Yeah, that struck me as especially stupid. That guy who leaves at 6pm might have been more productive than everyone else goofing off all day.
And besides, if you expect me to stay incredibly late then unless you're also going to give me a huge, huge chunk of equity (or, hey, pay me overtime), then I'm out.
"The people who stayed longer are the ones who stayed with the company."
Oh, I have seen that couple of times. People who stay longer are the ones who stayed with the company -- but what's the reason? The implied reason is that because that people who stay longer do more, feel better, etc. However, in many-many cases people who go home earlier are pushed out by others who stay later -- not based on productivity, etc. At [insert big company here] I knew teams where everybody stayed until 10 pm every day, because that was the team culture. Other teams went home at 5, 6 pm. Were the former more productive? Not at all, just that became the norm.
"To this day, I fight any budgets for any part of the company. If you don't have one, then people's default is to be more conservative. It's like limitless paid vacation policies — people end up taking less vacation."
Etcetera. This writing is about 'how to burn out employees'. It might work out well for founders though.
"We needed people who would be with us at 2 a.m. committing code so that we could have it in front of AT&T the next day."
That's not about good employees, that's about employees with no lives outside of work. Of course the ones whose job becomes their life will stay longer. It's far more traumatic to leave if you don't know anyone outside of work.
I'll take the four-day workweek start-ups any time over the death march start-ups. And I'll put my own short-week productivity up against anyone's 80-hour week.
It's true that someone experienced and focused could work 35 hours and produce as much as (or more than) another person who is less experienced and more randomized putting in 80 hours. Start up workloads (for good or bad) is more suited the latter type of workers though. The main reason is most of the time, no one knows exactly what needs to be done in a start up. Yes, product road map changes monthly (or even weekly) and blockers come up every day. As a result, someone sticks around more will be able to respond faster to the changes.
I will never do more than 60 hours work week, and that will only be for a couple of weeks max to get something out of the door. So as a result, I'll never work for a start up that doesn't have a concrete product road map that I could understand and believe in.
I disagree with your premise (that 80 hours a week is appropriate for a start-up).
As an experienced developer (25+ years now), I'd put money on my code being more capable of pivoting quickly to a new product road map than the code of a less experienced developer.
I've had clients/employers be amazed by how fast I could change fundamental behaviors of software I've worked on, and not because I put in 80 hours, but because the design starts out flexible, and I can adapt the work to the new requirements with minimal effort.
Sure if you're ask your dev to make changes on a Saturday, the 80-hour employee will be there, but if he/she is still working on that major pivot by Monday, and I can make the changes in a few hours, and my code is more stable, then I still win. ;)
Sorry, but I just don't buy this wishful thinking of low hour high productivity. Personally, I probably hit peak productivity around 60 hours although I rarely work for longer than 4 hours without taking a break to eat lunch/dinner or play with my daughter. People who hit peak productivity at 30 hours probably just don't like what they're working on as much and so of course founders select for the former. That said this only relevant if you're trying to be highly productive. I have nothing against people who choose to spend their energy on other things.
I can get more things done in 60 hours. I'm looking at productivity over the long term. If I work 60 hours/week for a whole year I will accomplish a whole lot more than if I worked 30. But if I work 80 hours per week, I will only accomplish marginally more than 60 hours and maybe even less if I burn out. Everyone has different priorities and different breaking points, but I find it disingenuous when people claim more hours doesn't allow for more productivity. I'm certain there are people that can sustain much longer periods of productivity than myself and as a result accomplish more things.
Of course spending time alone does not mean you'll be productive, but assuming equal intelligence, someone who is able to sustain concentration over a longer period of time will accomplish more than someone who concentrates for a lesser amount of time.
Well, I can't say that it's true for EVERYONE, but my typical work-week includes about 30 hours of work, and I work on teams with others who work 40+ hours, and I consistently get more done per week than many other team members.
Maybe I'm just faster; my own experience is that I can push to 50 hours in a week, maybe 60, but then the following week I get about 20 hours of productivity in before burning out, so 60 isn't sustainable, at least for me. And those last 20 hours in a 60 hour week are really only good for brainless tasks.
God forbid I do any truly complex code in that time, or my net productivity will actually go negative, as I'll need to spend more time later fixing what I did as a zombie.
I don't think he was implying that every week should be 80 week death march.
I think instead he was saying that when something is due the next day. He doesn't want someone who just clocks out because 5 pm came around. He wants someone who cares enough to stick around till they have something working for the demo they have tomorrow
I challenge you to spend 80 hours finishing something due "the next day." Days are only 24 hours, after all.
80 hours means they've been death marching for at least five days (assuming the devs still sleep) and more likely a full week (if you allow for commute time and eating not at your desk).
And I do stick around until late when something is due the next day. But that typically means I put in less time later, so my net time spent is still about 30 hours/week. Putting in extra time means I need more free time to balance things out, and I think anyone who doesn't do that isn't acting in their own interests -- or their employer's.
I worry that justifying the desire for a life outside of work in terms of "productivity" already concedes too much.
Even if my short-week productivity doesn't match my 80-hour week productivity, I'll still prefer the short week, with no guilt over having those preferences. My goal in life is not to optimize everything I do for maximum benefit of my employer; I have my own priorities and trade-offs to worry about.
Granted. I'm sticking with the short week for as long as someone will pay me for it. That really is the argument you need to make: Can you get enough done in a week to be worth your salary and benefits?
