
60-80 Hours/Week - devin
I recently spoke with a CEO who told me that their team is &quot;all in&quot; and spending &quot;60-80&quot; hours&#x2F;week on building out the product. I thought this was fringe or a joke. Are early stage startups really doing this? I guess the answer is yes, but seeing this up front made me ill. There&#x27;s no reason for it, and I doubt it produces better outcomes than sustainable work. I am willing to work difficult hours when there&#x27;s obvious value at the other end, but what are people thinking advertising this as their company&#x27;s current values? I&#x27;m obviously biased, but it seems skeevy techbro at best. How are seemingly well-intentioned individuals being led to believe hours are in any way equal to the value being created?
======
s1t5
> it seems skeevy techbro at best

It really is. But it can still make a lot of sense for very small teams who
are highly invested and/or own the company/product outright. If you're putting
in these hours as a salaried employee, you're likely being taken advantage of.

~~~
higeorge13
Exactly. Unless you are one of the founders or you have a significant
percentage of shares as being one of the first employees, it's not worth it.

Although from a recent startup experience, it's usually the salaried employees
that usually become so committed and loyal and eventually end up working such
extreme hours, while the rest become a little bit more relaxed. It might be
the whole surrounding mentality and belief that you might be working for the
next unicorn or the "family" thing that is often being sold in interviews.
Just to find out that you are working on just another company of a smaller
size.

------
davidajackson
Think of it this way: If you're working regularly for 80 hours a week for
someone else... the opportunity cost is you could be starting your own
company, literally 40 hours a week. Or you could be a contractor and make
extra cash. Ask yourself if you're going to do better, otherwise not a good
deal. If you're going to invest that extra time you should have a clear
roadmap to understanding why it will benefit you more, and that roadmap should
be derived from the company's numbers, not a spreadsheet someone else is
trying to sell you on. People will often try to sell you that you're part of
'something bigger' but don't lose sight of the fact you will be getting a much
smaller slice of the pie. I'm assuming they're not offering to pay much,
because otherwise, they could just hire 2 people.

------
giantg2
This is the mindset of many companies, not just startups. Just maybe to a
lesser degree. My company requires 7.5 hours of work per day (not counting
lunch) or 9.5 as a manager. This is a fairly large company. You will never be
promoted working close to the minimum even if you have good output/outcomes.
It seems like you need to do 50 hours a week minimum to seem engaged and
dedicated, and this increases the higher up you go. I was on a product that
had all the tech leads working 9 to 11 hours every weekday plus some time on
the weekends. There was also an unspoken expectation that you would do some
amount of work while on PTO.

------
vaibhavthevedi
I am part of a startup and I can tell you one thing from what I have seen the
"CEO" and the people are doing in it. Everyone seems to put all in the effort
and everything but generally, the output generation is low. What I mean is,
the 80/20 rule applies here a lot. In startups, I have found that it is more
about doing experiments and doing them rapidly.

You should take a look at what they are producing and what their current
revenue is. That should give you an idea, if putting 80+ hours is REALLY
helping them or not?

~~~
rokobobo
I agree that the current state of the company is important: if it has just hit
traction and there are fairly risk-free payoffs for everyone employed to work
60-80 hours, then the fact that everyone is working so hard might be a good
sign--it could mean that everyone believes in the product and are bringing
their A+ game. Additionally, if the market they're in is a fast-growing one,
and it seems like it may be a winner-take all, then the effort can be
justified.

However, if (1) this company is still looking for a product-market fit, or (2)
has been pulling this kind of hours for years, I would see that as a red flag.
(1) seems to signal a frantic attempt by the founders to hit a milestone
before they run out of cash, and (2) means you can expect this kind of culture
for a long time ahead, which, as others pointed out, benefits the large
stakeholders at the expense of employees.

------
milesvp
From the research I’ve seen regarding output at given weekly hours, you cannot
sustain productivity beyond 40hrs/wk for more than a month. At some point
productivity lowers such that, at best, productivity matches what previously
only required 40hrs/wk. At worst working tired creates more work than it
solves. Further more, the research I’ve seen suggests that those most likely
to be doing negative work are the least likely to recognize it. Couple this
with how hard it actually is to measure productivity, and you can end up with
some personalities that are convinced the only way they’re as successful as
they are is because of the hours that they can easily measure, and maybe don’t
realize they’d be equally effective with fewer hours.

