
Fire the workaholics (2008) - DanielRibeiro
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/902-fire-the-workaholics
======
crikli
I effing love what I do. The result is that I frequently "work" 14+ hour days,
skip social stuff to code (or sneak in my iPad to research the problem I'm
stuck on), and I love talking shop.

I'm this way in my own business and I was like this at the job I had before I
left to start it.

Honestly, with all of the slack ass clock punchers out there that can't write
a lick of code, the idea of canning someone for working too hard seems pretty
silly.

And FWIW, I found time in the last couple years to get my pilot's certificate.

~~~
cipherpunk
Some of us "slack ass clock punchers" have lives outside of work. I have
friends and family and hobbies that do not involve sitting in front of a
computer screen for every waking moment of the day.

Working to live, vs. living to work.

~~~
sliverstorm
If you love your work, what is wrong with living to work?

(When I say _living_ to work, take it as implied that I mean taking good
enough care of yourself to prevent physical or mental health problems from
tanking your work quality)

~~~
strlen
Exactly. I love what I do. If I had to work a job that didn't involve
programming, I'd still do it after work (I've played an amazing 3d game that
as written by somebody who worked a summer job at a gas station). I regularly
program outside of work, I've stayed at work for long hours. When I'd have a
day with multiple meetings, I'd frequently stay late to write code as
otherwise I'd feel unsatisfied.

At the mean time, some days I'd prefer to have dinner with my girlfriend after
work. On weekends I'd occasionally prefer a get away outside of Silicon
Valley. Exercise is an absolute must. I also have interest outside of
computing: reading (history, philosophy), photography. Pursuing them only
helps re-invigorate my passion for computing: occasionally ideas would come to
me when I'm reading an unrelated book, working out at the gym or taking
photographs.

Many times there's a direct link: I'd write my own photo gallery software and
host the pictures myself, build creative ways to backup my images, research
ways to do interesting image manipulation from Linux (photo manipulation
libraries, etc...) etc... Pursuing photography as a hobby while on a budget as
a college student meant I had to do "casual programming" quite frequently to
get what I want done (now, however, I've shelled out for Aperture).

It's important to understand that performance requires maintenance, good ideas
come form outside. At the mean time, there's nothing wrong with working long
hours if you want to do so: it's only healthy and pleasant if you actually
have a passion for what you do (as long as you don't go to the extreme of
forgoing maintenance and ignoring other sources of inspiration).

------
jasonmcalacanis
I think this was a productive discussion three years ago.

I didn't write my side of it as linkbait, and I don't think the DHH did
either.

the truth is we are both right.... you can do a lifestyle business or you can
go all in. my style is all in and as fast as possible.

other folks like slow and steady.

sometimes life deals you cards that dictate your approach (i.e. yo have a
kids, your dad gets cancer and the Panda update cuts half your traffic... all
in the same year).

it's true that some folks work 100 hours a week and get less done than folks
who work 40.

it's true that there are folks who work 100 hours and get 2x as much done as
someone who works 50.

the fact is, you have to do what is right for you and your goals. me? i love
to build shit... and i do it hard and fast with a lot of mistakes and passion.

the video: [http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2219-jason-calacanis-vs-
david...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2219-jason-calacanis-vs-david-
heinemeier-hansson-on-this-week-in-startups)

------
biot
Jason Calacanis' follow-up response to this adds more nuance to his previous
statements:

    
    
      > Truth be told, I’ve never asked anyone to work harder
      > than I do, and I work seven days a week.
    

It's good to know that he doesn't ask anyone to work eight days a week.

~~~
shareme
My bias: sometimes JC ask me mobile technology questions.

