
How the Best CEOs Get the Most Out of Every Day - gatsby
http://firstround.com/article/70-of-Time-Could-Be-Used-Better-How-the-Best-CEOs-Get-the-Most-Out-of-Every-Day
======
birken
I hate articles that start out with lies. The average tech CEO does not work
11.5 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. There might be a few tech
CEOs who work that long, but I am guessing for most of them it isn't a
sustainable workload.

I actually think the tips here are fine, but the premise that all successful
people in silicon valley work ungodly amounts per week are inaccurate. I know
many very successful people who work 40-50 very efficient hours a week.

Also, one last comment...

> Demonstrate the 80/20 rule in everything you do. This means spending 80% of
> your time on the work that moves the needle, and only 20% on the smaller
> stuff.

Generally in this context, the 80/20 rule is used to mean that you get 80% of
the benefit with 20% of the effort, it isn't a rule about how to divide up
your time. IE in the time management context, it would mean you get 80% of the
progress you create in 20% of your time spent working. The key is figuring out
what you are doing in that 20%.

~~~
jtbigwoo
>> The average tech CEO does not work 11.5 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52
weeks a year. There might be a few tech CEOs who work that long, but I am
guessing for most of them it isn't a sustainable workload.

Articles often get to this by counting stuff that you and I would consider
not-work time. I read an article about a banking CEO who claimed to work 65+
hours per week. His daily schedule went from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm each weekday.
That included taking calls as he commutes for an hour, a breakfast meeting, an
hour at the gym with a couple VP's, and an hour networking at lunch. His
actual desk-and-meeting time was about 9 hours.

It's still a large time commitment, but it's not that different from what the
rest of us do.

~~~
aaronapple
Similarly, very hard to measure the amount of time that we spend actively
thinking about our work outside of the office. My first job was in investment
banking, where I was physically in the office or meetings far more than my
bosses; when I was outside of the office (what little time that was), I was
rarely thinking about my job. It was clear, however, that the best mid-level
and senior men/women were thinking about their clients and brainstorming even
while they might not technically be working.

------
_sentient
Here's another time management tip: Don't real the full text content of
articles like these.

Read the subheadings and bullet points, and you will probably walk away with
as rich an understanding of the intended message as if you'd read every word.

------
unclebucknasty
I think the best CEOs generally get the most out of their time by spending the
first 8 hours or so of each day reading about what other CEOs do.

Or, maybe each has his/her own style that works for him/her.

I viscerally hate these articles.

~~~
lbr
Bill is incredibly smart. And provides interesting advice.

It's amazing to me that you can learn nothing from the article. Or that you
think CEOs shouldn't take the time to learn from other CEOs.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I didn't even read Bill's article. My comment is not a commentary on the
person, but the "feel" of articles like these.

There are certainly CEOs that I admire and I'm not advocating that we stick
our heads in the sand. But, good grief, how many articles, books, blog posts,
talks, etc. about "what successful people do" do we really need?

I hate the fallacies they promote: a.) you are too stupid to figure out how to
succeed, and b.) you should therefore worship others to the point that you
mimic them as a path to success, and c.) that (by implication) if you are not
succeeding, then it's because you haven't studied and imitated others enough.

BTW, it's another fallacy that if we just all go out and do _X_ , then we can
succeed too. It's ridiculous, really. A little advice is fine, but there is
this culture that we all need to swim in the same direction, following the
anointed few who have figured it all out when we could not. Go to the
mountaintop to confer with Tim Ferriss or Jason Fried, and all will be well.
Well, maybe they got lucky. Maybe if they'd studied what the reader did every
day, they'd be 12 times more successful.

It's so stifling, condescending, and flat-out unworkable. It is also
potentially demoralizing to founders who are working hard to gain traction.
Insidiously enough, this, even while it appears to be inspirational.

If you were thinking and working hard every day at the incredibly complex and
difficult task of lifting a startup off the ground, and you read one of these
types of articles a day, you would run in circles and fall into a deep
depression. Meanwhile, the actual extent to which the cacaphony of such advice
will move the needle for such a founder is miniscule.

How about this? Think and work as hard and as smart as you find you need to.
Listen to your own instinct and use your judgment, even in taking advice from
others (including mine). You have what you need to succeed. Screw the people
who keep trying to "help" you by implying that you are deficient; whether in
books they are selling, facile articles with linkbait titles, or otherwise.

~~~
amirmc
You didn't read the article so you have no idea about the 'feel' of it. You're
judging it based on the title (which is on par with judging a book by it's
cover).

As with most advice, you should take it with a pinch of salt but it is worth
examining it and taking things that seem relevant to you. If you never read
anything then you'll certainly close off the opportunity to find something
useful.

In this case, the claim about 'hours per day' is something I'll dismiss.
However, the idea of 'No templates' for emails is quite useful as is the idea
of keeping Playbooks (purely because it's another word for 'documentation' but
people don't get excited about that one).

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _You 're judging it based on the title (which is on par with judging a book
> by it's cover)_

Yes. Of course I am. Repetitive, vacuous, linkbait titles speak for
themselves. That's why "linkbait" is a phrase.

Also, if the title of a book is "How to Grow Grapes", then I can guess enough
about its contents to determine whether it's for me. So, literally judging a
book by its cover is prudent, contrary to popular belief.

I mean, when you browse HN, do you scan the subjects or click and read each
article to determine whether it's of interest to you? Likewise, people put
thought into the titles of their articles for a reason.

Still, perhaps if there weren't 8 trillion blog posts, books, articles, talks,
etc. of this ilk, I'd feel differently. But, as it is, there are.

