8 ms·

This is an emotional topic, the discussion of which is nearly always evidence-free. How could one study it objectively?

by gruseom 13y ago

Wingman4l7 13y ago
You can debate until you're blue in the face the claims about poisonous workplace culture, broken management, unreasonable / unsustainable expectations, or other intangible things unmentioned in this piece (like people working extra because they're angling for a promotion, or trying to learn a new job skill that will be valuable in the future) -- but the math doesn't lie. If you are salaried and you work overtime, you are working for free. If you're on an hourly wage and you don't get any sort of overtime pay, you're working for free.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Pay is only one reason for work. If pay is one's only reason, long hours for no extra pay are certainly objectionable. But that's a circular argument. I like working long hours when it's work that I want to be doing. If people are working at something they don't want to do, maybe that is the real problem. For menial jobs that no one enjoys, there may be no easy way to fix the situation, but in an industry like tech there is little excuse for accepting it.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    Well, sure -- I acknowledged more intangible benefits in passing -- but the poster wanted an objective way to measure it, so I gave them one. shrug
    - gruseom 13y ago
      You gave a way of measuring something else.
- oflordal 13y ago
  Most large companies will grade you based on your work adjusting bonus and the amount of stock you recive. That way there is at least some monetary incetive for it as well.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    Working extra hours with that in mind would only be wise if you could accurately predict the reward. It would be a rude surprise if you worked extra hard all year only to hear "Sorry, no performance bonuses this year, our CEOs decided they weren't earning enough."
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  Yeah, and if you're in a startup and you have a significant equity position then you are not working for free, you are directly monetarily motivated. Also, people act to maximize their utility, not necessarily compensation. The act of working hard and hitting deadlines is a form of compensation in itself. Finally, lots of people work a lazy 8 hours (with lots of time spent on the phone, Facebook, personal email) and need the extra hours to accomplish 8 hours worth of real work.
  - Wingman4l7 13y ago
    Your last example is kind of irrelevant, because if you're honest with yourself, you're not counting the not-work hours.
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      That's a fair point with your qualifier. I think a lot of people are not honest with themselves about this, though.
  - brianmcconnell 13y ago
    Ah! The equity position as fake compensation. Unfortunately for the worker beeze, said "equity" usually turns out to be worthless in a exit, except in unicorn situations (Facebook, etc). The founders, early investors and insider shareholders are all first in line, so mostly likely, you end up with shit, or maybe some options that might be worth something in a few years, if the company hasn't tanked by then. No thanks, unless I can take your company stock and flip it the same day, I'll take cash.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      That's not always true.
marcus_holmes 13y ago
I tested it back when I ran a dev team. We were faced by constant pressure to develop customer stuff faster, and the team were doing regular 60+ hour weeks. I put in some new rules on hours, including: - no dev worked more than 40 hours on scheduled projects. Overtime was for disaster recovery or slippage repair to meet a deadline - if the salesperson agreed to a new deadline, then we went over their other tasks and worked out what needed to shift to make room. If they insisted on overtime, then we insisted on lieu time to pay it back, from their scheduled project time. - if someone came in to fix a disaster, we gave them time of in lieu. If we really couldn't do the time off, we paid them overtime for the time. It took a few months for this to settle in, and I got to test the productivity changes (by measuring project estimates vs actuals). Productivity improved as the hours worked decreased. The productivity gains came mostly from more realistic project estimates, but a significant part from increased dev productivity... they just wrote better code that needed less correction, faster. I would post the data, but it's commercially sensitive and about ten years old now.
- grandinj 13y ago
  I'd like to second this - I ran the same stats once, while contracting for a customer with excessive demands. I found that a week of working long hours was about my max, and after that I started making mistakes to the point that the extra hours actually became counter productive.
PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
>How could one study it objectively? Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist. I see this fallacy all the time from hackers. We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures. Embrace it.
- philwelch 13y ago
  I feel that you're wrong about that.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    If you think their is such a thing as objective truth in this world you must be some sort of postmodern miracle.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - telephonetemp 13y ago
      There is mathematics and physics, at least. A lot of arguing can be, and has been, had here but it's largely arguing about definitions; you cannot deny that they allow you to obtain the "truth" in the sense that that truth can be used to predict and affect what happens in the real world as far as your senses can best tell you. There's no arguing away fire or public key encryption.
      - quinnchr 13y ago
        Yes all of those things exist and can make predictions about "reality," but that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
        telephonetemp 13y ago
throwaway9848 13y ago
This is a billion or trillion dollar question, and there are many academics and industry analysts studying this and publishing results. It's just not in an area that the current HN audience is particularly competent in.

