3 ms·

The research contradicts you, and if you're going by your intuition you're likely wrong, even about your own performance. It's exactly your sort of thinking th

by bonaldi 11y ago

The research contradicts you, and if you're going by your intuition you're likely wrong, even about your own performance. It's exactly your sort of thinking that means the industry keeps working the way it is

jo909 11y ago
While I totally believe the research is right, and see the same results and draw the same conclusions for myself, I don't think the research can tell anything about one individual. The way studies work is to measure the average of a large group. Most people I assume (I don't have data to back that up) work in jobs that do not have what jkot meant with "good conditions". So the research finds that _on average_ longer work hours do not result in more work done, and that is good advice for every employer. For a motivated individual or small group that can be different, so I believe such personal accounts and would not tell them they are wrong. I can totally see how founders, special personalities, people with what I call the "perfect job" can work much longer than 40 hours without being wrong about their own performance. The wrong thing is only to expect that from others or to create an environment that makes others believe it would be true for them too.
- thenomad 11y ago
  Covered at least in part in http://ericdodds.com/research-and-the-realities-of-time-worked/ http://ericdodds.com/research-and-the-realities-of-time-work... - including perception vs reality of productivity in crunch time. He has a graph on that: http://ericdodds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/graphing-percieved-productivity-daniel-cook-working-overtime-eric-dodds-productivity-hacking-blog-series.jpg http://ericdodds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/graphing-per... It's possible that some special individuals can work longer hours than average without productivity loss. However, without hard data to prove you're one of those individuals, given the above, it may be inadvisable to simply assume you are...
  - falcolas 11y ago
    In addition to this, for every "capable of working more than 40 hours" worker, there's another "incapable of being productive more than 40 hours" worker. That's the joy with averages. So look around you - of the 20 people who are working late hours with you and believe they are still productive, 10 of them are wildly unproductive, quite possibly to the point of contributing disproportionally negative productivity due to writing bugs. Is the additional 400 man-hours of productive work worth those 400-800 man-hours spent debugging problems which could have been avoided?
jkot 11y ago
Not really, problem is that most people define "work" as sitting behind computer.
- bonaldi 11y ago
  Again, no - the original research was into people working in a huge range of ways -- heavy industry, outdoor occupations, clerical work etc. If you mean "I can socialise and network and that counts as work", I don't think that's what comes over in your original post.

by bonaldi 11y ago

jo909 11y ago

While I totally believe the research is right, and see the same results and draw the same conclusions for myself, I don't think the research can tell anything about one individual. The way studies work is to measure the average of a large group. Most people I assume (I don't have data to back that up) work in jobs that do not have what jkot meant with "good conditions". So the research finds that _on average_ longer work hours do not result in more work done, and that is good advice for every employer. For a motivated individual or small group that can be different, so I believe such personal accounts and would not tell them they are wrong. I can totally see how founders, special personalities, people with what I call the "perfect job" can work much longer than 40 hours without being wrong about their own performance. The wrong thing is only to expect that from others or to create an environment that makes others believe it would be true for them too.

thenomad 11y ago
Covered at least in part in http://ericdodds.com/research-and-the-realities-of-time-worked/ http://ericdodds.com/research-and-the-realities-of-time-work... - including perception vs reality of productivity in crunch time. He has a graph on that: http://ericdodds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/graphing-percieved-productivity-daniel-cook-working-overtime-eric-dodds-productivity-hacking-blog-series.jpg http://ericdodds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/graphing-per... It's possible that some special individuals can work longer hours than average without productivity loss. However, without hard data to prove you're one of those individuals, given the above, it may be inadvisable to simply assume you are...
- falcolas 11y ago
  In addition to this, for every "capable of working more than 40 hours" worker, there's another "incapable of being productive more than 40 hours" worker. That's the joy with averages. So look around you - of the 20 people who are working late hours with you and believe they are still productive, 10 of them are wildly unproductive, quite possibly to the point of contributing disproportionally negative productivity due to writing bugs. Is the additional 400 man-hours of productive work worth those 400-800 man-hours spent debugging problems which could have been avoided?

jkot 11y ago

Not really, problem is that most people define "work" as sitting behind computer.

bonaldi 11y ago
Again, no - the original research was into people working in a huge range of ways -- heavy industry, outdoor occupations, clerical work etc. If you mean "I can socialise and network and that counts as work", I don't think that's what comes over in your original post.