4 ms·

What bothers me is that it matters how long someone works in a week. If you are getting payed for a 40 hour work week then you should only work 40 hours a week.

What bothers me is that it matters how long someone works in a week. If you are getting payed for a 40 hour work week then you should only work 40 hours a week. If you are getting paid hourly (as I do) who cares as long as stuff is getting done. Some weeks I work 20 hours, some I work 60 it just depends on my workload and mood. If you want to work 40 hours a week and be done then go for it, good for you. If you want to work 60 hours a week, also good for you. The problem comes with you start judging other people by how long they work, just because someone goes home at 5 every day doesn't mean they don't care about their jobs...

w0utert 14y ago
^ this Hours worked must be one of the worst metrics for performance, productivity, efficiency or commitment. I don't know why people in some countries or cultures are so obsessed with how long they work, or how few days they take off. Or actually, maybe I do know why, but it has nothing to do with 'amount of work done' or 'quality of work'. I think that more often than not, the people consistently putting in the most hours are those who take the longest to finish stuff, and care the least about the quality of their output. Anyone can sit behind a desk 10 hours a day to impress the boss. IMO no metric used to assess performance or productivity should include the number of hours present in the office. Instead of 'hours worked this week' or 'number of days worked this year', the metric should be 'total number of hours to finish the job', preferably divided by a factor based on the 'amount of rework or support required afterwards' and/or multiplied by a factor based on the flexibility of the person doing the work, both in terms of availability as well as skill set. Of course some of these things are hard to track on a spreadsheet, so they are rarely used. Long story short: just try to do the best job you can in the most efficient way possible, without turning into a bean counter, just because that's the best way to impress your superior.
- MarlonPro 14y ago
  Great point! Getting things done in 40 or less hours a week is a great feat. Now, "being busy" for more than that amount of hours is not.
- kennu 14y ago
  I am confused when people even consider measuring productivity with hours spent. It's like trying to measure the brightness of a lightbulb with the amount of time it's been turned on - two totally different quantities. Usually productivity can only be estimated by your boss, who measures it with your salary, which can be converted to $/h or EUR/h. The work you get done is then logically measured by hours * salary. That's what it's worth to the company, anyway.
wpietri 14y ago
I agree in part. I strongly approve of people who go home on time. But I'm very suspicious of developers who consistently work a lot of hours. Working tired is like working drunk: your judgment is one of the first things to go. That matters less to me in other fields. But software development is all about good judgment. And version control preserves every late-night mistake until a well-rested person cleans is up later.

w0utert 14y ago

^ this Hours worked must be one of the worst metrics for performance, productivity, efficiency or commitment. I don't know why people in some countries or cultures are so obsessed with how long they work, or how few days they take off. Or actually, maybe I do know why, but it has nothing to do with 'amount of work done' or 'quality of work'. I think that more often than not, the people consistently putting in the most hours are those who take the longest to finish stuff, and care the least about the quality of their output. Anyone can sit behind a desk 10 hours a day to impress the boss. IMO no metric used to assess performance or productivity should include the number of hours present in the office. Instead of 'hours worked this week' or 'number of days worked this year', the metric should be 'total number of hours to finish the job', preferably divided by a factor based on the 'amount of rework or support required afterwards' and/or multiplied by a factor based on the flexibility of the person doing the work, both in terms of availability as well as skill set. Of course some of these things are hard to track on a spreadsheet, so they are rarely used. Long story short: just try to do the best job you can in the most efficient way possible, without turning into a bean counter, just because that's the best way to impress your superior.

MarlonPro 14y ago
Great point! Getting things done in 40 or less hours a week is a great feat. Now, "being busy" for more than that amount of hours is not.
kennu 14y ago
I am confused when people even consider measuring productivity with hours spent. It's like trying to measure the brightness of a lightbulb with the amount of time it's been turned on - two totally different quantities. Usually productivity can only be estimated by your boss, who measures it with your salary, which can be converted to $/h or EUR/h. The work you get done is then logically measured by hours * salary. That's what it's worth to the company, anyway.

wpietri 14y ago

I agree in part. I strongly approve of people who go home on time. But I'm very suspicious of developers who consistently work a lot of hours. Working tired is like working drunk: your judgment is one of the first things to go. That matters less to me in other fields. But software development is all about good judgment. And version control preserves every late-night mistake until a well-rested person cleans is up later.