This is an emotional topic, the discussion of which is nearly always evidence-free. How could one study it objectively?

by gruseom 13y ago

This is an emotional topic, the discussion of which is nearly always evidence-free. How could one study it objectively?

You can debate until you're blue in the face the claims about poisonous workplace culture, broken management, unreasonable / unsustainable expectations, or other intangible things unmentioned in this piece (like people working extra because they're angling for a promotion, or trying to learn a new job skill that will be valuable in the future) -- but the math doesn't lie. If you are salaried and you work overtime, you are working for free. If you're on an hourly wage and you don't get any sort of overtime pay, you're working for free.

gruseom 13y ago
Pay is only one reason for work. If pay is one's only reason, long hours for no extra pay are certainly objectionable. But that's a circular argument. I like working long hours when it's work that I want to be doing. If people are working at something they don't want to do, maybe that is the real problem. For menial jobs that no one enjoys, there may be no easy way to fix the situation, but in an industry like tech there is little excuse for accepting it.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  Well, sure -- I acknowledged more intangible benefits in passing -- but the poster wanted an objective way to measure it, so I gave them one. shrug
  - gruseom 13y ago
    You gave a way of measuring something else.
oflordal 13y ago
Most large companies will grade you based on your work adjusting bonus and the amount of stock you recive. That way there is at least some monetary incetive for it as well.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  Working extra hours with that in mind would only be wise if you could accurately predict the reward. It would be a rude surprise if you worked extra hard all year only to hear "Sorry, no performance bonuses this year, our CEOs decided they weren't earning enough."
throwaway9848 13y ago
Yeah, and if you're in a startup and you have a significant equity position then you are not working for free, you are directly monetarily motivated. Also, people act to maximize their utility, not necessarily compensation. The act of working hard and hitting deadlines is a form of compensation in itself. Finally, lots of people work a lazy 8 hours (with lots of time spent on the phone, Facebook, personal email) and need the extra hours to accomplish 8 hours worth of real work.
- Wingman4l7 13y ago
  Your last example is kind of irrelevant, because if you're honest with yourself, you're not counting the not-work hours.
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    That's a fair point with your qualifier. I think a lot of people are not honest with themselves about this, though.
- brianmcconnell 13y ago
  Ah! The equity position as fake compensation. Unfortunately for the worker beeze, said "equity" usually turns out to be worthless in a exit, except in unicorn situations (Facebook, etc). The founders, early investors and insider shareholders are all first in line, so mostly likely, you end up with shit, or maybe some options that might be worth something in a few years, if the company hasn't tanked by then. No thanks, unless I can take your company stock and flip it the same day, I'll take cash.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    That's not always true.

marcus_holmes 13y ago

I tested it back when I ran a dev team. We were faced by constant pressure to develop customer stuff faster, and the team were doing regular 60+ hour weeks. I put in some new rules on hours, including: - no dev worked more than 40 hours on scheduled projects. Overtime was for disaster recovery or slippage repair to meet a deadline - if the salesperson agreed to a new deadline, then we went over their other tasks and worked out what needed to shift to make room. If they insisted on overtime, then we insisted on lieu time to pay it back, from their scheduled project time. - if someone came in to fix a disaster, we gave them time of in lieu. If we really couldn't do the time off, we paid them overtime for the time. It took a few months for this to settle in, and I got to test the productivity changes (by measuring project estimates vs actuals). Productivity improved as the hours worked decreased. The productivity gains came mostly from more realistic project estimates, but a significant part from increased dev productivity... they just wrote better code that needed less correction, faster. I would post the data, but it's commercially sensitive and about ten years old now.

grandinj 13y ago
I'd like to second this - I ran the same stats once, while contracting for a customer with excessive demands. I found that a week of working long hours was about my max, and after that I started making mistakes to the point that the extra hours actually became counter productive.

PilateDeGuerre 13y ago

>How could one study it objectively? Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist. I see this fallacy all the time from hackers. We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures. Embrace it.

philwelch 13y ago
I feel that you're wrong about that.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  If you think their is such a thing as objective truth in this world you must be some sort of postmodern miracle.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - telephonetemp 13y ago
    There is mathematics and physics, at least. A lot of arguing can be, and has been, had here but it's largely arguing about definitions; you cannot deny that they allow you to obtain the "truth" in the sense that that truth can be used to predict and affect what happens in the real world as far as your senses can best tell you. There's no arguing away fire or public key encryption.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      Yes all of those things exist and can make predictions about "reality," but that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
      - telephonetemp 13y ago

throwaway9848 13y ago

This is a billion or trillion dollar question, and there are many academics and industry analysts studying this and publishing results. It's just not in an area that the current HN audience is particularly competent in.