I went in prepared to read the "contrarian" take that working long hours can actually be good, but it is just stating the obvious.<p>Working for over a decade in silicon valley, I have yet to come across a company or group where the majority opinion has been that people must work more than 8 hours a day to succeed. I'm not sure if there ever was a time when overworking was a norm in the industry, but it definitely has not been the case for a while.<p>Heck multiple companies, including <i>Amazon</i>, are starting to experiment with 4 day work weeks. If you are in a position where you must justify (to yourself, management, or the public) a regular work schedule, save your energy and just quit.
I think that mostly I agree with the author, that there is a religious following of the long hours/never sleep work model. What has worked for me, as I am over worked and spend far too much time on meetings at all off hours, is flexible hours instead of rigid ones.<p>My day blends a lot more, as I have periods of work and periods of "life". Instead of a rigid 8 hour block, work is just one of those chores I do, and I align blocks of time much like I would for cleaning the bathroom, getting groceries, zoning out on a show or a run, etc.<p>This means a lot of breaks and no-work times, and a lot of responses and participation at times when colleaguss in other regions don't expect it. It kinda works for me :)<p>The impression is that I never sleep, but in reality, it's just I am distributing the work hours far differently and I can get s lot more done this way. 1.5 hours in some morning over coffee for email, scattered calls throughout the day, in the evening set aside some time after dinner and exercise for some project work (actual coding or just thinking about it). Sometimes I just merge it with other activities that don't need my full attention (is it an evening walk or a planning session if I think about a project while walking?)<p>I am very lucky I have this flexibility, and I know it is not a universal thing that everyone can get, but not having such a rigid structure let me really break down my day to work the way I need. I still meet all deadlines, meet all meetings, and I define when I'm not answering emails or messages. It rubs some people the wrong way as they never know when to plan meetings that involve me since they rely on outlook scheduler, and unexpected meetings tend to not happen as often (which is good for me :) ), but ultimately I like having more control over when I allocate work time
Outside of a certain circle that's described in the post, I think "working too many hours has diminishing returns in the short term and big problems in the long term" is pretty mainstream.<p>But I haven't seen other people promoting "take short hours as a positive signal and long hours as a negative signal for making investment decisions" like this post. It's usually more "that's not sustainable" then "that's a sign you might not have exactly the right fit."<p>I think that's a fairly novel take and worth further thought.
I'm at a FAANG where people work really long hours (working on weekends/till 8 pm at night on weekdays are a normal occurrence) and we have some execs that really value butts-in-seats/gotta be in the office type mentality and are very excited for return to office.<p>I struggled with the culture for a long time because I naturally don't feel inclined to be in a distraction riddled office or work long hours. I find the stuff I work on outside of my job to be more interesting. I realized that the way I want to add value is by working smarter and by continuously focusing on high-leverage projects. If I get ostracized or penalized for not working long hours then so be it. I figure that I could always switch to a different team or company.<p>I'm glad the author is writing about this and I hope more places move away from glorifying working long hours.
I think this is a pretty mainstream view, not sure it would be considered contrarian at this point. Not to say it means that everyone has moved on from a culture of long hours. But I'd say quality over quantity is a pretty easy sell nowadays, the harder question is how to get to quality. Long hours seem more like the thing to do when you don't know what else to do.
A meta rant - There's a lot of cancel culture at play around working hard.<p>I don't understand why people are trying to guilt/shame others into working less. And yet, at the same time, watch documentaries about successful people (Kanye, Michael Jordan) talking about how hard they used to work and celebrate it.<p>In order for you to be on the top of your field, you need to put in hours and hours of work. You'd have to sacrifice the so called 'life' part of the equation. If you don't want to do that - fine! We just don't share the same values and priorities. Just like how I shouldn't shame you for not working hard, you shouldn't shame me for working hard.<p>If I start a company, it's totally okay for me to only get employees who share this view. I'd boast about how hard I work and how much we accomplished. I'd let my employees do that. And I'd compensate them accordingly. If you think that's toxic, so be it. I feel the real shame is not realizing your full potential and falling short of your dreams.
I'll give you an <i>actual</i> contrarian take on working long hours: I like it, and I'm <i>really</i> tired of people commenting on what hours I keep.<p>I enjoy my work. It's what I'd be doing in my spare time if I didn't need or have this job. I've thought about this, and I think I'd stick around at my role even if I hit a windfall, because I want to see this through to the end, one way or another. Sometimes, in order to do the kind of job I would be proud of, I need to work very long hours. That's 100% fine with me, but it's <i>not</i> always been fine with some other people I work with.<p>I'll even go one step further; I like working with others who share this view on working. I know not everyone can do as I do, and not everyone wants to do as I do, but when I'm working with people who can and want to work long hours, I am substantially more satisfied at my job than when I work with 9-5ers.<p>I don't in any way begrudge those 9-5ers, I just would rather work with people who share my ability and desire to push as far as is needed to complete the work to a high standard that is usually not possible in 40 hours a week.<p>It just seems like I have to constantly kowtow to the 9-5ers because they get so bent out of shape when you suggest that their style of working is only one of many totally acceptable ways of living. "Work life balance!" they shout, but not all of us have bifurcated the concepts. Work and life don't <i>have</i> to be these entirely severed things, I much prefer to weave them together and work with other people who can weave them together successfully.<p>It's frustrating. There's some sort of moral nobility in "only" working 40 hours, like I'm the problem and they're just trying to live their lives. I don't mind! I just want to work with people who value the things I do.