But than again spending 7 days a week on a problem and business model known
not to work is not exactly working smart..ie Mahalo..

~~~
lukeschlather
I think to a certain extent that shows the problems with the 7-day-a-week
mentality for anyone who is working on product direction, marketing, etc. If
I've got someone working on keeping my servers up, or doing deep parallel
algorithms work to solve a specific problem my company has, I want the person
who has the tunnel vision required to focus for 14 hours.

But if I've got someone deciding which specific problems are most worthy of
concern, I want someone who is going home at night and on the weekends and
living life. Working on one thing for most of your waking hours makes it
really difficult to understand how that thing is useful outside of your
domain.

------
joe24pack
Firing someone who's always obsessed with work and willing to always spend
hours upon hours to get things done might be a good idea for the reasons
stated. Better idea would be to send that person on a mandatory vacation
during the doldrums between projects. Make them turn in the company laptop and
company cell phone for the two weeks they're on vacation. If they protest,
tell them that during vacation it's their job to rest, relax & recharge to be
ready for the next project. By the time they're back they'll be ready to take
on those challenges.

------
mikeleeorg
I think the operative words in that article are, "requiring passion." And to
that, I would add, "work smarter, not harder."

When I was in my early twenties, I lived in NYC and London. My motto was the
typical, "word hard, play hard." I worked 12+ hour days fairly regularly. The
work was interesting, the people were cool, and I was learning a lot. I
remember leaving work one morning as people were coming in; their day was
starting as my day was ending.

On the weekends (and sometimes weekdays), my friends and I would go bar-
hopping, catch a movie, attend a festival, etc. While in London, we'd also
take weekend excursions to another city or country. I also remember sky diving
& bungee jumping trips.

Now that I'm in my thirties, I don't work as many hours, though my work output
hasn't decreased. Instead, I like to think that I work smarter now, not
harder. I still really enjoy my work - and oftentimes don't even feel like I'm
"working." But if I spend too much time on something, instead of slogging
through it, I'll stop and look for a more efficient solution. I've learned
that time is too valuable for brute force.

On the surface, it may not seem like I'm working as much. I work anywhere from
8-12 hours a day now, but in aggregate, I get much more done. And none of
those hours really feels like work.

I attribute this to having passion for what I do, and learning how to work
smart.

~~~
dustingetz
You sound a lot like me now. I'm a typical "work hard play hard" twenty-
something, and if it was possible for me to be working smarter, I don't see
it. I probably spend my first 40 hours solving/understanding the problem, and
the next 30 hours refactoring the code to look like my mental model of the
solution. I'd love to slow down but it's just doesn't seem possible to ship a
high quality product given our schedule. Some of the senior folks work saner
hours, but it's not at all obvious if their output is higher quality than
mine, or even equal quality (this isn't a slight--i'm getting twice as much
zone time as them!). If they're 'working smarter' than me, I can't see how,
other than having already paid the learning curve for a large class of
problems.

Can you give concrete examples of how you work smarter now, compared to your
twenties?

~~~
mikeleeorg
Sure. On an individual contributor level:

Right out of college, I tended to prefer building things on my own, rather
than using existing patterns or frameworks. I did this partly because I wanted
to learn the "fundamentals", and partly because I was arrogant (or stupid,
some probably said).

One day, a senior developer gave me a book on design patterns. I was floored.
I started applying them and found the quality (and maintainability,
reusability, etc) of my code increase tremendously.

Over time, others have given me more tips on improving my efficiency. From
something as simple as learning keyboard shortcuts and customizing an IDE's
UI, to unit testing and handy shell scripts, I found myself saving a lot of
time.

Of course, you may be doing all of these things already, in which case, you
may already have a pretty optimized work technique already.

On a managerial level:

I'm a believer that if you put the right team together, 1+1=3. So my value has
shifted from being an individual software developer to someone who can put
together teams of developers insanely smarter than I am, then remove all the
roadblocks out of their way so they can build great things. I still write some
code, but while my value as a developer has dropped tremendously, my value in
managing a team of developers means our overall output is greater than the sum
of our parts.

In other words, I increased my "value" by becoming a manager. Of course, that
kind of a role change is not for everyone, but that's what I did.

Another example is one of prioritization. Sometimes it's only realistically
possible to do X units of work a day (let's say 10 units), and sometimes a
person is asked to do Y units of work a day (let's say 30). That means 20
units aren't going to get done; it's just not possible. Trying to squeeze in
more would result in a lack of quality (due to lack of sleep, exhaustion,
etc). So what can one do? Do the most important 10 units first. It sounds
pretty obvious, but in the heat of the moment, I sometimes found myself
wanting to do the 10 easiest units first, not the 10 most important. Proper
prioritization made a big increase in the quality of my output as well.

~~~
strlen
> One day, a senior developer gave me a book on design patterns. I was
> floored. I started applying them and found the quality (and maintainability,
> reusability, etc) of my code increase tremendously.

Careful with that. The purpose of design patterns is to give a name to
something you already do, not to find new things that do that aren't needed (
_cough_ Spring Framework, J2EE). I am sure you aren't doing that, just wanted
to make sure the messaging is more clear.

