

Marissa Mayer: "I don't believe in burnout" - walkerjc
http://it-jobs.fins.com/Articles/SBB0001424052702303404704577309493661513690/How-Google-s-Marissa-Mayer-Manages-Burnout

======
dmbaggett
Back in the 90s, at Naughty Dog, we worked 100 hour weeks. After three years,
people started to go crazy. By the end of Crash Bandicoot 2, one of the
artists went completely ape about something random on a level we were working
on and threw a chair at me. It was at that moment that I realized that our
limits were biological and not simply a matter of will.

We pulled all-nighters in which only a handful of us were doing more than one
trivial task per hour. 100 hour weeks were sustainable if you didn't mind the
occasional psychotic outburst. All-nighters were uniformly unproductive.

I do not believe that working 130 hours is physically possible for more than a
single week. This sounds like "no, really, I _deserve_ to have hundreds of
millions of dollars," because "I just worked _so_ hard." I don't believe it. I
also think it's a horrible model for entrepreneurs.

If you want to produce great work, get enough rest, exercise, and perspective.
If early Google employees really did what Marissa says, they should be
thankful that they were lucky enough to overcome it, not credit their success
to it.

We all know early Google employees made an absolute crapload of money. But not
because of 130-hour weeks. Because they had the guts to work on a search
engine when, in Marissa's words, "There were already twelve search engines and
it was unclear why the world needed another one."

I remember _everyone_ thinking that. Kudos to Larry, Sergey, Marissa, et al
for improving search _just because_ , and _later_ ending up with the most
lucrative business model in the history of the world. But shame on Marissa for
perpetuating the myth that working stupid hours and abusing yourself (and
others) is the path to success. It isn't.

~~~
anthonyb
> the myth that working stupid hours and abusing yourself (and others)

From re-reading the article, it sounds like there's only one of those factors
in play - working stupid hours. It sounds like the management at Google are
appreciative and actively looking out for people.

Which gels with my experience - for most people that I know and have read of
who have burned out, it's been a combination of long hours, feeling
unappreciated/exploited and being trapped somehow, due to obligation,
financial commitment or "We've got to finish this damn game!". (This guy:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3768219> seems to have burnout-proofed
himself by being willing to quit when things get rough and aren't getting
better)

If you had the most awesome job that you could think of, with perks and people
appreciating what you do, it might be possible to work 100 hour weeks for
years and not go crazy.

------
paulhauggis
"It was 130 hour weeks. People say, 'there's only 168 hours in a week, how can
you do it?' Well, if you're strategic about when you shower and sleeping under
your desk, it can be done."

Why would you give this much of your life to a company that will replace you
in a heart beat? Not to mention all of the negative health benefits that comes
along with these kinds of habits. Your life just isn't worth increasing the
company's net worth by a few more dollars.

I would be resentful about working over 40 hours and not owning a majority
share in the company. Is she going to fix that for me too?

I've known people like her. Work addicts. It's as much of an addiction as
anything else and shouldn't be considered "normal".

------
lhnz
(1) I don't believe in burnout either but a 130 hour work week is 18 hours of
work a day. That leaves only 6 hours for food, drink, cleaning, sleeping and
socialising. It is possible if you enjoy your work, don't require much sleep,
are able to mix socialising with work, and pay for somebody else to do your
cleaning. For the vast majority of individuals it is unrealistic, depression
inducing and unlikely to make their bosses or themselves richer.

(2) If you're trying to become more productive this is an extremely stupid
idea. Using more of your time is at most a linear improvement in work output;
if you wish to do more work you should spend time reading about and practicing
methods of doing more in an hour. Technology and knowledge have the capacity
to be multipliers, so: learn how to scale repetitive tasks, learn quicker ways
of programming, learn better ways of analysing problems, learn how to automate
as much as you can. An extra couple of hours spent practicing these things
will give far superior gains in work output.

(3) We should optimize for happiness. Don't spend all of your time working
unless you enjoy working.

I quite happily work 60-80 hour work weeks and will push myself a little
further if there is a deadline. This number includes lunch times, a very short
commute and non-fiction books and articles to help keep my mind sharp. I have
time to go out with friends to eat or have a drink and also can get my affairs
in order. This, so far, has given me the greatest enjoyment out of life but I
wouldn't push it on others:

Find your _own_ work-life balance.

------
excerionsforte
Wow, after all the sexism talk I've been seeing lately. The conclusion here
really sticks it in.

'Asked if she was the only the only woman in her Stanford computer science
courses, she said that she didn't remember.

"Asking the question, I worry, sometimes can handicap progress," she said. "I
lived in a bubble. I was really good at chemistry and biology [growing up]. No
one ever said, 'Wow, you're really good at this for a girl."

"If I felt more self-conscious about being a woman it would have stifled me
more," she added.'

Informative nonetheless.

------
ilcavero
I can't sustain anything over 40h for more than a month, in fact I think I
would be almost as productive if I worked 30h instead of 40h, maybe I'm just
not insane enough.