All comments so far are about how mainstream that view is. But it’s not my experience at all.<p>Every time I interview for a position, people brag about how dedicated their team is and ask if I am willing to put in the hard work and all. I’ve literally never ever heard any recruiter say: “oh we work smart here, you know. We just spend the right amount of time so that everyone’s productivity is best”.
Hi there - author here. I'd like to clarify a couple of points that seemed to be missed in much of the dialogue here:
(1) The reason this article is contrarian is that I am proposing making investment decisions (evaluating companies) partly based on talent efficiency (when coupled with strong metrics for revenue growth, etc). Most VCs make investment decisions partly based on how hard they perceive the team is working. But I think that long hours can be a negative signal for the company's prospects.
(2) In this post, I am not particularly interested in the question of whether it's to an individual's benefit to work long hours. The question I explored in this article was about whether it's to the company's benefit.
Bragging about the long hours you work is a (ironically low effort) way many people self-promote how valuable/important they are. I've noticed these people often do not mention exact what they've accomplished with all these hours, just the hours themselves are mentioned.
Is this an American thing to work super long hours?<p>Most people I know and work with do less than 40 and aim to be more efficient at delivering in less time.<p>I had a friend who worked in the states for GE and he mentioned people just had to be seen to be in the office for at least 12 hours a day even if there was nothing to do. Is this kind of culture real?
This article resonated with me as I have worked in a toxic startup environment that required 70+ hour work weeks. That company checked every box in the 2nd list:<p><pre><code> - The market is not large enough right now. It was a huge market with huge incumbents with deep pockets
- The product is bad. A poorly designed product written by junior engineers
- Poor positioning. Fighting the big companies with no real value add is not a good strategy
- High competition. See above.
- Not talented team members. A rotating door of employees that leave in frustration.
- Poor alignment. Constant down time and everything is always on fire (hence 70+ hour work weeks).
- Poor founder. Definitely.
</code></pre>
I still "work long hours" but not for the company. I enjoy technology and learning new things. I put in my regular hours for the companies I work for and my hobby is playing with other technology. I get to learn new things and my employers benefit. As an example, I learned kubernetes on the side. When the time came to build a new cloud platform, I was in a position to be the expert at it and was able to implement the platform for my employer, resulting in millions a year in cloud savings.
People have different styles of working. I have found that if I am deep into a problem, dedicating long hours to solve it is more productive as I have the context for longer time and can try out different things as I am deep in the zone. It is not as simplistic as "they work long hours because they don't have product market fit.". I like to solve problems, engage my brain, and the kind of intellectual simulation I get while working is something I can't get outside of work. I would regularly dedicated 12 hours a day and work on weekends, and when I am out of the zone, I will take a break for a few days, recover my energy and then go back to work.<p>I had an employer who was exactly like that, so understood it better than others, giving me the leeway. Infact, most of my colleagues were like that. We had our own social life beyond the office, but I did not feel like socializing everyday anyway.
This is meta-strange. Bragging about long hours makes someone sound ridiculous, like a humblebrag that is actually the opposite of a brag. But it's also ridiculous to claim to be "terrified" to write a blog post in which 98% of the audience agrees, actually just thinks it's common sense.
The problem with long hours is that when applied carefully and occasionally, it sometimes does work.<p>Say I decide to finish what I was working on before leaving, then run into some difficult problem, finish after midnight having completed the task and solved the problem now and forever for everyone. With those 8 extra distraction-free hours I've produced equivalent output of 3 regulation work days and 2 committee meetings. I win. The mistake one can then make is to think that this can be repeated at will by staying late all the time.
"In my experience, long hours may actually be predictive of poor future results."<p>Reminds me of the WWII story about discussions to add more armor to planes that came back from battle where the holes in plans were, when someone pointed out there was no need to armor *those* places, those planes came back. Where armor obviously needed to be added was to the places where the surviving planes *didn't* have holes.
Ah, the weekly humble brag about working 4 hours a day to millions. People who agree must not be business owners or entrepreneurs or traditional hackers
>Our celebrity role models work very hard: Jack Dorsey ran two companies simultaneously for a while. Elon Musk is worshiped by a massive audience, in part for his superhuman work ethic. Enough said.<p>Jack Dorsey notoriously got kicked out of Twitter by activist investors for his lack of commitment. Elon Musk is worshipped by a massive audience who he <i>tells</i> he works hard, whilst simultaneously spending a load of time on twitter. It's performative.
I think its a sign of the times when super highly paid individuals like VCs have to navel gaze about what the "optimal" amount of time working should be. Business is fundamentally a competitive game and when the free money tap stops there will be a rude awakening.
Ah, some stupid Silicon valley bullshit. Programming and many more things done there, is not work. Yeah, it looks like work, but it is not, it does not produce something necessary for biological living or education or life support. It is more like: I like reading, I read 18 h/day. OK, cool.<p>Work is something that is done to reproduce life. Programming, reading, is not work, it is life activity itself, do it as you like.<p>Example 2: it does make sense to optimize biologically needed production. But it does not make really sense to optimize life activity. I like cycling, I measure my performance, but I'm ok that some people cycle just for fun.