8 ms·

Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work. So no, you won't be as productive if y

Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work. So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time). That said, productivity/achievement might be a bit overrated. Will your life be better and will you be happier when you achieve your goal? Will you ever achieve it? Most of us disregard the fact that wealth is not remotely correlated with happiness and still hunt for the big payday. [edit: lots of folks are asking for data. FWIW, I founded and ran RescueTime, so I was hip dip in this world for a long time. The data actually shows that, for line workers, hours worked have diminishing returns. However, when you look at people at the top of their game (executives, etc), they work extreme hours. Correlation does not equal causation, of course. But when you look at the most successful/productive people in your circles, how many of them talk about work/life balance, have lots of hobbies, etc? Maybe they're successful DESPITE their crazy work hours, for all I know.]

kylebragger 14y ago
Interesting point. I guess, as an extension of this, I have noticed I'm accomplishing the same amount of net work in fewer hours. I can safely say I love my work, and that's definitely a driver in -wanting- to work more, but because it's exciting and fulfilling. (Obviously still balancing my non-work/family life with this.) Personally, my only goal in doing all of this is to create great things which are fulfilling for me and others to use, and that hopefully have some lasting/tangible benefit in my/their life. In a sense, I've already achieved that. The idea of great wealth is not a driver (and I think would only distract me.)
- webwright 14y ago
  I'm not sure I buy your ability to understand your own productivity (people are notoriously bad at that). It's hard to believe that more work doesn't strongly (but certainly imperfectly!) correlate with more output... Up until that work exhausts you to the point and you start doing BAD work. Maybe that # is 35h/week. I suspect it's widely varied based on type of work, type of person, depth of love for the work, diet, exercise, etc.
  - kylebragger 14y ago
    I look at it from a standpoint of what tangible things I need to accomplish, and what I estimate I'll need in terms of time to do them. In the last 3-6 months especially, I've been constantly -under- my estimates. This correlates with starting to work a shorter week, taking more frequent breaks, etc. Not scientific by any stretch, rather simply my own observations. And yes - I'm thinking more in terms of folks working insane amounts of hours, at levels that put them well into the "doing bad work & burnt out" realm.
dscrd 14y ago
...and a good way to start hating your work is by doing too much of it for the wrong reasons. Working very hard to make somebody else rich, what's the point in that?
- webwright 14y ago
  If you love/are addicted to your work, you don't care if you're making some else (or yourself) rich. And because we KNOW that wealth doesn't correlate with happiness, why SHOULD you care if you make them rich?
  - droz 14y ago
    Because it makes you a stooge if you don't reap the financial rewards of your labour.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      I hope your pile of money is in bills, as those are softer than coins. Or maybe money isn't your happiness, but merely one means to an end.
    - webwright 14y ago
      What's a stooge? Someone who enjoys their life and the byproduct of that is that someone else gets rich? The point is-- that guy you made rich? You didn't make him happy. You didn't impact his happiness at all (long term). So someone who gets rich on the back of your (rewarding/enjoyable work) isn't getting ANYTHING but shiny objects your monkey brain tells you equal happiness. I pasted these into another comment, but here are some studies around wealth and happiness: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.h... (tl;dw: After a brief burst of happiness, wealth has the approximately the same long-term impact on happiness as losing your legs in an accident (i.e. NONE)) http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776 tl;dr the wealthy don't believe that money buys you happiness. http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html "Wealth, fame and good looks may be a formula for anxiety rather than happiness, a new study suggests." There's TONS of data on this.
adrianhoward 14y ago
Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work. So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time). Could you point me to that research? Coz every time I've measured hours worked against productivity (with a few different dev teams now) insane hours do not correspond to more productive work. Just coz people do it doesn't mean that they're more productive doing it.
thenomad 14y ago
I'm not necessarily unconvinced by this, but I too would like to see some research or stats proving that people who succeed mostly work more than 8 hours a day.
neilk 14y ago
> Empirically Citation needed. There are studies out there showing that productivity is proportional to days spent on the problem, not hours. It's likely that for a knowledge worker, sustained schedules with long workdays actually reduce average productivity. http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profitability%20Newsletter/Crunch%20Mode.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profi... There may be some exceptional people who can defy this rule, and it's possible they are concentrated in startups, but I'm dubious.
- shadowmatter 14y ago
  It's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember reading something along those lines in "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594484805 http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates...). The thesis is that our motivation to do things is along a spectrum of intrinsic (for the love of the work) vs extrinsic (e.g. money). Generally the former yields better results. Some studies even showed that paying people to do things they love can be detrimental, because you're now adding an extrinsic motivator to something that they are intrinsically motivated to do, thereby making what they love feel like "work."
- webwright 14y ago
  "There may be some exceptional people who can defy this rule, and it's possible they are concentrated in startups, but I'm dubious." Right. They are concentrated at the top. Here's one study (doesn't include work time at home or weekends): http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/CEOs/presentation.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/CEOs/presentation.pdf It makes logical sense-- combine the ability to work long hours (rare) with talent and you will blow the normal fatigue-able people out of the water in terms of output and (in a sorta-meritocracy) rise to the top.
  - zeidrich 14y ago
    It looks like that study shows that the median CEO works 50 hours per week, with 10 of that spent in travel or eating. To me that sounds like a very typical work week without spectacular overtime, crunch, hustle, whatever. It says that some CEOs work more hours, but doesn't correlate that with higher productivity. It says that few work less than 40 hours per week discounting meals and travel. 50 hours per week is 10 hours per day. Maybe like 8 to 6. Anyone complaining about expectations for crunch time would relish hours like that.
bjhoops1 14y ago
Actually, knowledge workers are even more affected by >40 hr workweeks. Read this fascinating history of the 40-hour workweek and its demise: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/ http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_... One of the author's (more interesting) premises is that individuals with mild forms of autism like Aspberger's, who came to typify the sorts of personalities drawn to tech in the early years, may be able to effectively work excessive hours, but ordinary individuals will experience diminished quality of work, just like everyone else.
- Evbn 14y ago
  CEOs and directors aren't primarily "knowledge workers", they are networkers/connectors/presenters. It isn't the same sort of concentration as programming or accounts payable.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Funny how a definition of work that applies to CEOs in comparable terms lets them "work" by playing golf and going to parties.
    - 31reasons 14y ago
      Signing checks for themselves is also lot of work.
      - notsosmart 14y ago
        How condescending... even by hacker news standards.
        bjhoops1 14y ago
        You're allowed to mock a class of people who earn 380 times more than the average American workers. :) For $12.9 million a year, I'll let people be as condescending towards me as they want! http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.h...
junkilo 14y ago
Agree with webwright. Found the article to be sorta silly. When you really love something nothing will stop you from doing/achieving. This seems self evident to me at least. This isn't to be confused with the world full of different peoples, worldviews and personalities. Only some of us find satisfaction in a productive 14 hour day.
shin_lao 14y ago
Another way to put it, is that if you can work 60 "productive" hours a week you will most likely be more successful than someone that can only work 40 "productive" hours. The trick is to know your limit.
wybo 14y ago
Running RescueTime is still no data, it is a claim of authority... Have you analysed it properly, was it peer-reviewed, can we see it for ourselves? I don't believe that people who put in more than 35 to 40 hours of real work will be more productive. A lot of people pretend to work a lot, or are forced to be in the office 50 hours or more, but that does not make them more productive. It just makes them seem more productive, and have less of a life... When I worked in the US I considered the whole startup-hours-macho culture of the SF-area to be quite pernicious both to productivity and happiness. In private conversation most people I spoke to had the same view, but nobody dared speak about it with the boss within reach. I mean I loved coding, I was excited about the project, and was on a team I liked, but the forced nature of having to show this love by being there 10 hours a day just reminded me of the two hours a day Cubans had to volunteer (in addition to their day-jobs) to show love for their regime. No data here either, but at least I don't claim empirically, apart from my own experiences.
espinchi 14y ago
Totally off-topic. Thanks, and congrats, for RescueTime. Just got the e-mail "RescueTime alert for All Distracting Time", so gotta get back to work!

