
Stop Working All Those Hours - cycojesus
http://blogs.hbr.org/hbsfaculty/2012/06/stop-working-all-those-hours.html
======
lmkg
Grading knowledge workers based on ass-in-seat time is like grading programs
based on lines of code. Which, as Bill Gates once famously said, is like
grading aircrafts by weight. Time, lines, and weight aren't the goals of their
respective domains, they're resources that are utilized to accomplish the
goal. Judging solely by resource consumption penalizes efficiency.

I think part of the problem, at least in the States, is that we have this
ideal of hard work and determination paying off, and lionizing work ethic
above talent, skill, education, intelligence, etc. While it's certainly true
that work ethic can overcome lack of any of the above, the idea that work ==
success is just as fallacious as the idea that, say, education == success. A
little cleverness, plus a little laziness, can make often make the same amount
of labor go a lot further, so judging just effort is missing a big part of the
picture.

~~~
mhurron
I don't believe it's some work ethic that is at issue. It is a 'if your ass
isn't in the seat you're not making me money.' It's the same reason sick time
in the US is so low, why vacation time in the US is so low, why showing up on
time is so god damn important and why any activity that isn't making you or
your employer money is looked down upon as a waste of time.

In many ways, the US economy never grew out of the slave labor mentality.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
> why showing up on time is so god damn important

This is a matter of not wasting other people's time, it is a matter of
respect. If you prioritize and plan accordingly, being prompt is usually quite
easy. If you haven't done so, then you are effectively saying that your
laziness is more important than your compatriot's time. Of course, this is
only important when one of the parties has this view (it is some sort of
prisoner's dilema, I think.)

~~~
overgard
That really only makes sense if they happen to be waiting on you; which isn't
usually the case in most knowledge work.

~~~
josephkern
I’m having trouble trying to find an instance of people not waiting on you at
work (any work). Either it's real work with real consequences or it's busy
work.

~~~
einhverfr
The thing is that there is plenty of work that isn't due on a tight deadline
right now, but takes time to do. In these cases, why should my boss care if I
decide to work noon to 8pm instead of 9 to 5? My boss doesn't care. I am my
boss.

The measure of a good knowledge worker though is not being on time, rather it
is productivity month over month.

------
dsr_
The article is aimed at the wrong people. Corporate culture starts at the top.
Stop judging your employees by the hours they appear, and judge them on
results. If you can't measure results, you were in trouble already.

~~~
_wesley_
I agree completely. As the employee in the scenario, how do you influence your
boss to buy into this new mindset of judging productivity and utility?

~~~
rwallace
As the saying goes, "change your company or change your company." That is, if
the ample evidence that productivity typically peaks somewhere around thirty
hours a week doesn't convince your boss, quietly start shopping around for
another job where the management aren't bozos.

------
com2kid
Except, I _enjoy_ working all those hours. When I am coding, I am alive, it is
my creative outlet and the way I contribute to the world.

On the other hand I will readily admit that maintaining a healthy work/life
balance is key, and knowing not to push one's self to the breaking point is an
important bit of self awareness.

Now for management, well, they need to judge by both results short and long
term. Employees working extra long weeks to complete this sprint? Sure the
sprint gets done, but if after 2 or 3 sprints half your team leaves, well, the
product schedule is going to suffer. :)

~~~
ams6110
Yeah, I think working long hours is fine as long as you enjoy it, and are not
neglecting other responsibilities (family/kids being the main one, if you have
any).

It's important to not build up a sleep deficit though, as that can lead to
health problems, burnout, eventually depression, etc. But as long as you are
enjoying work and getting enough sleep at night, I say go for it.

------
Loic
Starting with Ford for line workers in production, we know that long hours are
not equal to quality. They know it in these law firms, software companies,
basically nearly everywhere (people are not stupid).

So why this still done like that? Because it easier to answer the question:
"How many hours have you been working this week?" than "What value have you
brought to the company this week?"

We substitute an easy question to a harder one and we feel we answered the
hard one.

Edit: Fixed grammar/typos

------
hkmurakami
The article addresses lawyers, consultants, and analysts, and later brings up
an anecdote involving law firm associates.

 _Of course_ these people work long hours -- they have an incentive to do so,
as they wisely learn that they must at least put up the facade of working long
hours, else they will be passed up for promotion and eventual partnership.

~~~
endersshadow
The other incentive, of course, is that most of them earn revenue by the hour.

~~~
malachismith
Earn for their employers. Yes. Earn for themselves? Not so much.

------
MattRogish
I can't keep over-emphasizing the "Results Only Work Environment"
(<http://www.gorowe.com/>). Everyone at my company is evaluated on results -
ONLY. Not hours. Just whether or not you're getting your work done, awesomely.

If you get a whole week's worth of tasks done in 20 minutes you're done for
the rest of the week. Obviously we did a bad job of estimating (a silly case
of course) but - you're done. You don't get more work shoved on your stack.
Sit on the beach if you want.

Sure, you _can_ work more, but you're not expected to.

~~~
markokocic
> Sure, you can work more, but you're not expected to.

