15 ms·

The years when I was at my most productive, in terms of outputting the most value for my employer (products, patents, etc), I was doing about three hours of "fo

The years when I was at my most productive, in terms of outputting the most value for my employer (products, patents, etc), I was doing about three hours of "focus work" a day on average. I simply didn't have the energy to do more than that. The rest of my working hours were spent in low-productivity meetings, low intensity emailing, etc. My performance reviews were consistently top-notch and I was getting promoted at the maximum rate allowed by our organization. My least productive years happened when I was working far longer hours, stressed out and miserable in a company with a "hustle culture" and very poor internal communication/documentation habits in my opinion. My opinion is that you should prioritize your own wellbeing and if you feel that the company culture (or your manager) is preventing you from working in the way that you find most enjoyable, go find a different job. Don't be pressured into working longer than you want or in ways that you don't like, thinking that it will help your career. Your quality of life is more important and you may actually be more productive doing things your way.

Helmut10001 3y ago
Fully agree. On my last job interview, I sat in front of the committee (about 7 to-be colleagues) and the director. I said: > I will only work maximum 30 hours a week. The reason is that I am not productive after 6 hours. It simply does not make sense for you to pay me after 2PM, because I will not do anything productive from 2 to 4PM and you are wasting money. Everyone smiled. Except the director. I still got the position, but the director is still hoping I will at some time upgrade to 100%. I said I will consider again after 2 years, but I doubt my perception will have changed by that time.
- gjulianm 3y ago
  To be honest, I don't know if I would have said that. I think that employees in "creative" positions (e.g., you're not serving customers at a bar and need to keep the shop open and working) are paid based on the output they produce. Whether that output is produced in 2, 6 or 8 hours is not really their problem. Looking at it this way, they would have happily paid you 100% of your salary for the same output you're now giving them with a 20% discount.
  - liquidpele 3y ago
    Don’t worry, he didn’t actually say that either. Just another “and everyone clapped” internet story.
  - Helmut10001 3y ago
    I work in academia and this was a tenure track position - these are quite rare and I have the feeling that only those will get these positions that can work 100% in 50% of time anyway (which accounts to 200% of work in a regular 40-hour job). I just wanted to make absolutely sure that I will have a limit of 6 hours a day and can take care of my body afterwards. Sitting 8 hours is just not doable anymore at close to 40, at least not for me.
renegade-otter 3y ago
Working smart vs working hard. Also - optics. Notice how even if you are an early bird and in the office by 9, you are a lazy slacker when you leave at 5? Then someone rolls in at 11 and leaves at 7 - same number of hours. HARD WORKER. People are shallow, visual, and have no attention spans (especially now). You need to be aware of the optics and play them. No, you are not gaming the system - you are getting to the even point of a stupid, unfair one. Also - you need to just plain not take jobs in companies with hustle cultures if you can avoid it. If everyone on the team is 22, it's probably going to be hell, because they are still to learn the lesson the hard way. Call it reverse agism or whatever, but it's a joy to work with professionals who have seen dysfunctional workplaces and who have lives.
- memling 3y ago
  > Notice how even if you are an early bird and in the office by 9, you are a lazy slacker when you leave at 5? Then someone rolls in at 11 and leaves at 7 - same number of hours. HARD WORKER. So I generally agree with your post, but is this what constitutes early riser these days? I get having kids and missing the key 7-9am time slot, but is an 11am start time a Usual Thing?
  - liquidpele 3y ago
    11 or 12 EST is common for west coasters obviously… then if their boss is east coast and an idiot they value them being there “late”
    - darkerside 3y ago
      Why does that make them an idiot? To see value in overlapping work hours?
      - jondwillis 3y ago
        Perhaps more coverage (by PST workers) in the later hours of the day (in EST.) “The sun never sets on the org’s productivity empire”
jader201 3y ago
> The rest of my [5] working hours were spent in low-productivity meetings, low intensity emailing, etc. That would feel very unproductive, to me. 3 hours of productive work is certainly better than 0, but I think I’d have a hard time ending the day with that much of my day consumed with unproductive meetings and email. Granted, a lot of my day is spent on our internal chat tool (Slack equivalent), so I suppose that’s mostly equivalent to meetings/email. But I would consider that time mostly productive, and certainly don’t feel like it consumes 5 hours of my 8-hour day. But I do agree with the last two paragraphs (and the general sentiment that a culture of overtime is never good), and to your point, if what you describe feels productive to you, that’s what’s important.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > That would feel very unproductive, to me. 3 hours of productive work is certainly better than 0, but I think I’d have a hard time ending the day with that much of my day consumed with unproductive meetings and email. I hated every minute outside of the three hours of actual work I did every day, but I did it because I felt I had to maintain the appearance of being productive. The simple reality is that after those three hours of intensive work I didn't have any mental juice left to do useful stuff. At that point in my career I would have given more if I had it, but I just didn't have the mental stamina for that level of focused work. What I wondered during those years is: if I'm "slacking" most of the day, how can I be a top contributor? But I was, and not because I was particularly smart or good at selling myself. I suspect the answer is simply that most people don't actually work all that many hours a day either, either intentionally or because in order to go through the whole 8-hour workday they pace themselves accordingly.
Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
A strategy I've used since covid is to go into the office in the morning for my focus work. My mind works best then and I can also satisfy our current requirements for being at the office some of the time. Then I go home at noon, or 1 if I had some momentum on something. Then the afternoon is spent in the mindless teams/zoom/etc meetings and emailing. It's a pretty productive arrangement for me. Though it does break down when people insist on morning meetings. Then I get nothing done.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
When I started my new job a month ago I told the founder that generally I've worked 25-30 hour weeks. My references were good enough that he said "Well if that's what it took to make your references that happy go right ahead and continue working those hours". Reasonable people understand that hours != output.

