6 hours a day, sometimes even less, an hour or a couple of hours a day, spending the rest of the time catching up on technology, making art and some music. That said, I get more work done than almost a 100 other people combined.
If I were to work for a fixed number of hours a day every day of the year, I would probably be doing some boring chore of a work, and would likely 'burn out' due the boredom.
[+] [-] jasonmcalacanis|15 years ago|reply
I didn't write my side of it as linkbait, and I don't think the DHH did either.
the truth is we are both right.... you can do a lifestyle business or you can go all in. my style is all in and as fast as possible.
other folks like slow and steady.
sometimes life deals you cards that dictate your approach (i.e. yo have a kids, your dad gets cancer and the Panda update cuts half your traffic... all in the same year).
it's true that some folks work 100 hours a week and get less done than folks who work 40.
it's true that there are folks who work 100 hours and get 2x as much done as someone who works 50.
the fact is, you have to do what is right for you and your goals. me? i love to build shit... and i do it hard and fast with a lot of mistakes and passion.
the video: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2219-jason-calacanis-vs-david...
[+] [-] biot|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shareme|15 years ago|reply
But than again spending 7 days a week on a problem and business model known not to work is not exactly working smart..ie Mahalo..
[+] [-] joe24pack|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikeleeorg|15 years ago|reply
When I was in my early twenties, I lived in NYC and London. My motto was the typical, "word hard, play hard." I worked 12+ hour days fairly regularly. The work was interesting, the people were cool, and I was learning a lot. I remember leaving work one morning as people were coming in; their day was starting as my day was ending.
On the weekends (and sometimes weekdays), my friends and I would go bar-hopping, catch a movie, attend a festival, etc. While in London, we'd also take weekend excursions to another city or country. I also remember sky diving & bungee jumping trips.
Now that I'm in my thirties, I don't work as many hours, though my work output hasn't decreased. Instead, I like to think that I work smarter now, not harder. I still really enjoy my work - and oftentimes don't even feel like I'm "working." But if I spend too much time on something, instead of slogging through it, I'll stop and look for a more efficient solution. I've learned that time is too valuable for brute force.
On the surface, it may not seem like I'm working as much. I work anywhere from 8-12 hours a day now, but in aggregate, I get much more done. And none of those hours really feels like work.
I attribute this to having passion for what I do, and learning how to work smart.
[+] [-] dustingetz|15 years ago|reply
Can you give concrete examples of how you work smarter now, compared to your twenties?
[+] [-] beambot|15 years ago|reply
With computers, I believe that almost all of my "working smarter" can be attributed to the sweat-equity I placed in working long hard hours when I was a young tot -- I didn't know any better, and I loved tinkering on a computer into the wee hours of the night.
[+] [-] j_baker|15 years ago|reply
I don't have this problem (assuming a reasonable management team). In fact, I can usually outdo the workaholics in less time. They always forget that not working is oftentimes the most productive thing you can do. I can't count the number of times I've spun my wheels on a problem for hours, went home and rested, and came back to realize just how stupidly easy the problem is.
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaccus|15 years ago|reply
Working long does not equal working hard.
[+] [-] gnosis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swombat|15 years ago|reply
Comments from 3 years ago, courtesy of the awesome fast shiny new HN search box:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131691
PS: I was sure I commented on this, possibly on 37signals' site itself, but I can't find the comments anywhere... oh well.
[+] [-] DanielRibeiro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bo102010|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gscott|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavanwoolery|15 years ago|reply
1) I work 80-100 hours a week, and enjoy it. For the past 7 years. No burnout yet. I find time to exercise and unwind. 2) If you are just throwing hours at the problem, you are not passionate about the problem. Workaholics are (most often) passionate about their work. 3) Those people who feel bad that someone else is working more than them need to get over themselves. 4) Workaholics often "put in their time" in an attempt to retire early. Not a bad judgment call, IMHO. 5) Even workaholics know how to unwind, and do. You can work 80 hours a week and still have days off (168 hours in a week, 112 waking hours).
[+] [-] dasil003|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtoddh|14 years ago|reply
It's interesting to see how often the word "passion" comes up with regards to worker productivity, especially when written from the company's perspective. The common refrain seems to be that "more time spent at work = sign of a more passionate employee". I have a hunch though that if all companies had to pay overtime rates for every hour an employee spent over 40 hours per week, you'd see fewer articles that equate "more time at work = more passion", and start seeing more more articles that equate "more time at work = bad time management skills".
As it is though, companies arguably have an incentive to focus on measuring the amount of time you spend at work, simply because the more time a salaried employee spends at work, the less it costs the employer on an hourly basis.
For instance, given 52 weeks per year minus 4 weeks vacation/holidays/sick-leave, a salaried employee has around 48 weeks per year to work, which translates into the following number of hours:
Going forward with this, let's say the employee's annual salary is $85k, then disregarding benefits/social security/etc. he's costing his employer the following: "The more hours you work, the less I'll pay you (on an hourly rate)" doesn't sound quite as good as "passionate employees spend lots of time at work." Of course, the salaried employee could be working longer hours in anticipation of future rewards such as a raise, cashing in stock options, etc. The point though is that simply framing employees who spend lots of time at work as being more passionate is a little disingenuous.When companies hire contractors there is often a clause in the contract that limits the number of hours the contractor can bill. This isn't because companies are trying to limit how "passionate" a contractor can be. It's because, unlike a salaried employee, a contractor's hourly rate doesn't go down over 40 hours/week.
[+] [-] kemiller|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benaltieri|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ballard|15 years ago|reply
1) Indifference and over obsession are both blindness.
2) Effectiveness is mostly perception because reality is too costly to measure.
3) Take a mini sabbatical every now and then: http://➹.ws/sabbatical
[+] [-] jack7890|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgroves|15 years ago|reply
Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake"
"Mr Millionare, small businesses are struggling to make ends meet despite 80hr work weeks."
DHH: "Let them relax by flying their private planes"
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unicornporn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theBobMcCormick|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zakharov|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saalweachter|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisjsmith|15 years ago|reply
Might be dead tomorrow and would be thoroughly miffed if I'd worked through my life. I believe life is the reward and must be lived, not some religious fantasy.
[+] [-] jodrellblank|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeleeorg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yhlasx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisjsmith|15 years ago|reply
(I am in the UK for reference).
[+] [-] pspeter3|15 years ago|reply