3 ms·

You get 40 hours Then they shouldn't want to work at Google and Facebook. No one serious there works 40 hours per week. It's like Jamie Z said: the first wave

by temphn 15y ago

You get 40 hours Then they shouldn't want to work at Google and Facebook. No one serious there works 40 hours per week. It's like Jamie Z said: the first wave at Netscape wanted to make the company great. The next wave, the one that ruined them, wanted to join because the company was great. Make no mistake, people like the ones you describe -- listless ones who clock 40 hours while looking at the clock and describing every major shipping push as a "death march" -- are the ones you want to avoid like the plague. If you want them to work more than that on a project, it's your job to motivate them to do it. An alternative and far more successful approach is to hire young guns who are intrinsically motivated. You just don't want to hire people who want to (a) be highly paid and work at the best companies in the world but (b) work only 40 hours a week on projects that are so unambitious that they are guaranteed to ship with no tricky bits.

michaelochurch 15y ago
I'm 28, so that probably puts me on the "young" side of this fight. But I also intend to be kicking ass into my 70s (or later) and that means I can expect to spend 2-3 times as many ass-kicking years as a geezer (40+) than my remaining pre-geezer years. Then they shouldn't want to work at Google and Facebook. No one serious there works 40 hours per week. Google New York is pretty 9-to-5 these days, except for people who are gunning for promotion... and it's pretty hard to build up the rolodex (due to the "2-up rule", which is that promotion from level N to N+1 will be decided by a panel of N+2's) to gun for promo every year. So most people work 9-to-5 (actually, more like 10-6:30, because of the dinner) except before a launch if they believe it will lead to promo. MTV may be different, and I know nothing about Facebook, but I'd imagine that they'd be down to the typical ~50 hour weeks of stable startups. People expect founder status if they're going to be committing 60+ on a regular basis (i.e. not just a one-time push). Make no mistake, people like the ones you describe -- listless ones who clock 40 hours while looking at the clock and describing every major shipping push as a "death march" -- are the ones you want to avoid like the plague. Sure, but the problem with the clock-watcher isn't that he's only there for 8 hours. It's that if he had a better attitude, he'd be working instead of watching the clock. The fact that he leaves at 5:01 isn't the problem; it's that he's been mentally "checked out" since 3:30. Anyway, I don't know that that's an age problem. There are definitely 22-year-olds as well with bad work ethics and huge senses of entitlement. It's also perfectly possible for a person to put forward 40 solid hours and accomplish an incredible amount. An alternative and far more successful approach is to hire young guns who are intrinsically motivated. You want a mix: young people who will support decisions they didn't make and put their heads down, and older people with experience who will push back, mentor the young, and try to keep them from burning out. The problem with the "young guns" is that they usually don't know how to pace themselves and that they won't push back against a bad idea. (No matter how awesome you are, some of your ideas suck.) Also, you have to question this "intrinsic" motivation. Is it because they have expectations of the job (or their career) that you won't be able to fulfill? That will become a problem later on, and it will blindside you when it does. You just don't want to hire people who want to (a) be highly paid and work at the best companies in the world but (b) work only 40 hours a week on projects that are so unambitious that they are guaranteed to ship with no tricky bits. What about category (c), which I think describes most good software developers: people who want to work hard on ambitious projects, but with high degrees of autonomy and without having to suffer unsustainable hours because of unreasonable deadlines? You seem to have this black-and-white view where people either have an unconditional work ethic (i.e. either have never failed or haven't learned from it) or are completely listless and used-up. I don't think that accurately describes reality.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jakejake 15y ago
  28 - Well, you aren't exactly a spring chicken in this industry, but I think it was around 35 that I started feeling like an elder statesman! That's kinda sad, but it seems to be a young man's game. I have to say, first of all call me in 20 years and we'll see if you still feel the same! Burnout is real and priorities change. Second of all chances are pretty good that you will be kicking ass... but for another company. There's no guarantees with anybody, but odds are a young person is more likely to move on to another job. As far as 40 hours - I have to agree with you. Some guys punch the clock, do incredible work, then leave for the day on time. Other guys will stay all night and the next day you come in to find a huge mess of shit code. I'm of the opinion that you only have so many hours of productive work in you per week. And if you try to exceed it one week, eventually you'll have a week where you don't get anything done. It all evens out.
- kamaal 15y ago
  In fact any big company no matter which company that is, is full of 95% of the people fall into 9-5 category. The remaining 5% work like crazy, expect to be rewarded extra and find out sometime later that is not going to be the case and they will just have to the burden for the rest of the company. Frustrated those 5% leave, and that 5% keeps shrinking.
KentBeck 15y ago
I'm a geezer (50) at Facebook. It's not the hours, as Indiana Jones might have said had he been a programmer, it's the lines. (I don't know what that means--it's just too good a line to pass up.) There are ways I provide leadership and ways I accept leadership from my peers, and the mix is different than it might have been twenty years ago. My code reviews focus on strategic issues ("could this be divided up into N diffs?") instead of sorting out complex behavior. I pass off many of my ideas since I'm slower than I was at implementing. I am as engaged by this job as anything I've done for fifteen years. A positive, curious attitude goes a long way, as does the expectation that I need to earn the respect of my team and give them respect where due in return.
- jakejake 15y ago
  We're close to the same age and that sounds a lot like my attitude as well! Only I'm at a small company and essentially am the boss of my department. But I would like to see myself the way you describe.
- spitfire 15y ago
  Hey, what you lack in speed you can make up for in wisdom and mentorship. I'm mid-career (30), and finding more and more my real wins come from outside pure ability to cut code. They're tending to come from outright theft of ideas and concepts from other industries and domains.

