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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.]