The critiques I've seen of crunch mode always seem to assume that it's a normal state of affairs, and thus leads inexorably to burnout. We'll have maybe one or two weeks of crunch every quarter or so when we have a major release that everyone needs to coordinate on and no one wants to be blamed for holding up. For those one or two weeks out of twelve, we'll work sixty or <i>maybe</i> seventy hours. It's absolutely effective, and while I've felt tired at the end of it I've never felt burned out. It's also offset by having very relaxed working hours the rest of the time.<p>I get that some firms see the productivity boost that happens during crunch mode and try to make that the new normal, but is this even that common? Do most firms not do as mine does and just crunch when you need to and have normal hours the rest of the time?
Worth reiterating, I've seen good people run themselves into the ground with an endless 'crunch', because they felt it was a valid strategy. 'Running themselves into the ground' might seem wishy-washy, but to make it more concrete: people have _had to_ take time off work days before a big deadline because they couldn't work. I'd rather the marathon than the brick-wall crunch.
I wonder if the science on the 40-hour work week applies mostly to specialized jobs, or if it can be broadly applied to more generalized roles, i.e. _entrepreneur_, where one switches contexts several times per day/week. How many 'successful' startup founders only worked about 40 hours a week versus 60+? Is Elon deluding himself when he claims his 100+ hour weeks allow him to accomplish more than his less-disciplined competitors?
That's why other industries don't do "crunch mode." Can you imagine:<p>"We're really behind on building this bridge"
"CRUNCH MODE!"
The finance industry, particularly around the front desk, is notorious for freakishly long working hours. I don't work in that industry, but friends that do speak of 100+ hour work weeks, with 80 hours considered normal in some workplaces.<p>As outlined in the post, that way of working, doesn't (shouldn't) work. Especially when the code produced, or in the case of traders decisions made, might lose vast amounts of money due to a single mistake.<p>I'm curious, if anyone here works in that kind of an environment - How does this work? Are these numbers exaggerated? Are you all on stimulants? Do you see the kind of creeping errors and codebase decay one might expect?
It may seen silly but the article could use a brief description of what's "crunch mode" since it was a new term to me.<p>Google: define:crunch mode
> "Crunch mode", also referred to as "crunch time," is the term used by those in the software development industry to describe working extra hours for extended periods of time in order to finish a project or meet a deadline.
New title - "Why CONTINUOUS crunch mode doesn't work."<p>This feels a bit link-baity, because it says nothing of how short, uncommonly used crunch modes help or hurt productivity - just how super-long work weeks are eventually more detrimental than helpful.<p>Edit: I would posit that short bursts of overtime - perhaps a single 60-80 hour week at the ramp up to a major release can actually be helpful if not exciting - if used quite sparingly. Research on that theory would be more interesting to me.
The most important bit missed here is - what exactly are you doing?<p>I started as a physical worker, and when I switched to computers, coming back to physical work felt like taking a holiday.<p>Now when I'm actively managing people and finances, having a 3-day code crunch is my definition of a walk in the sunshine. Sometimes I literally can't stop smiling during that period, it's such a relief.