4 ms·
I agree with this article mostly, although 3 hours a day might be too little to make good progress with work for some people. This article reminded me of my pr
by susam 11y ago
I agree with this article mostly, although 3 hours a day might be too little to make good progress with work for some people.
This article reminded me of my previous workplace (about 7 years ago) where my manager discouraged engineers from working for more than 6 hours a day. He recommended 4 hours of work per day and requested us not to exceed more than 6 hours of work per day. He believed working for less number of hours a day would lead to higher code quality, less mistakes and more robust software.
Although, he never went around the floor ensuring that engineers do not exceed 6 hours of work a day, and some engineers did exceed 6 hours a day, however, in my opinion, his team was the most motivated team on the floor.
- jqm 11y agoI've found 6 hours to be about the right amount day in and day out.
- vldx 11y agoSame here; I've build a system around this, i.e. 6 sets of 50 minute sprints. No pressure hitting this volume, it's not a goal, but more a data point.
- chris11 11y agoDid he differentiate between more demanding work like writing code and less demanding work like going to meetings?
- susam 11y agoNo, he was not specific about what the 4 hours of work included. However, working on code consumed about 90% of our time. Meetings were held once a week for 30 minutes. The time spent on emails and updating bug tracker usually varied anywhere between 0 minutes to 45 minutes per day.
- Drdrdrq 11y agoLess demanding??? I would gladly trade meetings time for hardcore programming work, anytime.
- charlesism 11y agoIt's another "magic short cut" article. They're like crack to HN. Fun to read; probably not wise to take seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2_snSkpULQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2_snSkpULQ
- frozenport 11y agoYep, and just like crack, most people can't afford it!