4 ms·
I'm going to disagree (if I didn't, I guess I'd just shut down RescueTime and cry!). How much time you spend is correlative with productivity. Most of my real
by webwright 18y ago
I'm going to disagree (if I didn't, I guess I'd just shut down RescueTime and cry!).
How much time you spend is correlative with productivity. Most of my really productive weeks are where I log an unusual number of hours in my dev environment. I think the relationship between # of hours and productivity is especially strong when:
A) Looking at a longer period of time (certainly there are raredays where you're in TextMate all day but don't get anything meaningful done, just as there are days where you destroy a critical problem in 30 minutes)
B) You're comparing to yourself. Comparing your work-month to mine isn't very meaningful. Comparing a month of my data the middle of our YC experience versus a month of data in the middle of our fundraising efforts vs a recent month of data is interesting.
But I also think that the sheer # of hours is a really interesting measure of engagement, motivation, and workload. If you're only really working for 2 hours a day, chances are the issue is with that rather than with your ability to be productive.
- lunaru 18y agoB is the key here. The problem is that number of hours is too often thrown around as a comparison between two different people. I'd argue that arises from the more frequently asked question of "Is employee A more productive than employee B?" rather than "was employee A more productive on Tuesday or Thursday?" Employers certainly ask the first question when they're looking for salaries to dump.