> _If you never read anything then you 'll certainly close off the opportunity
> to find something useful._

I'm certainly in no danger of that. I read a good bit. And, that once included
my share of articles, books, etc. of the subject ilk. I am well familiar
enough to know that the premise that there is value to be derived from loading
up on this kind of stuff is ludicrous and counter-productive.

In other words, I know the value of reading _and_ I also know the value of
_not_ reading certain things.

Again, it's not any individual article to which I object. So, your finding a
helpful tip in this article is not disproving my point or even addressing it.
It's the plethora of such articles, the "path to success" they promote, and
the overall false premises upon which they are collectively built.

You're not going to win as a founder/CEO by letting someone else do your
thinking for you or by following someone else's path. There are far too many
variables that go into success (including luck) and far too many decisions to
be made that are unique to you. Such articles implicitly undermine people's
confidence by making them believe that they need to imitate others to find
success.

~~~
lbr
You are right. There are tons of terrible articles on the web that claim to
"have the key to success." Replicating what successful people do isn't the
key.

I'm just saying that your comment ("I viscerally hate these articles") belongs
on a thread about a crappy article. Not on a thread about great article. This
one is by a great entrepreneur and one who interacts with hundreds of smart
CEOs. This article is the one others strive to be like. It shares how smart
people work - it doesn't tell you how to be successful.

Your comment also belongs on the thread of an article that you have actually
read.

~~~
unclebucknasty
EDIT: We disagree. But, rather than try to convince you, I've removed this
comment. It occurs to me that I have a different way of thinking about this
that others might appreciate and find helpful.

It's also part of a bigger set of "issues" that I have with the status quo.
That is, it's one of several things in the current startup ethos that I
believe constrains too many good people. So, rather than continue to discuss
this on a soon-to-be obscure HN thread, perhaps I will find a different format
for injecting a different set of more broadly empowering ideas into the
environment.

~~~
snowwrestler
Edit: you removed your long comment so I removed my smart-ass remark about it.

~~~
unclebucknasty
That's awesome, champ.

------
ch4s3
Yep, stopped reading at "Be an E-mail Ninja."

~~~
jol
That is actually very important, there is just too many people that cannot
communicate efficiently over email, it wastes not only their time, it wastes
everyone's time. (I agree that "be xxx ninja" is not nice language, but
still...

------
bravura
_Assistance. You retain the help of a full-time or virtual assistant who can
help sort through your email to flag what’s actually important, what requires
action and what doesn’t._

How does this work in practice, in particular with respect to security?

i.e. how do you find a trustworthy assistant? Do you have to give them access
to your entire spool? How do you deny access to sensitive emails?

~~~
lbr
there are some awesome companies like zirtual.com

~~~
larrys
Hadn't hear of them. Good tip. Thanks.

------
kartikkumar
Interesting article with a lot of productivity tips. Wonder if this article
actually implies that there's some sense in not having the typical CEO tasks
assigned to just one person.

I'm assuming that certain tasks make most sense if one person is in control,
but in some sense with things like email, I can't help but wonder if you're
not better off "parallelizing".

Anyone with experience in breaking down the traditional CEO role into sub-
roles assigned to multiple people?

------
elwell
> 14 hours a day

Yeah... I don't believe that's the average, sorry.

------
loladesoto
it's a general article with fairly general tips. but this is simply what
happens when you direct list-making at an ambiguous topic.

although there was definitely some value there (templates are incredibly
useful) i think a more interesting topic would have been time-management
mistakes inexperienced CEOs make. because there are a lot and you don't find
out what they are until you get absolutely obsessive about managing your time.

------
Spooky23
There is a lot off good advice here. The key is get rid of work. Leaders lead.
Do BS work 1-3 times and get rid of it. That's what you have employees for.

If you cannot afford to do that, you're short changing yourself and your
company, because you should be out there selling and building, not dicking
around with salespeople or linkedin.

------
gavinpc
Warning, if you have cookies blocked, this will hang the page, at least
Firefox. That's a new one.

------
TomAnthony
As an aside - can anyone comment on the 7 minute workout [1] linked to in the
article?

[1] [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-
scientific-7-mi...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-
scientific-7-minute-workout/)

~~~
aaronapple
There is no such thing as a 7-minute workout that will completely get you in
shape. This is a great set of exercises that, if performed twice with a short
break in between and at the level they suggest, will leave you totally wiped
and feeling like you received a great workout. When I'm in a good workout
rhythm, 4 days a week (2x running, 2x amended 7-minute) seems to work pretty
well.

~~~
b_emery
No, but it's much better than nothing. If you're out of shape, 7 min every
other day or even 2x per week is a great start. If you're reasonably fit then
I agree, 7 min is not enough. I've been both in the last few months, and I can
attribute the 7 min workout to getting me back on track.

------
marcus_holmes
stopped reading at "don't hold status meetings, get people to write it down".
This is such monumentally bad advice it immediately made me discount the rest.

Down this road lies write-only status updates that have been the bane of dev
teams since forever.

If your priorities lie elsewhere than with keeping up with what your team(s)
are doing then you don't need status updates; you need to delegate the
management function.

If you're not meeting one-on-one with your immediate reports each week then
delegate the management function.

If you're really so busy doing "important stuff" that what your actual
employees are working on is not worth the time it takes for them to tell you
about it, then you're doing it wrong.

------
elwell
Profile pic looks overly 'shopped:
[http://frcs3.s3.amazonaws.com.global.prod.fastly.net/library...](http://frcs3.s3.amazonaws.com.global.prod.fastly.net/library/rowImage/billpic.jpg)