Are you sure about this? I tend to believe you really mean this, but it's hard
to believe that you, or other managers are not looking at someone doing 20
minutes of work a week as a weasel that hacked a system.

~~~
MattRogish
I look at it like this:

* Employees are adults who deserve to be treated with honesty, integrity, and respect. In a word: Trust. If they violate that trust, they're out.

I suspect if we indeed estimated a week's worth of work that ended up being
literally a NO-OP, the kind of person I'd work with would realize this and re-
assess the situation.

In the least, part of our process (and a "result" that people are tracked
against) is "continuous improvement" and part of that would be recognizing we
messed up somewhere to have that situation occur. Hiding this wouldn't be
meeting that result.

It's an extreme example, agreed, but it illustrates a key point: if
"management" can hold you accountable for not meeting your goals then they
have to be comfortable when you _do_ meet them. Part of the explicit agreement
of ROWE is that this is a fair and equitable relationship. Having management
assign you more work because you got it done "faster" goes against that
agreement.

We track and iterate professional growth weekly. Thus, the expected results
are set and evaluated on a week-by-week basis. People tend to find their
unique rhythm within a few weeks and reach steady state.

~~~
markokocic
In that case, if it indeed works like that, sounds like a nice place to work.

I would go even a step further, if all work is result driven, why having work
hours anyways? Why not just agree on what has to be done in some future time
period, and forget about hours completely?

That way, employees will feel more relaxed, and accomplish more.

I'm sure I can do more in 20 "high hours" than in 40 "forced hours", but if
you don't let me work only 20 "high hours" a week, and assign me 20 more
"forced hours", it would inevitable lead back to 40 "forced hours" with much
more work and less done.

That's why I never bid based on hourly rate, but based on some agreed amount
of work, when doing contracts.

~~~
MattRogish
Correct, in a ROWE (for us; obviously if you're a 7/11 you have open hours,
etc.), there's no such thing as "work hours". But, for the same reasons that
we have short iterations in scrum, we time-box results to a week so feedback
is early and often, and we can continually course-correct.

With our implementation of ROWE, there's no such thing as an "annual
performance review" because you essentially get one every week. We have
periodic salary review (quarterly) to see if you need adjusted (salary is
based on a semi-objective tech ladder we've devised) but otherwise there's no
"Let's meet every 12 months so I can check off 'meets expectations' and give
you your cost-of-living adjustment"

------
tomjen3
Do people actually work all those hours or do people appear to work all those
hours?

~~~
hudibras
"That fits my observation of New York law firms, where associates routinely
bill 3,000 hours each year. That equates to 60 hours per week during a 50 week
year; including non-billable hours, these 3,000-hour lawyers generally worked
12 hour days, six days a week."

When I read that, my first thought is overbilling, not overworking.

~~~
ams6110
Say the firm bills in 0.25 hour increments. Spend 10 minutes reading emails
from 4 different clients, and you've billed an hour.

~~~
Evbn
And you are on course to meet a different lawyer when you are sued for double
billing.

------
larrik
Lawyers and consultants bill by the hour.

More hours == more money.

While their value to the _customer_ may be lower, their value to the _firm_ is
likely right on target.

~~~
dredmorbius
There's some movement toward outcomes-based payment even in these fields,
particularly in corporate law. Not commonplace for personal legal support yet
though.

------
jwingy
Working longer hours also seems to be counter-productive over the long run:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3707101>

------
markokocic
What you measure (and reward) is what you will get.

If long hours are mandatory, people will just tend to do the same, if not
lower, amount of work in those 12 hours than what they would otherwise do in 8
hours.

And why would they care about quality if that's not rewarded? They could
always say: "But I worked for 12 hours a day.".

------
jakejake
I pretty much agree about being more intelligent about work rather than just
putting in the hours. I'm not sure I agree about doing B+ work on projects
that you don't like, I find those are the ones that tend to continually suck
up time come back to haunt you. At least with programming that can be the
case, perhaps not with other types of positions.

------
coreygoodie
Yeah, right. I wish.

~~~
tadruj
This is exactly the scenario that Stairway app, posted today on HN is
addressing.

------
lucian1900
Pop-up ad. I didn't even bother reading.

------
michaelochurch
It has nothing to do with effectiveness or performance. It comes down to the
importance, in some social theaters, of shared suffering. When the company or
group is doing well, the rockstars are the people who push forward and come up
with new ideas. When things are falling apart, it's reliable/available people
who get the benefit of the doubt and will advance. Ass-in-seat time matters
most at companies that are stagnant or in trouble, because no one wants to be
scapegoated as the slacker. (Bad managers tend to blame problems resulting
from their lack of focus and effectiveness on "lazy" people not working enough
hours.)

If you think the crisis is temporary and a one-off, it might be worth it to
log long hours for a month or two for the credibility that comes from having
suffered with the group, especially as the company/group grows and becomes
cliquish and the before/after crowd distinction starts to matter. If it's
permanent, it's usually better to find a new job.

~~~
rwallace
> If you think the crisis is temporary and a one-off, it might be worth it to
> log long hours for a month or two

I understand your point, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. In a
company run that irrationally, if you think the crisis is temporary and a one-
off, let's be honest, the probability of this really being the case is smaller
than the probability that you have talked yourself into believing what you so
badly want to believe.

