4 ms·

I recently switched jobs and now work 35h/week instead of 40. I get a lot more done in those 35 hours now than I did previously in 40. The worst productivity I

I recently switched jobs and now work 35h/week instead of 40. I get a lot more done in those 35 hours now than I did previously in 40. The worst productivity I ever had was in frantic overtime rushes at the end of projects. There's definitely a link between working hours and productivity.

pdimitar 10y ago
One of the most baffling mysteries of our time for me is the fact that this truth (more working hours = less productivity) is still being massively denied and the non-existent and strawman "arguments" against it have been beaten to death and debunked thousands of times... yet never fail to reappear in any discussion on the topic. It seems the economic pressure for supporting this bullshit story is still too strong. Sigh.
- xamuel 10y ago
  I have a toddler, so no rest at home. I'm either coding or babysitting. Hence, for me currently, more hours is always more productivity.
  - pdimitar 10y ago
    I'd argue that you have to smuggle any productive hours you can, during any time interval of the day -- or the night. That doesn't inherently mean you work more than 40 hours a week, no?
- ryanwaggoner 10y ago
  Maybe it's because there's a lot of confusion created by people who claim that there's an inverse correlation between hours worked and overall productivity, instead of hours worked and marginal productivity. I have no trouble believing that (on average) someone who works 50 hours doesn't accomplish 25% more than someone who works 40 hours. I find it almost impossible to believe that they don't accomplish more overall though. And this fits the data: why would companies not dramatically push people to work fewer and fewer hours for this magical increased productivity that you're claiming? They could market it as a perk AND get so much more done! What I think is happening: there's little cost to companies to encourage workers to work 60 hours instead of 40. Sure, they won't get 50% more done, maybe only 20% or 30%, but the company doesn't pay overtime, so that's a free 20% or 30%. Of course, there's some point at which overwork does start to impact overall productivity vs standard-40-hours, but it's much, much higher than 40 hours. This study [0] seems to indicate that little extra gets done from 55-70 hours, but from my reading, that still doesn't indicate that someone working 70 hours gets less done than someone working 40 hours. Looking at figure 4 in that study, it looks like you'd have to go to 90-100 hours to see output drop back to 40-hour levels. It just seems ludicrous to me to suggest that for the population at large, working 40 hours is the optimal amount, such that anything less will result in greater overall productivity, and anything more will lower overall productivity. Really? 0. http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf
  - iopq 10y ago
    I definitely accomplish less overall when I work longer hours. For a week, I'll do more work. The next week I'll probably browse more Reddit. I just eventually rebel and don't want to do so much work anymore.
    - ryanwaggoner 10y ago
      Longer than what? What is the optimal number of hours?
      - iopq 10y ago
        Depends on how interesting the work is and how motivated I am. I think on average 20 hours of progamming a week + a few hours here and there for email and random things are optimal.
  - hectormalot 10y ago
    Exactly! My 60th hour might not be as productive as my 20th hour, but it is productive nonetheless. Currently leading a team I see different behavior from team members working longer hours. For example, we had a conversion to do that was running into a deadline. Together with a team of 4 we worked into the evenings to get it done. 2 of them 'compensated' by being there but browsing more Reddit, the other 2 actually sat down and got the work done. I see a lot of comments justifying the first kind of behavior, and it doesn't make sense to me. If you are not productive because you are on HN, you're doing that to yourself. At 40-60h we're in the realm of that being a choice, and then you're choosing not to be productive. FWIW, I'm not trying to justify people working long just to show that they are there/committed. That's a terrible practice too.
  - pdimitar 10y ago
    I have no problem at all with you disagreeing, but you do make it sound like your point of view is an universal truth -- which it isn't. In software development, I'd argue there's rarely a significant difference between marginal and overall productivity. It really boils down to personalities however, let's be real; and I am not gonna claim my point of view is universally true because it too isn't. The more and more you work, the more BS you start to produce. You are tired, you start to imagine your bed (or girlfriend, or TV, or whatever floats your boat) and you start putting less thought into what you do and just go into "spear mode". One of my former managers used to say "If I see you tired, I prefer letting you go at Friday 14:00 so you don't spend your entire Monday fixing the bugs you introduced during the second half of that Friday". This is a real phenomena. Granted it doesn't apply for everyone, but IMO you discard way too quickly those of us that do need some freedom and some "slack" to actually be more productive. And it's very generous to call the normal legal requirements not to work over 40 hours a week "slack". This is also real: when I am having a very hard time and I can't solve something and I get nervous and stressed out, and if you're my manager and tell me "Dimi, just call it a day right here, you can do it tomorrow" -- you can be VERY sure I'll do it tomorrow. While conversely if you tap me on the shoulder 10 times for the remainder of the day, I can guarantee you I'll get absolutely nothing done. Different strokes for different people. So no, "the free 20-30%" isn't something that the company can get from everyone.

