3 ms·
I used to think this. But, I've learned that it assumes a bunch of things that aren't really true at many, many companies: - Clear goals that the team is bough
by endlessvoid94 5y ago
I used to think this. But, I've learned that it assumes a bunch of things that aren't really true at many, many companies:
- Clear goals that the team is bought into
- Productive people who can sustain emotional enthusiasm for extended time periods
- An environment where intrinsically motivated people can thrive, and/or incentives for extrinsically motivated people
- A healthy feedback loop so people know when they're improving and are rewarded for it
- etc
Looked at this way, a team of 5 people working 20 hours per week in this type of company can vastly outperform a team of people working 40 hours per week at a company that lacks the above items. (And I'm probably missing some)
- PraetorianGourd 5y agoThat isn't how comparisons work though. You can't compare a 20-hour/week company with good culture to a 40-hour/week company with toxic culture. You have two variables uncontrolled in that comparison. Compare both companies at 40 or both at 20. The good-culture-40-hour would outperform the both the good-culture-20-hour and bad-culture-40-hour so why wouldn't all companies aim for 40/hours with a good culture? It could be argued that it is impossible to have a good culture and 40 hours, but that needs a lot of analysis.
- maxerickson 5y agoYou can compare apples and oranges just fine. (You are working to argue that the comparison being made isn't useful and haven't gotten there. For instance, if I was going to build a company, I'd certainly want to know what parts of a culture were important to a company that compared so well against the longer working company)
- endlessvoid94 5y agoI'm saying if you have the above items checked off, then you're ahead of many, many teams. (It feels to me like 99% of teams but that's just looking out my own eyes)