kylebragger 14y ago

Interesting point. I guess, as an extension of this, I have noticed I'm accomplishing the same amount of net work in fewer hours. I can safely say I love my work, and that's definitely a driver in -wanting- to work more, but because it's exciting and fulfilling. (Obviously still balancing my non-work/family life with this.) Personally, my only goal in doing all of this is to create great things which are fulfilling for me and others to use, and that hopefully have some lasting/tangible benefit in my/their life. In a sense, I've already achieved that. The idea of great wealth is not a driver (and I think would only distract me.)

webwright 14y ago
I'm not sure I buy your ability to understand your own productivity (people are notoriously bad at that). It's hard to believe that more work doesn't strongly (but certainly imperfectly!) correlate with more output... Up until that work exhausts you to the point and you start doing BAD work. Maybe that # is 35h/week. I suspect it's widely varied based on type of work, type of person, depth of love for the work, diet, exercise, etc.
- kylebragger 14y ago
  I look at it from a standpoint of what tangible things I need to accomplish, and what I estimate I'll need in terms of time to do them. In the last 3-6 months especially, I've been constantly -under- my estimates. This correlates with starting to work a shorter week, taking more frequent breaks, etc. Not scientific by any stretch, rather simply my own observations. And yes - I'm thinking more in terms of folks working insane amounts of hours, at levels that put them well into the "doing bad work & burnt out" realm.

dscrd 14y ago

...and a good way to start hating your work is by doing too much of it for the wrong reasons. Working very hard to make somebody else rich, what's the point in that?

