3 ms·

My original claim was that there’s no research showing negative productivity for any job for less than 60 hours a week of work. If you have anything to the cont

My original claim was that there’s no research showing negative productivity for any job for less than 60 hours a week of work. If you have anything to the contrary please share. There is no reason to believe knowledge workers are any different than manual workers here. Your productivity turns negative when you make so many mistakes that you’re destroying value, not creating it. The article may be only weak evidence for knowledge workers but it certainly isn’t no evidence. Other forms of evidence while not rising to the standards of publication certainly don’t point to 40 hours work a week being optimal for productivity of most knowledge workers. Physicians, professors at research institutions, top tier lawyers, all these people work insane hours. There is no evidence that working less than 60 hours a week is better for productivity, anywhere, just a bunch of people wishing really hard.

maerF0x0 6y ago
> Your productivity turns negative when you make so many mistakes that you’re destroying value, not creating it. One thing to consider about knowledge/skill workers vs unskilled labor is that most complex systems are house of cards style situations where a single mistake can both destroy a network effect of value, but also take several orders of magnitude of time and effort to detect and rectify the actual issue. Introducing a subtle, but value destroying, bug into a system can do value damage to the N systems it interconnects with, and can lead to a near total loss of the whole system (eg: drop table). Of course there are safeguards that can help avoid this like backups, but still the point is a carpenter wouldn't make the whole house worthless by a misplaced nail.