The Design Patterns Book didn't initially help me when I started programming.
However, after working on several substantial Java, C++ and Perl projects I've
picked it up and again and was able to identify what I've done and what the
standard libraries I use do: "oh, java.util.HashSet is an adaptor bridge from
from a hashtable data structure to the Set interface" or "boost::graph uses
visitors to implement multiple dispatch based on different edge/vertex types".
Now, I'll often make sure to use standard design patterns for my APIs when
possible (e.g., Iterator interface, rather than accepting an anonymous
classes/function objects if all I want to do let them lazily stream data one
at a time).

~~~
mikeleeorg
> The purpose of design patterns is to give a name to something you already
> do, not to find new things that do that aren't needed (cough Spring
> Framework, J2EE) ... > Now, I'll often make sure to use standard design
> patterns for my APIs when possible (e.g., Iterator interface, rather than
> accepting an anonymous classes/function objects if all I want to do let them
> lazily stream data one at a time).

You're absolutely right. Thanks for catching that!

------
j_baker
_People who always work late makes the people who don’t feel inadequate for
merely working reasonable hours. That’ll lead to guilt, misery, and poor
morale. Worse, it’ll lead to ass-in-seat mentality where people will “stay
late” out of obligation, but not really be productive._

I don't have this problem (assuming a reasonable management team). In fact, I
can usually outdo the workaholics in less time. They always forget that not
working is oftentimes the most productive thing you can do. I can't count the
number of times I've spun my wheels on a problem for hours, went home and
rested, and came back to realize just how stupidly easy the problem is.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Yes! Most problems don't require you to grind away for hours on end. If I
don't get anywhere within 45 minutes or so, I'll just walk away. The
unconscious mind is a wonderful tool, but it needs breathing room to do its
work, it seems.

------
zaccus
Why do people pride themselves on the number of hours they work? It's like
being proud of how long you can go without food, or how long you can hold your
hand over a flame. What exactly does it prove? Would Calcanis be happier with
his employees if they gave themselves 30 lashes every morning before work?

Working long does not equal working hard.

~~~
gnosis
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Protestant_wo...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic)

------
swombat
[2008].

Comments from 3 years ago, courtesy of the awesome fast shiny new HN search
box:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131691>

PS: I was sure I commented on this, possibly on 37signals' site itself, but I
can't find the comments anywhere... oh well.

~~~
DanielRibeiro
Thanks! I surely hadn't notice that now we have a search box. Teaches me that
It should have stroke me as a bit odd that it wasn't posted on HN already, and
that rellying on HN identical URL "was posted already" mechanism is not really
relliable.

~~~
jlind
I think a re-post isn't without merit though. There's plenty of people here
(myself included) who might not have seen this article otherwise.

~~~
swombat
I never suggested it wasn't worth reposting - I just thought some people might
like to know when it was posted, and see the previous set of comments.

~~~
mikeleeorg
Perhaps having an easy way to link up, or display, the comments from a
previous post of the same link would be helpful. I myself find it really
interesting to read old comments from a previous post.

------
Bo102010
I don't agree with the article. If my employees were showing signs of
workaholism and I didn't send them home, then their burnout, lack of
creativity, and drag on morale would be my fault, at least in part.

~~~
gscott
At least send them home when they start smelling bad after a 3 day stint. I
wish I was in my early twenties again I could use that time far better then
what I did.

------
gavanwoolery
Fire them? Uh...no. Here are my responses to his points:

1) I work 80-100 hours a week, and enjoy it. For the past 7 years. No burnout
yet. I find time to exercise and unwind. 2) If you are just throwing hours at
the problem, you are not passionate about the problem. Workaholics are (most
often) passionate about their work. 3) Those people who feel bad that someone
else is working more than them need to get over themselves. 4) Workaholics
often "put in their time" in an attempt to retire early. Not a bad judgment
call, IMHO. 5) Even workaholics know how to unwind, and do. You can work 80
hours a week and still have days off (168 hours in a week, 112 waking hours).

~~~
dasil003
I think it's just inflammatory link bait, in the same vein as Calacanis' OP.
The bottom line is there are many ways to run a business. Personally I would
not fire a great person regardless of whether they worked 20 hours or 100
hours a week, but I understand that there may be social dynamics at play that
shouldn't be ignored.

~~~
crikli
Jason is an expert at leveraging hyperbole to a) get attention and b) initiate
constructive dialogue. I respect him for his ability to do both.

But sometimes I feel what he writes needs to have a disclaimer at the top that
says, "This is what worked for me in my very unique business. It may be
disastrous in yours."

Basically, I view Jason as a conversation starter, not someone whose advice
I'm necessarily going to follow. And having talked to him a few times at cons
I've gotten the feeling that's really what he wants.

~~~
gnaritas
> But sometimes I feel what he writes needs to have a disclaimer at the top
> that says, "This is what worked for me in my very unique business. It may be
> disastrous in yours."

That doesn't need to be stated, it's a given. They never say our way is the
only way to do things; they're just telling you what works for them.

------
fauigerzigerk
I'm so tired of all the speculative psycho crap. Why don't we just make a
judgement based on someone's output and admit that the rest is always going to
be a totally subjective matter of personal sympathy?

