
"We need to work longer" - Why this is not what you want to say - ManuelKiessling
http://manuel.kiessling.net/2012/04/02/we-need-to-work-longer-why-this-is-not-what-you-want-to-say/
======
ChuckMcM
This is something to take to heart if you are a manager. Often times managers
will be presented with the problem that the things that need to get done,
aren't. The 'simple' solution is 'work longer', the expensive solution is
'hire more people', and the right solution is 'work smarter.'

If you can get clear feedback as to what holds things up from getting done,
you can address those barriers and knock them down. Once you run out of ways
to add leverage though, hiring is your best bet. Making people put in extra
hours when they are working efficiently is asking them to burn out.

~~~
kenrikm
Right on target, it's amazing what can get done in when people know what's
expected of them. Within a year of finishing college and getting my first job
I was promoted from rookie designer to manager. Within two I was Art Director
running all of advertising production and leading people who had been there
for 15+ years. Why? For this exact reason, I had been lucky enough to grow up
with people who knew how to work smarter and get things done. When you get
into a company and people see you know how to work smart rather than "hard"
it's like a green light and all the doors open. Pass go and collect $200!
(Actually I more than doubled my salary, At the same company!)

------
Tangurena
One of my theories is that "morning people" have a tendency to get promoted in
managerial tracks, while most IT workers tend to be "evening people". Thus to
the mismanagers, it appears that their staff comes in late all the time - so
to the "morning people", the "cure" for lateness is to make folks come in
earlier and stay longer.

It seems to me that mismanagers never get the point that longer hours "in the
seat" do not correlate to more positive work acomplished. In our profession,
we've been aware that "crunch mode" is counter productive, but the lessons
don't seem to get uphill to the people that dictate such things.

<http://www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons>

That truth seems to stop flowing upwards in organizations is something that
appears far more often than I'd like to happen. In the worst companies I've
worked for, truth stops moving upwards at my direct superior's level. In the
better ones, it is a few levels uphill. The most bureaucratic and hidebound
company I worked for - GM - had 15 levels of people between myself (and I was
salaried) and the CEO; which was more than enough for multiple thermoclines of
truth to occur.

[http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-
the-t...](http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-
themocline-of-truth/)

<http://www.cio.com.au/article/250886/thermocline_truth/>

------
dustingetz
article starts off on fallacious footing:

 _"Let’s face it, doing about 30% better isn’t going to get you anywhere
significant. And I’m not even going to start talking about why working 30%
longer of course won’t bring anything significant in your company up by 30%,
especially not the “doing better” – much has been written about this
already."_

dead wrong. there are reasons not to work long hours, but this article
articulates none of them, hand-waving about exponential growth instead.
There's a time to grow yourself, and there's also a time to ship your product.

"From a business point of view, long hours by programmers are a key to
profitability. Suppose that a programmer needs to spend 25 hours per week
keeping current with new technology, getting coordinated with other
programmers, contributing to documentation and thought leadership pieces, and
comprehending the structures of the systems being extended. Under this
assumption, a programmer who works 55 hours per week will produce twice as
much code as one who works 40 hours per week. In The Mythical Man-Month, the
only great book ever written on software engineering, Fred Brooks concludes
that no software product should be designed by more than two people. He argues
that a program designed by more than two people might be more complete but it
will never be easy to understand because it will not be as consistent as
something designed by fewer people. This means that if you want to follow the
best practices of the industry in terms of design and architecture, the only
way to improve speed to market is to have the same people working longer
hours. Finally there is the common sense notion that the smaller the team the
less management overhead. A product is going to get out the door much faster
if it is built by 4 people working 70-hour weeks (180 productive programmer-
hours per week, after subtracting for 25 hours of coordination and structure
comprehension time) than if by 12 people working 40-hour weeks (the same net
of 180 hours per week). The 12-person team will inevitably require additional
managers and all-day meetings to stay coordinated."[1]

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3547965> (secondary source)

~~~
dasil003
I agree the article is off base, but the assumption in this citation is that
programmer productivity is constant, which it is clearly not. It's not even
just a uniform curve because being overworked can have a knock-on effect that
decreases productivity even more. Basically, it's entirely ignoring the human
aspect of programming, which I think was a lot easier to do in the 70s,
because frankly, America had a better work ethic and were inherently more
willing to be a good team player because back then nothing interesting
happened _except_ with major capital backing and a lot of team work.

All else being equal, sure a single programmer is more efficient than two
programmers because of a more comprehensive mental model, and lower
communications overhead. But in this day and age, with no job security, and
the possibility to strike out on one's own at the drop of a hat (because in
the 70s you pretty much had to keep your job just to have _access_ to a
computer, let alone develop a product and make a living from it), it's not
sufficiently motivating to tell people to work longer, it's also equally
ineffective to say be 300% better (I would probably laugh out loud if I heard
that). Somehow you need to create a vision that people really buy into that
internally motivates them, which will result not only in longer hours worked,
but also greater minute-to-minute productivity, and even more productive
subsconscious work. This is all the more difficult when you realize that
individuals have different motivations. But this is the quality that will most
enable a great founder today. This is I believe what set Steve Jobs apart more
than anything else.

~~~
neutronicus
I actually think that there's a sweet-spot number of programmers that _isn't_
just 1. I really like having one or two people around to keep me honest.

------
ben1040
Immediately made me think of this classic blunder:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-
office-m...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-office-memo-
boomerangs-chief-executive-criticized-after-
upbraiding.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

~~~
MartinCron
It has been a long time since I've read that letter, but it still gives me
chills.

------
btr41n
I think a large part of not saying "We need to work longer" is that if the
work is interesting and rewarding enough, then employees will WANT to work
longer. As soon as a manager says "We need to work longer", it generates an
environment driven by employer demands instead of employee happiness. If you
manage the work load at your company well enough, and the work environment is
positive, then employees will be inclined to work longer out of desire to see
the company excel.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
> _I think a large part of not saying "We need to work longer" is that if the
> work is interesting and rewarding enough, then employees will WANT to work
> longer._

Not necessarily, no. It's entirely possible your employees have lives outside
work.

~~~
btr41n
Right, but I would say that the general startup mentality is that you will be
working more than the average work day. So telling people to work longer,
rather than inspiring people to work longer, is usually not the best way to go
about it. To what extent can you actually require someone to work longer
anyway?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
> _To what extent can you actually require someone to work longer anyway?_

You can reprimand and/or fire them if they don't. Seems to work for most
American companies.

~~~
dasil003
Doesn't work for programmers though because unlike assembly line workers,
there's no way to precisely monitor their productivity, so if you force them
to stay late they can just mentally check out.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Well yes, which is why you should be trying to get programmers to _agree with
you_ on their hours.

------
MattRogish
It's worth noting Henry Ford helped bring about the 40-hr work week:
<http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm>

------
richieb
I think you should watch this:

<http://thewebivore.com/go-the-fuck-home-my-ignite-talk>

------
ChristianMarks
Any manager who cannot be more specific than "work smarter" isn't smart enough
to work for.

------
sopooneo
It isn't key to his point, but of course his math is wrong. 300% _of_ 8hrs is
24hrs. 300% _more than_ 8hrs (as he says in the article) is 32hrs.

~~~
ManuelKiessling
Thanks, I will rephrase it.