That said. I suspect much of the research is only focusing on single work
types. Like 40hrs doing thought work or 40hrs doing mindless manual labor. And
I have suspicions that you can increase effectiveness by doing tasks that give
breaks to you brain or you body and that might get you to 60hrs/wk without
burnout. Beyond that though, I’m skeptical. People need time to rest. Bodies
have recovery processes that can’t necessarily be sped up, and the brain
definitely has rate limits on flushing byproducts of various processes, and
muscles take time to recover due to similar rate limits.

------
TrackerFF
My own experience has been that long hours tend to correlate with short time
windows. If you're in a "deal" oriented business, where deals have a finite
and short shelf-life, then that's absolutely normal. But tech? Maybe game dev.
during crunch time.

Poorly managed startups could probably also fall inside that...but then again,
it really depends on the work / product, and if it's something that needs to
be released urgently.

------
codingdave
The phrase "all in" scares me. I've only ever been asked to go "all in" once,
and I chose to leave in large part because of that request. Now, if I was
young with good equity in a promising product that I believed in, then putting
all your energies into it might make sense. But most of the time, this is just
a declaration that they do not support you as a person, only as a producer for
their company.

------
chrisbennet
It funny how people who will benefit greatly from success (like the founders)
expect others who won't really benefit, to work just as hard as they do.

------
eesmith
Sounds like the all-too-common "exploit your tech workers" policy.

I mean, it's hard to really say "exploit" when so many people do so
voluntarily. Look back at the classic "The Soul of a New Machine" to see how
many people worked overtime to get the machine out.

And then the commentary by the author about how DG staff were worried about
people not wanting to work there, only to find that _more_ new graduates
wanted to work there precisely to be in that sort of environment.

But there are downsides. The rule-of-thumb is that people can do about 4 hours
of creative work per day. See [https://www.theweek.com/articles/696644/why-
should-work-4-ho...](https://www.theweek.com/articles/696644/why-should-
work-4-hours-day-according-science) for some commentary (the first DDG hit
that seemed relevant; there are many more.)

It's easy to spend more time on non-creative work. But after about 8 hours,
the extra time isn't that productive. People start shifting other things to
work. When I was a 20-something working grueling hours, I ended up paying
bills, socializing, and more .. at work. I was there in body, but not spirit.

What it means is neglecting the rest of your life, like friends, family, and
hobbies.

It's a old problem. In Waychoff's "Stories about the B5000 and the people who
were there", written in 1979 about the early 1960s, you can read the
following, from [http://ed-thelen.org/comp-
hist/B5000-AlgolRWaychoff.html](http://ed-thelen.org/comp-
hist/B5000-AlgolRWaychoff.html) :

> There was no time for anything outside of work but eating and sleeping, and
> darned little of that. We worked over 100 hours every week. One day in July,
> I was wanting to order some tickets for the Riverside Grand Prix which was
> the last weekend in October. So I asked Lloyd, in the front of the rest of
> the group, if I could take off one weekend in October. They all thought it
> was funny as hell for me to ask for a weekend off four months in advance. It
> was a good thing that I asked. I really felt guilty when the weekend came
> and I was the only one that didn't have to work.

> There was especially no time for any outside relationships. My wife and son
> packed their bags and went to Tulsa saying that they were not coming back
> until I asked them to. I never asked, so after several weeks she came back
> and we were divorced. Lloyd and his wife were divorced the same month. She
> moved back to Dallas. Bobby's wife moved back to Mineola, Texas and I
> assumed that that were getting a divorce, but I don't think that they ever
> did. Fred's wife refused to believe that he could be spending that much time
> at the office, so she concluded that he was seeing another woman. I remember
> Fred, almost pleading with Lloyd to be able to spend more time at home.
> Lloyd said ok, but nothing changed. I think Fred's wife left him for a short
> while, but I'm not sure of that. Dave didn't have any relationships outside
> of work at the beginning of the. project. and he didn't have time to develop
> any during the project. By the end of the project, our families were all
> back together again, temporarily. Now we are all divorced except for Bobby.
> The reasons for the divorces were not related to the project.