by temphn 15y ago

michaelochurch 15y ago

I'm 28, so that probably puts me on the "young" side of this fight. But I also intend to be kicking ass into my 70s (or later) and that means I can expect to spend 2-3 times as many ass-kicking years as a geezer (40+) than my remaining pre-geezer years. Then they shouldn't want to work at Google and Facebook. No one serious there works 40 hours per week. Google New York is pretty 9-to-5 these days, except for people who are gunning for promotion... and it's pretty hard to build up the rolodex (due to the "2-up rule", which is that promotion from level N to N+1 will be decided by a panel of N+2's) to gun for promo every year. So most people work 9-to-5 (actually, more like 10-6:30, because of the dinner) except before a launch if they believe it will lead to promo. MTV may be different, and I know nothing about Facebook, but I'd imagine that they'd be down to the typical ~50 hour weeks of stable startups. People expect founder status if they're going to be committing 60+ on a regular basis (i.e. not just a one-time push). Make no mistake, people like the ones you describe -- listless ones who clock 40 hours while looking at the clock and describing every major shipping push as a "death march" -- are the ones you want to avoid like the plague. Sure, but the problem with the clock-watcher isn't that he's only there for 8 hours. It's that if he had a better attitude, he'd be working instead of watching the clock. The fact that he leaves at 5:01 isn't the problem; it's that he's been mentally "checked out" since 3:30. Anyway, I don't know that that's an age problem. There are definitely 22-year-olds as well with bad work ethics and huge senses of entitlement. It's also perfectly possible for a person to put forward 40 solid hours and accomplish an incredible amount. An alternative and far more successful approach is to hire young guns who are intrinsically motivated. You want a mix: young people who will support decisions they didn't make and put their heads down, and older people with experience who will push back, mentor the young, and try to keep them from burning out. The problem with the "young guns" is that they usually don't know how to pace themselves and that they won't push back against a bad idea. (No matter how awesome you are, some of your ideas suck.) Also, you have to question this "intrinsic" motivation. Is it because they have expectations of the job (or their career) that you won't be able to fulfill? That will become a problem later on, and it will blindside you when it does. You just don't want to hire people who want to (a) be highly paid and work at the best companies in the world but (b) work only 40 hours a week on projects that are so unambitious that they are guaranteed to ship with no tricky bits. What about category (c), which I think describes most good software developers: people who want to work hard on ambitious projects, but with high degrees of autonomy and without having to suffer unsustainable hours because of unreasonable deadlines? You seem to have this black-and-white view where people either have an unconditional work ethic (i.e. either have never failed or haven't learned from it) or are completely listless and used-up. I don't think that accurately describes reality.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jakejake 15y ago
28 - Well, you aren't exactly a spring chicken in this industry, but I think it was around 35 that I started feeling like an elder statesman! That's kinda sad, but it seems to be a young man's game. I have to say, first of all call me in 20 years and we'll see if you still feel the same! Burnout is real and priorities change. Second of all chances are pretty good that you will be kicking ass... but for another company. There's no guarantees with anybody, but odds are a young person is more likely to move on to another job. As far as 40 hours - I have to agree with you. Some guys punch the clock, do incredible work, then leave for the day on time. Other guys will stay all night and the next day you come in to find a huge mess of shit code. I'm of the opinion that you only have so many hours of productive work in you per week. And if you try to exceed it one week, eventually you'll have a week where you don't get anything done. It all evens out.
kamaal 15y ago
In fact any big company no matter which company that is, is full of 95% of the people fall into 9-5 category. The remaining 5% work like crazy, expect to be rewarded extra and find out sometime later that is not going to be the case and they will just have to the burden for the rest of the company. Frustrated those 5% leave, and that 5% keeps shrinking.

KentBeck 15y ago

I'm a geezer (50) at Facebook. It's not the hours, as Indiana Jones might have said had he been a programmer, it's the lines. (I don't know what that means--it's just too good a line to pass up.) There are ways I provide leadership and ways I accept leadership from my peers, and the mix is different than it might have been twenty years ago. My code reviews focus on strategic issues ("could this be divided up into N diffs?") instead of sorting out complex behavior. I pass off many of my ideas since I'm slower than I was at implementing. I am as engaged by this job as anything I've done for fifteen years. A positive, curious attitude goes a long way, as does the expectation that I need to earn the respect of my team and give them respect where due in return.

jakejake 15y ago
We're close to the same age and that sounds a lot like my attitude as well! Only I'm at a small company and essentially am the boss of my department. But I would like to see myself the way you describe.
spitfire 15y ago
Hey, what you lack in speed you can make up for in wisdom and mentorship. I'm mid-career (30), and finding more and more my real wins come from outside pure ability to cut code. They're tending to come from outright theft of ideas and concepts from other industries and domains.