If so, then an employer should be willing to pay you appropriately for that amount of time.
I worked at Location Labs. I feel what this article doesn't capture is how Location Labs also takes care of its people. Like, there was one guy who was working crazy hours to get a product launched. So Tasso basically forced him take a good chunk of time off and paid for his ticket to go see his family (who lived abroad.) Nowhere is the perfect place to work, but I had a wonderful time working with these guys.
While I don't agree with the founder's decision to not hire people with prior management experience, I do like his approach to conservative spending. This is something that often feels forgotten about in these days of spacious SOMA offices and massive refrigerators stocked with Japanese soda.
As long as my salary is not skimped on, I get a lot of satisfaction from working for a thrifty company. In my domain (infrastructure and ops), learning to do more with less is a lot more challenging than having a blank check for everything you want. Some of my best workplace accomplishments were made when we simply didn't have the cash to buy the big, expensive gear or software.
Except what do you do if you have venture backed competitors who are willing to spend and lose huge amounts of money in the land grab for marketshare, and thus have far larger sales teams and development teams?
Interesting view on not hiring people with previous management experience - seems clearly wrong to me. There's a difference between career middle manager MBA types, who might be deadweight at a startup, and other people who have management experience as a result of competence and natural career progression. Someone with experience managing a team should always be preferable, all else being equal.
26 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 54.8 ms ] thread"“When you're all working in one big room, everybody can see each other come and go. It becomes obvious who the outliers are.”
Doesn't make it sound like we are pretending that the open office plan is really about productivity maximization.
And besides, if you expect me to stay incredibly late then unless you're also going to give me a huge, huge chunk of equity (or, hey, pay me overtime), then I'm out.
Oh, I have seen that couple of times. People who stay longer are the ones who stayed with the company -- but what's the reason? The implied reason is that because that people who stay longer do more, feel better, etc. However, in many-many cases people who go home earlier are pushed out by others who stay later -- not based on productivity, etc. At [insert big company here] I knew teams where everybody stayed until 10 pm every day, because that was the team culture. Other teams went home at 5, 6 pm. Were the former more productive? Not at all, just that became the norm.
"To this day, I fight any budgets for any part of the company. If you don't have one, then people's default is to be more conservative. It's like limitless paid vacation policies — people end up taking less vacation."
Etcetera. This writing is about 'how to burn out employees'. It might work out well for founders though.
"We needed people who would be with us at 2 a.m. committing code so that we could have it in front of AT&T the next day."
That's not about good employees, that's about employees with no lives outside of work. Of course the ones whose job becomes their life will stay longer. It's far more traumatic to leave if you don't know anyone outside of work.
I'll take the four-day workweek start-ups any time over the death march start-ups. And I'll put my own short-week productivity up against anyone's 80-hour week.
I will never do more than 60 hours work week, and that will only be for a couple of weeks max to get something out of the door. So as a result, I'll never work for a start up that doesn't have a concrete product road map that I could understand and believe in.
As an experienced developer (25+ years now), I'd put money on my code being more capable of pivoting quickly to a new product road map than the code of a less experienced developer.
I've had clients/employers be amazed by how fast I could change fundamental behaviors of software I've worked on, and not because I put in 80 hours, but because the design starts out flexible, and I can adapt the work to the new requirements with minimal effort.
Sure if you're ask your dev to make changes on a Saturday, the 80-hour employee will be there, but if he/she is still working on that major pivot by Monday, and I can make the changes in a few hours, and my code is more stable, then I still win. ;)
Of course spending time alone does not mean you'll be productive, but assuming equal intelligence, someone who is able to sustain concentration over a longer period of time will accomplish more than someone who concentrates for a lesser amount of time.
Maybe I'm just faster; my own experience is that I can push to 50 hours in a week, maybe 60, but then the following week I get about 20 hours of productivity in before burning out, so 60 isn't sustainable, at least for me. And those last 20 hours in a 60 hour week are really only good for brainless tasks.
God forbid I do any truly complex code in that time, or my net productivity will actually go negative, as I'll need to spend more time later fixing what I did as a zombie.
I think instead he was saying that when something is due the next day. He doesn't want someone who just clocks out because 5 pm came around. He wants someone who cares enough to stick around till they have something working for the demo they have tomorrow
80 hours means they've been death marching for at least five days (assuming the devs still sleep) and more likely a full week (if you allow for commute time and eating not at your desk).
And I do stick around until late when something is due the next day. But that typically means I put in less time later, so my net time spent is still about 30 hours/week. Putting in extra time means I need more free time to balance things out, and I think anyone who doesn't do that isn't acting in their own interests -- or their employer's.
Even if my short-week productivity doesn't match my 80-hour week productivity, I'll still prefer the short week, with no guilt over having those preferences. My goal in life is not to optimize everything I do for maximum benefit of my employer; I have my own priorities and trade-offs to worry about.
If so, then an employer should be willing to pay you appropriately for that amount of time.
Something tells me even though that guy got a magical plane ticket home he also probably wasn't a participant in that "big exit".
As long as my salary is not skimped on, I get a lot of satisfaction from working for a thrifty company. In my domain (infrastructure and ops), learning to do more with less is a lot more challenging than having a blank check for everything you want. Some of my best workplace accomplishments were made when we simply didn't have the cash to buy the big, expensive gear or software.
More 2am nights?
This is the real secret. Lean is how they lasted long enough, but a profitable business model with actual customers is how they exited.