pdimitar 10y ago

One of the most baffling mysteries of our time for me is the fact that this truth (more working hours = less productivity) is still being massively denied and the non-existent and strawman "arguments" against it have been beaten to death and debunked thousands of times... yet never fail to reappear in any discussion on the topic. It seems the economic pressure for supporting this bullshit story is still too strong. Sigh.

xamuel 10y ago
I have a toddler, so no rest at home. I'm either coding or babysitting. Hence, for me currently, more hours is always more productivity.
- pdimitar 10y ago
  I'd argue that you have to smuggle any productive hours you can, during any time interval of the day -- or the night. That doesn't inherently mean you work more than 40 hours a week, no?
ryanwaggoner 10y ago
Maybe it's because there's a lot of confusion created by people who claim that there's an inverse correlation between hours worked and overall productivity, instead of hours worked and marginal productivity. I have no trouble believing that (on average) someone who works 50 hours doesn't accomplish 25% more than someone who works 40 hours. I find it almost impossible to believe that they don't accomplish more overall though. And this fits the data: why would companies not dramatically push people to work fewer and fewer hours for this magical increased productivity that you're claiming? They could market it as a perk AND get so much more done! What I think is happening: there's little cost to companies to encourage workers to work 60 hours instead of 40. Sure, they won't get 50% more done, maybe only 20% or 30%, but the company doesn't pay overtime, so that's a free 20% or 30%. Of course, there's some point at which overwork does start to impact overall productivity vs standard-40-hours, but it's much, much higher than 40 hours. This study [0] seems to indicate that little extra gets done from 55-70 hours, but from my reading, that still doesn't indicate that someone working 70 hours gets less done than someone working 40 hours. Looking at figure 4 in that study, it looks like you'd have to go to 90-100 hours to see output drop back to 40-hour levels. It just seems ludicrous to me to suggest that for the population at large, working 40 hours is the optimal amount, such that anything less will result in greater overall productivity, and anything more will lower overall productivity. Really? 0. http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf
- iopq 10y ago
  I definitely accomplish less overall when I work longer hours. For a week, I'll do more work. The next week I'll probably browse more Reddit. I just eventually rebel and don't want to do so much work anymore.
  - ryanwaggoner 10y ago
    Longer than what? What is the optimal number of hours?
    - iopq 10y ago
      Depends on how interesting the work is and how motivated I am. I think on average 20 hours of progamming a week + a few hours here and there for email and random things are optimal.
- hectormalot 10y ago
  Exactly! My 60th hour might not be as productive as my 20th hour, but it is productive nonetheless. Currently leading a team I see different behavior from team members working longer hours. For example, we had a conversion to do that was running into a deadline. Together with a team of 4 we worked into the evenings to get it done. 2 of them 'compensated' by being there but browsing more Reddit, the other 2 actually sat down and got the work done. I see a lot of comments justifying the first kind of behavior, and it doesn't make sense to me. If you are not productive because you are on HN, you're doing that to yourself. At 40-60h we're in the realm of that being a choice, and then you're choosing not to be productive. FWIW, I'm not trying to justify people working long just to show that they are there/committed. That's a terrible practice too.
- pdimitar 10y ago
  I have no problem at all with you disagreeing, but you do make it sound like your point of view is an universal truth -- which it isn't. In software development, I'd argue there's rarely a significant difference between marginal and overall productivity. It really boils down to personalities however, let's be real; and I am not gonna claim my point of view is universally true because it too isn't. The more and more you work, the more BS you start to produce. You are tired, you start to imagine your bed (or girlfriend, or TV, or whatever floats your boat) and you start putting less thought into what you do and just go into "spear mode". One of my former managers used to say "If I see you tired, I prefer letting you go at Friday 14:00 so you don't spend your entire Monday fixing the bugs you introduced during the second half of that Friday". This is a real phenomena. Granted it doesn't apply for everyone, but IMO you discard way too quickly those of us that do need some freedom and some "slack" to actually be more productive. And it's very generous to call the normal legal requirements not to work over 40 hours a week "slack". This is also real: when I am having a very hard time and I can't solve something and I get nervous and stressed out, and if you're my manager and tell me "Dimi, just call it a day right here, you can do it tomorrow" -- you can be VERY sure I'll do it tomorrow. While conversely if you tap me on the shoulder 10 times for the remainder of the day, I can guarantee you I'll get absolutely nothing done. Different strokes for different people. So no, "the free 20-30%" isn't something that the company can get from everyone.