------
throw03172019
Is the CEO the CEO of a large startup or just a co-founder of a 2 person team?
I doubt everyone is working 60-80 hrs if a large team. Small teams with large
equity interests, probably. (I’ve been there)

------
rkagerer
I worked these kind of hours:

a) when I developed my first software product and began selling it online ~20
years ago, and

b) as a consultant for a company experiencing a steady stream of fires

Each spanned about a year before settling into a more reasonable pace.

In the first case, I was finishing university and bootstrapping my company on
a shoestring budget. I convinced a couple friends to help out here and there,
eventually hiring one as my first part-time employee, but until then I wore
all the hats. If I had to do it over I would probably drop out to focus solely
on the startup, but I expect that just means I'd allocate my time differently
not less. No regrets, and I look back on this as one of the most productive
periods of my life. I wound up with rock-solid software (manageable enough to
support on my own) and an autonomous sales pipeline that repaid my investment
of effort with dividends - in time I could arbitrarily take days off for
impromptu ski trips after huge snowfalls, and I recall a few where I got a
notification part way through the day about a new top-tier sale from someone
I'd never heard of (whoot! drinks are on me).

The second was at a company which had, before I got there, oversold its
woefully incomplete and buggy enterprise platform. My role was a mix of
product and (to some degree) project management, customer account therapy, and
mentoring developers. This time I wasn't the only one working outrageous
hours; the whole team really stepped up when I came on board. Their previous
boss was a VP injected by the company that acquired theirs, a total jerk who
gutted morale. The survivors were happy to have someone who actually stuck up
for them, outlined a vision to sanity (even if it was imperfect) and was
willing to occasionally jump into the trenches and code alongside 'em over
weekends to meet a deadline. Part of that stint was at a fixed rate, although
I smartened up quick and renegotiated hourly. The difference had no impact on
my work ethic (the only change was at one point the CEO dragged me in to
complain I was the highest paid person at the company including him - hah!)

Both ordeals definitely entailed sacrifices. Work-life balance wasn't a thing.
I developed acute RSI during the first stint, before I learned about
ergonomics. Though interestingly, I was physically more fit during these
insanely busy periods of my life, as the high level of stress prompted me to
run ~3 miles each morning as an effective coping mechanism to stay sane. My
brain and ego thrived off the pressure and chronic sense of urgency, although
at times it felt wearing and I knew I'd burn out if I tried to maintain it
indefinitely. I couldn't imagine attempting this with a family, and the
lifestyle certainly delayed any plans there. But one of the devs I worked
closest with put in similar hours and he's a father of 5 boys (no idea how he
managed).

It allowed me to "not work" for extended periods in between - i.e. take some
long vacations, spend time exploring experimental new tech at my own pace,
loads of pet projects, even pick up new skills totally outside my wheelhouse.
Maybe that fabled work-life balance just played out over a longer timescale...

