3 ms·

“Could you work 130 hours in a week?” The answer is yes, if you’re strategic about when you sleep, when you shower, and how often you go to the bathroom. The na

by ma2rten 10y ago

“Could you work 130 hours in a week?” The answer is yes, if you’re strategic about when you sleep, when you shower, and how often you go to the bathroom. The nap rooms at Google were there because it was safer to stay in the office than walk to your car at 3 a.m. For my first five years, I did at least one all-nighter a week Really? I always thought that pulling all-nighters hurts more than it helps. Optimizing your bathroom breaks seems really silly to me.

erdevs 10y ago
It absolutely is unhelpful in anything more than short bursts. It is very odd how obsessed she seems with hours-worked. Mayer is someone who proclaims to believe in the power of data. I'm curious then what data she has to back her views on crunch==maximization of value creation. Most of the data I've seen says the opposite. It seems Mayer may be letting her anecdotal experience in the early days of Google trump data here. (A it's also possible that anyone, including Mayer, can have misperceived or misattributed the importance of sustained crunch in those days or its causative effect on success.)
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  I've noticed the obsession about hours worked tends to correlate with insecurities surrounding competence. Managers who were acutely aware of how little they understood about what went on underneath them tended to be the ones who spent the most time in the office and who cared most about what time people came/left. They also tend to be the ones who are the most against remote working. Competent people don't require those metrics.
weka 10y ago
Some people work to live and, well, Marissa chooses to live to work. Some people cannot help but revolve their lives around their job 24/7.
- the_af 10y ago
  Agreed. A good indicator of that is when you start micromanaging your bathroom breaks, i.e. when not only your mental life but also your bodily functions get subordinated to corporate success.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
  Fair enough, but that doesn't answer the core question -- was she actually productive during that time or was a lot of that playing with her kids, reading the news, having her brain go in circles because she's exhausted and not thinking clearly, thinking about her next bathroom break, etc.
akavi 10y ago
My intuition is that for the typical person, it hurts more than it helps. But life is unfair, and there probably are some people legitimately can put in 130 hours of net-positive work for extended periods of time. And presumably, these people will be disproportionately represented among the "successful". Another issue is it seems like it'd be hard to tell while you're pulling those ridiculous hours whether or not you're part of the "lucky" subset that actually continues to be productive.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
  I don't deny that she was "doing work" during 130 hours a week, but I question what she was doing or how productive it really was. I don't see why this is a thing to gloat about. And my take on Yahoo is that it has been lacking a strategic thinker and had unfortunately been saddled with numerous scattered-brained ideas that sound good over a lunch discussion, but cannot be tied to a central plan for the business with a straight face. The hours she is working immediately says to me that she is not capable of hiring good people and delegating responsibilities. Now, I don't expect a CEO of a large company to work a 40 hour work week, but 130 hours is ridiculous. Out of that 130 hours of work, none of that could have been delegated? Is she really that special that only she can handle it?

by ma2rten 10y ago

erdevs 10y ago

It absolutely is unhelpful in anything more than short bursts. It is very odd how obsessed she seems with hours-worked. Mayer is someone who proclaims to believe in the power of data. I'm curious then what data she has to back her views on crunch==maximization of value creation. Most of the data I've seen says the opposite. It seems Mayer may be letting her anecdotal experience in the early days of Google trump data here. (A it's also possible that anyone, including Mayer, can have misperceived or misattributed the importance of sustained crunch in those days or its causative effect on success.)

crdoconnor 10y ago
I've noticed the obsession about hours worked tends to correlate with insecurities surrounding competence. Managers who were acutely aware of how little they understood about what went on underneath them tended to be the ones who spent the most time in the office and who cared most about what time people came/left. They also tend to be the ones who are the most against remote working. Competent people don't require those metrics.

weka 10y ago

Some people work to live and, well, Marissa chooses to live to work. Some people cannot help but revolve their lives around their job 24/7.

the_af 10y ago
Agreed. A good indicator of that is when you start micromanaging your bathroom breaks, i.e. when not only your mental life but also your bodily functions get subordinated to corporate success.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
Fair enough, but that doesn't answer the core question -- was she actually productive during that time or was a lot of that playing with her kids, reading the news, having her brain go in circles because she's exhausted and not thinking clearly, thinking about her next bathroom break, etc.

akavi 10y ago

My intuition is that for the typical person, it hurts more than it helps. But life is unfair, and there probably are some people legitimately can put in 130 hours of net-positive work for extended periods of time. And presumably, these people will be disproportionately represented among the "successful". Another issue is it seems like it'd be hard to tell while you're pulling those ridiculous hours whether or not you're part of the "lucky" subset that actually continues to be productive.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
I don't deny that she was "doing work" during 130 hours a week, but I question what she was doing or how productive it really was. I don't see why this is a thing to gloat about. And my take on Yahoo is that it has been lacking a strategic thinker and had unfortunately been saddled with numerous scattered-brained ideas that sound good over a lunch discussion, but cannot be tied to a central plan for the business with a straight face. The hours she is working immediately says to me that she is not capable of hiring good people and delegating responsibilities. Now, I don't expect a CEO of a large company to work a 40 hour work week, but 130 hours is ridiculous. Out of that 130 hours of work, none of that could have been delegated? Is she really that special that only she can handle it?