webwright 14y ago
If you love/are addicted to your work, you don't care if you're making some else (or yourself) rich. And because we KNOW that wealth doesn't correlate with happiness, why SHOULD you care if you make them rich?
- droz 14y ago
  Because it makes you a stooge if you don't reap the financial rewards of your labour.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    I hope your pile of money is in bills, as those are softer than coins. Or maybe money isn't your happiness, but merely one means to an end.
  - webwright 14y ago
    What's a stooge? Someone who enjoys their life and the byproduct of that is that someone else gets rich? The point is-- that guy you made rich? You didn't make him happy. You didn't impact his happiness at all (long term). So someone who gets rich on the back of your (rewarding/enjoyable work) isn't getting ANYTHING but shiny objects your monkey brain tells you equal happiness. I pasted these into another comment, but here are some studies around wealth and happiness: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.h... (tl;dw: After a brief burst of happiness, wealth has the approximately the same long-term impact on happiness as losing your legs in an accident (i.e. NONE)) http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431776 tl;dr the wealthy don't believe that money buys you happiness. http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html http://www.livescience.com/5462-happiness-wealth.html "Wealth, fame and good looks may be a formula for anxiety rather than happiness, a new study suggests." There's TONS of data on this.

adrianhoward 14y ago

thenomad 14y ago

I'm not necessarily unconvinced by this, but I too would like to see some research or stats proving that people who succeed mostly work more than 8 hours a day.

neilk 14y ago

> Empirically Citation needed. There are studies out there showing that productivity is proportional to days spent on the problem, not hours. It's likely that for a knowledge worker, sustained schedules with long workdays actually reduce average productivity. http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profitability%20Newsletter/Crunch%20Mode.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profi... There may be some exceptional people who can defy this rule, and it's possible they are concentrated in startups, but I'm dubious.

shadowmatter 14y ago
It's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember reading something along those lines in "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594484805 http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates...). The thesis is that our motivation to do things is along a spectrum of intrinsic (for the love of the work) vs extrinsic (e.g. money). Generally the former yields better results. Some studies even showed that paying people to do things they love can be detrimental, because you're now adding an extrinsic motivator to something that they are intrinsically motivated to do, thereby making what they love feel like "work."
webwright 14y ago
"There may be some exceptional people who can defy this rule, and it's possible they are concentrated in startups, but I'm dubious." Right. They are concentrated at the top. Here's one study (doesn't include work time at home or weekends): http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/CEOs/presentation.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/rsadun/CEOs/presentation.pdf It makes logical sense-- combine the ability to work long hours (rare) with talent and you will blow the normal fatigue-able people out of the water in terms of output and (in a sorta-meritocracy) rise to the top.
- zeidrich 14y ago
  It looks like that study shows that the median CEO works 50 hours per week, with 10 of that spent in travel or eating. To me that sounds like a very typical work week without spectacular overtime, crunch, hustle, whatever. It says that some CEOs work more hours, but doesn't correlate that with higher productivity. It says that few work less than 40 hours per week discounting meals and travel. 50 hours per week is 10 hours per day. Maybe like 8 to 6. Anyone complaining about expectations for crunch time would relish hours like that.

bjhoops1 14y ago

Actually, knowledge workers are even more affected by >40 hr workweeks. Read this fascinating history of the 40-hour workweek and its demise: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/ http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_... One of the author's (more interesting) premises is that individuals with mild forms of autism like Aspberger's, who came to typify the sorts of personalities drawn to tech in the early years, may be able to effectively work excessive hours, but ordinary individuals will experience diminished quality of work, just like everyone else.

Evbn 14y ago
CEOs and directors aren't primarily "knowledge workers", they are networkers/connectors/presenters. It isn't the same sort of concentration as programming or accounts payable.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Funny how a definition of work that applies to CEOs in comparable terms lets them "work" by playing golf and going to parties.
  - 31reasons 14y ago
    Signing checks for themselves is also lot of work.
    - notsosmart 14y ago
      How condescending... even by hacker news standards.
      - bjhoops1 14y ago
        You're allowed to mock a class of people who earn 380 times more than the average American workers. :) For $12.9 million a year, I'll let people be as condescending towards me as they want! http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.h...

junkilo 14y ago

Agree with webwright. Found the article to be sorta silly. When you really love something nothing will stop you from doing/achieving. This seems self evident to me at least. This isn't to be confused with the world full of different peoples, worldviews and personalities. Only some of us find satisfaction in a productive 14 hour day.

shin_lao 14y ago

Another way to put it, is that if you can work 60 "productive" hours a week you will most likely be more successful than someone that can only work 40 "productive" hours. The trick is to know your limit.

wybo 14y ago

Running RescueTime is still no data, it is a claim of authority... Have you analysed it properly, was it peer-reviewed, can we see it for ourselves? I don't believe that people who put in more than 35 to 40 hours of real work will be more productive. A lot of people pretend to work a lot, or are forced to be in the office 50 hours or more, but that does not make them more productive. It just makes them seem more productive, and have less of a life... When I worked in the US I considered the whole startup-hours-macho culture of the SF-area to be quite pernicious both to productivity and happiness. In private conversation most people I spoke to had the same view, but nobody dared speak about it with the boss within reach. I mean I loved coding, I was excited about the project, and was on a team I liked, but the forced nature of having to show this love by being there 10 hours a day just reminded me of the two hours a day Cubans had to volunteer (in addition to their day-jobs) to show love for their regime. No data here either, but at least I don't claim empirically, apart from my own experiences.

espinchi 14y ago

Totally off-topic. Thanks, and congrats, for RescueTime. Just got the e-mail "RescueTime alert for All Distracting Time", so gotta get back to work!