Helmut10001 3y ago

Fully agree. On my last job interview, I sat in front of the committee (about 7 to-be colleagues) and the director. I said: > I will only work maximum 30 hours a week. The reason is that I am not productive after 6 hours. It simply does not make sense for you to pay me after 2PM, because I will not do anything productive from 2 to 4PM and you are wasting money. Everyone smiled. Except the director. I still got the position, but the director is still hoping I will at some time upgrade to 100%. I said I will consider again after 2 years, but I doubt my perception will have changed by that time.

gjulianm 3y ago
To be honest, I don't know if I would have said that. I think that employees in "creative" positions (e.g., you're not serving customers at a bar and need to keep the shop open and working) are paid based on the output they produce. Whether that output is produced in 2, 6 or 8 hours is not really their problem. Looking at it this way, they would have happily paid you 100% of your salary for the same output you're now giving them with a 20% discount.
- liquidpele 3y ago
  Don’t worry, he didn’t actually say that either. Just another “and everyone clapped” internet story.
- Helmut10001 3y ago
  I work in academia and this was a tenure track position - these are quite rare and I have the feeling that only those will get these positions that can work 100% in 50% of time anyway (which accounts to 200% of work in a regular 40-hour job). I just wanted to make absolutely sure that I will have a limit of 6 hours a day and can take care of my body afterwards. Sitting 8 hours is just not doable anymore at close to 40, at least not for me.

renegade-otter 3y ago

Working smart vs working hard. Also - optics. Notice how even if you are an early bird and in the office by 9, you are a lazy slacker when you leave at 5? Then someone rolls in at 11 and leaves at 7 - same number of hours. HARD WORKER. People are shallow, visual, and have no attention spans (especially now). You need to be aware of the optics and play them. No, you are not gaming the system - you are getting to the even point of a stupid, unfair one. Also - you need to just plain not take jobs in companies with hustle cultures if you can avoid it. If everyone on the team is 22, it's probably going to be hell, because they are still to learn the lesson the hard way. Call it reverse agism or whatever, but it's a joy to work with professionals who have seen dysfunctional workplaces and who have lives.

memling 3y ago
> Notice how even if you are an early bird and in the office by 9, you are a lazy slacker when you leave at 5? Then someone rolls in at 11 and leaves at 7 - same number of hours. HARD WORKER. So I generally agree with your post, but is this what constitutes early riser these days? I get having kids and missing the key 7-9am time slot, but is an 11am start time a Usual Thing?
- liquidpele 3y ago
  11 or 12 EST is common for west coasters obviously… then if their boss is east coast and an idiot they value them being there “late”
  - darkerside 3y ago
    Why does that make them an idiot? To see value in overlapping work hours?
    - jondwillis 3y ago
      Perhaps more coverage (by PST workers) in the later hours of the day (in EST.) “The sun never sets on the org’s productivity empire”

jader201 3y ago

> The rest of my [5] working hours were spent in low-productivity meetings, low intensity emailing, etc. That would feel very unproductive, to me. 3 hours of productive work is certainly better than 0, but I think I’d have a hard time ending the day with that much of my day consumed with unproductive meetings and email. Granted, a lot of my day is spent on our internal chat tool (Slack equivalent), so I suppose that’s mostly equivalent to meetings/email. But I would consider that time mostly productive, and certainly don’t feel like it consumes 5 hours of my 8-hour day. But I do agree with the last two paragraphs (and the general sentiment that a culture of overtime is never good), and to your point, if what you describe feels productive to you, that’s what’s important.

david-gpu 3y ago
> That would feel very unproductive, to me. 3 hours of productive work is certainly better than 0, but I think I’d have a hard time ending the day with that much of my day consumed with unproductive meetings and email. I hated every minute outside of the three hours of actual work I did every day, but I did it because I felt I had to maintain the appearance of being productive. The simple reality is that after those three hours of intensive work I didn't have any mental juice left to do useful stuff. At that point in my career I would have given more if I had it, but I just didn't have the mental stamina for that level of focused work. What I wondered during those years is: if I'm "slacking" most of the day, how can I be a top contributor? But I was, and not because I was particularly smart or good at selling myself. I suspect the answer is simply that most people don't actually work all that many hours a day either, either intentionally or because in order to go through the whole 8-hour workday they pace themselves accordingly.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

A strategy I've used since covid is to go into the office in the morning for my focus work. My mind works best then and I can also satisfy our current requirements for being at the office some of the time. Then I go home at noon, or 1 if I had some momentum on something. Then the afternoon is spent in the mindless teams/zoom/etc meetings and emailing. It's a pretty productive arrangement for me. Though it does break down when people insist on morning meetings. Then I get nothing done.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago

When I started my new job a month ago I told the founder that generally I've worked 25-30 hour weeks. My references were good enough that he said "Well if that's what it took to make your references that happy go right ahead and continue working those hours". Reasonable people understand that hours != output.