4 ms·

I can't comment on context switching, but one thing to keep in mind is that 40 hours is the peak of a bell curve. That implies that some individuals can in fact

I can't comment on context switching, but one thing to keep in mind is that 40 hours is the peak of a bell curve. That implies that some individuals can in fact work 50, 60-hour weeks for months without a significant drop in productivity, and some probably shouldn't work more than 4 days a week. Maybe Elon Musk is the one-in-a-billion guy that can actually stay productive for 100+ hours, but thinking that's reason for you working 50+ hours is like saying you should be able to swim 100m in 70 seconds because they do it in less than 50 in the Olympics.

hawkice 12y ago
Or, to add in the more specifically measured element: 40 hours is the peak of the Laffer curve [productivity being inversely proportional to hours worked a week]. I have absolutely no data on variance for the peak of the Laffer curve (if you imagine attempting to gather this data, you'll notice it is extremely difficult). That being said, despite this lack of data, I have heard a lot of people claiming they can work a whole lot more and get more and more done. I do not believe their ad hoc methods have secretly outsmarted science. It seems more likely that they are mistaken (if only for the reason that it is very hard to measure and they universally lack specific reason to choose "my peak productivity happens at >60 hours a week" over "the volume of my work is more noticeable than the quality of my work", which is essentially universal -- but lines of code, as a metric, don't pay the bills).
Fishkins 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the research actually only shows the peak is no higher than 40 hours per week. Are there studies indicating people are more productive working 40-hour weeks than 30 or 35-hour weeks? Of course your point still stands, they'd just have to be even more of an outlier.

4 ms·

I can't comment on context switching, but one thing to keep in mind is that 40 hours is the peak of a bell curve. That implies that some individuals can in fact

by rubinelli 12y ago

hawkice 12y ago
Or, to add in the more specifically measured element: 40 hours is the peak of the Laffer curve [productivity being inversely proportional to hours worked a week]. I have absolutely no data on variance for the peak of the Laffer curve (if you imagine attempting to gather this data, you'll notice it is extremely difficult). That being said, despite this lack of data, I have heard a lot of people claiming they can work a whole lot more and get more and more done. I do not believe their ad hoc methods have secretly outsmarted science. It seems more likely that they are mistaken (if only for the reason that it is very hard to measure and they universally lack specific reason to choose "my peak productivity happens at >60 hours a week" over "the volume of my work is more noticeable than the quality of my work", which is essentially universal -- but lines of code, as a metric, don't pay the bills).
Fishkins 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the research actually only shows the peak is no higher than 40 hours per week. Are there studies indicating people are more productive working 40-hour weeks than 30 or 35-hour weeks? Of course your point still stands, they'd just have to be even more of an outlier.