Now, instead of fighting it, I lean into my natural ebbs and flows of
productivity. I confess I wear both experiences like a badge of pride, and my
inside-voice silently mocks all you lazy 35-40 hourers ;-)

~~~
rkagerer
My last post (the parent) was about my experiences. This one is more
opinionated, and depending on your own experiences and views it may come off a
bit objectionable.

I'm convinced where people get it backwards is in thinking long hours
_produce_ a corresponding increase in output. In my experience, long hours are
a symptom, not a cause.

They can be a symptom of passion and eagerness. I've seen folks so excited and
proud of what they're creating that they drive themselves to put in as much
time as they can until it's done. It's like they're headed to Disneyland and
can't get there fast enough, and it's contagious. When your whole team is
infected with a fervent goal, there's this huge amplifying effect. Members
stimulate each other to pile on, through inspiration ( _" Damn we're achieving
something great, I want to be a part of this!"_) or simple enablement ( _"
Ouch, I just realized I'm blocked! But wait, the guy I need to do the thing is
available"_). The dynamic isn't uncommon in startups with strong team buy-in
to the mission. Even in a more traditional corporate setting, managers may
strategically place an employee with relentless work ethic in a particular
cubicle in an effort to breed their performance (although the two don't
necessarily equate!)

Long hours in a team setting can also be the result of camaraderie or peer
pressure ( _" Jeez everyone else around me is slugging it out tonight, maybe I
ought to as well"_).

Or a symptom of guilt ( _" I should have gotten this done by now"_).

Whether or not such reasons are ethical or healthy, more time behind the
hammer can make the walls go up faster. Sure, if you're building enough of
them, you reach a point where it makes more sense to invest in more hammers
and a smarter method of wall-building (or go zen and figure out how to build
your house with less walls or none at all). But many startups get where they
need to go before reaching that scale.

It's plausible the CEO embellished that statement to weed out candidates he
doesn't think will fit into the culture of his workplace. Declining to work
above-normal hours doesn't mean you're uncommitted. But if the whole team is
doing it, there's a risk you'll be unhappy there (sounds like this is the case
and his tactic worked), create optics of inequity ( _" Why am I working so
long when that new guy isn't?"_) or - heaven forbid - spread your radical
propaganda of sanity and reasonableness to the rest of his crew.

Some members of a team have a natural proclivity to work longer than their
peers (I've seen this in volunteer environments), while others simply don't
need as long to accomplish a given set of tasks (often this can be the same
person at different stages in their career). It sure sounds like he may be
exploiting his workforce, but it's difficult to make more than a superficial
judgement without knowing the employees and their values, the lifestyle they
seek, their compensation, equity stake, time off, etc. I've seen cases where a
person had to be reigned _down_ to 60 hours a week for their own good.

On the other hand, long hours can also be a symptom of despair from severe
mismanagement. All too often they tend to appear when a venture slips into
dire straights after its participants have exhausted other means to deal with
problems (some popular means being money, which has run out; or denial, which
crashed headlong into reality). Like a frantic crew striving to paddle faster
on a leaking boat, everyone gets stretched thin in desperate measures to
salvage unrealistic deadlines, keep customers from leaving, or hit targets
that avoid a loss of VC backing. Sometimes they'll stay afloat long enough to
patch the boat and make landfall, other times they'll sink.

When your team feels overworked, overwhelmed and burnt out, you plunge through
diminishing returns and into negative ones. You make more mistakes, the walls
go up crooked and in the end you realize you put them in entirely the wrong
place and could have done it properly in half the time if you weren't all
walking zombies. When this happens, hindsight makes it obvious "paddle harder"
was the wrong approach. I'm really interested in the research on this topic,
and another post here suggests there's data behind the ~40 hours a week much
of the world has standardized on.

A good leader knows how to inspire their team to drive hard, and senses when
to ride the brakes to keep them from burning out.

I used to joke that Google hired developers who crave coding, then removed all
the little barriers that kept them from doing it (Cooking meals? We'll do that
for you. Body aches? Hit up a massage to get you back in action. Wasting time
doing laundry? Taken care of. Quit driving, here's a bus with WiFi = another
hour a day of productivity. No time to come down to the cafeteria today? No
problem, we'll sprinkle snacks in walking distance. Our bidet toilets will
even take care of them on the other end). What at first glance seems like
working at a luxury spa, could be viewed through another lens as a carefully
engineered mecca for codeaholics. (Kidding aside, I hear they do promote
fantastic work-life balance)

When it comes to building new things, I've found I prefer to work with a small
group of extremely high-caliber and driven individuals who I need to encourage
_not_ to work, than with a clock-watching, bureaucratic army of muggles. I
might take a different approach if I were optimizing an established endeavor
for sustainable longevity and efficiency.

My partner spent a decade in a completely opposite lifestyle, working for
government, typically (but not always) 9-5, regular yearly vacations, etc.
while I was engulfed in my work. It's fun to compare war stories (she has hers
too!).