------
benaltieri
Working hard on something you are passionate about is a lot like running in a
race. The minute you ease back on the throttle, you better hope that your
competition doesn't pounce. You better have a big enough lead on your
competition to allow yourself to relax. That relaxation time needs to be
earned. Too much relaxation breeds complacency. And if you are not in an
environment in which you are competing with someone, you really aren't working
toward a worth while goal, but just spinning your wheels. You are either
living off the spoils of some prior success or inheritance. Work like you are
about to be attacked by a pack of rabid dogs or seek out such an environment.
Don't get it? Go watch a horse race. Every split second counts. That winning
rush of adrenaline is like no other. Should everyone seek out such an
environment? No, not everybody all the time. But to never have done so is
cowardly. Nobody is successful by working 100% smarter than everyone else 100%
of the time. Those that say they do are liars. To do so is like saying they
never had a failure, and everything came easy for them. Achieving success is a
complete bitch. Those that have the energy and stamina to succeed in the end
are the ones who earn the right to slack off. Execution is everything.

------
ballard
0) Controversy makes for good headlines.

1) Indifference and over obsession are both blindness.

2) Effectiveness is mostly perception because reality is too costly to
measure.

3) Take a mini sabbatical every now and then: <http://➹.ws/sabbatical>

------
jack7890
How many hours per week do you think the average startup employee (not
founder) works?

------
protomyth
Do remember that sometimes the "workaholic" is actually doing the jobs of
other people or double checking that they got their stuff done because the
"workaholic" is blamed for the failure of the system. It happens a lot and
some organizations are not really good at finding where it all went south. It
also happens more in bad economies (no other jobs) or highly political places
(friends before truth).

------
pgroves
"Your Highness, the people have no bread"

Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake"

"Mr Millionare, small businesses are struggling to make ends meet despite 80hr
work weeks."

DHH: "Let them relax by flying their private planes"

------
unicornporn
Or you could just tell them to work less.

------
theBobMcCormick
Excellent advice. Nobody ever wished on their deathbed that they'd spent more
time at the office working.

~~~
Zakharov
Lots of people regret not accomplishing anything. Sometimes accomplishing
things requires work. Creating a successful startup is an example. Earning
enough in a regular job to be able to fund your own startup is another.

------
chrisjsmith
I tend to work as little as possible. Playing is important. Family is
important. Living is important.

Might be dead tomorrow and would be thoroughly miffed if I'd worked through my
life. I believe life is the reward and must be lived, not some religious
fantasy.

~~~
jodrellblank
You should be thoroughly miffed that you are writing off all the time you
spend working as "not my life".

~~~
chrisjsmith
It isn't really my life if I'm a participant in a system which supports others
who either a) actively do not work and exist only to be supported -or- b)
exploit others only for personal gain.

It would be my life if I actively improved the human condition and directly
provided for my family.

I'd be happy with (and I will eventually have!) a few hectares of acres of
land to be honest as I could do the above with that.

Then I can get back to solving problems rather than filling timesheets which
is after all the best way of helping people.

~~~
jodrellblank
It is your life even if people you don't like benefit from it.

How cliched is the "I'm unhappy now, but at some future time when XYZ, _then_
I'll be happy (but not until then!)"? That's pretty much what I meant.

------
m0wfo
I bought the book ("Getting Real") when it came out and it brought home a lot
of truisms of starting up in the 21st century. But 'Firing all the
workaholics' isn't as simple as that:

I've worked in places where people with no lives (and more importantly no
equity in the company) spent most of their waking lives in the office because
it was there- they obviously didn't have a whole lot going on in their lives,
maybe needed some kind of social acceptance or maybe a combination of the two.

I've also worked in places with a fantastic buzz [where I've had no equity in
the company]' where I slept on the floor to get a job done.

I've also worked for a startup doing 100+ hour weeks end to end just to get
ourselves started (not naming any company names).

The latter two I enjoyed and did of my own volition; the first I didn't. If
DHH is talking about losers who are several orders of magnitude less
productive than my counterparts then fair enough; but sleeping on the floor is
the manifestation of obsession. If you wanna stop that, go ahead you Danish
wanker.

------
hootmon
Sorry to burst yer bubbles, but this has all been discounted years ago, mainly
by the United States Air Force. They did extensive studies on the optimum work
hours/recreation hours and found that strict 9-5, 5 days on, 2 days off, was
far more productive and safe than any other configuration.

They won't let you put in more than 40 hrs a week in those multi-billion
dollar war planes. Working more than 40 hours a week is counter productive. It
increases the likely-hood of bad judgement, cloudy thinking etc will creep
into the work.

So the Robber-Baron Korp evil HR types who think they are being cool forcing
people to work 40+ hours, are actually just hurting their bottom line.

~~~
mitko
That sounds like a pretty interesting research I'd like to read more about -
can you please provide some citations/ links.

