4 ms·
> ...but if one tech founder is working 60 hours a week versus 40 hours a week (assuming they are both efficient) then there is a clear advantage.) There reall
by mtberatwork 7y ago
> ...but if one tech founder is working 60 hours a week versus 40 hours a week (assuming they are both efficient) then there is a clear advantage.)
There really isn't a clear advantage here either since no one is achieving 100% efficiency like that week after week. [1]
[1] https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-hours-backfire-for-people-and-for-companies https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-hours-bac...
- Raidion 7y agoEfficiency isn't the metric people care about on either side of the equation though. Management only cares about results. If you work 3 hours at 100% efficiency, 5 at 75% and 3 at 50%, that's still more results than working 4 at 100% and 4 at 75%. On the other side of the equation, the worker gets to see and handle more technology with the longer hours, which make them more attractive in interviews. If you're working 50 hours of week instead of 40, even with productivity hits, you're still "gaining" a week of experience roughly every month. That means at 2 years, you're actually at almost 3 years of experience, and that pays off. Repeat this for a few more years, and the difference adds up and matters. I'm not advocating for that lifestyle at all, but there is something to be said for just having more time with code. You obviously need to have an endgame plan, as staying at one company often doesn't scale your career, but if that 2nd year dev is able to get a prime spot because of his extra "year" of experience, and repeat a few times... There is money to be made.