Work Hours and Success

[cguy]

Conversely, there are also a lot of studies that show that when you are tired, your productivity drops quickly, to the point that the total amount of work you can achieve in a 16 hour day just isn't that much. Especially where creativity and lateral thinking is needed - it is best to be rested for that.

Agreed, hence my qualification of "real" work. The gist being really, that you just have to do an hour more real work than your colleagues, and (subject to certain types of work), you may be able to become exponentially more capable.

 

[Lupus]

I’m sure at some point or another he did put those hours in for long periods.

Now he has no reason to.

But I agree the 8/9 hour push in a single stretch is draining and counter productive.

At the very least the Spanish siesta logic of breaking it up dramatically with a 2 hour lunch break makes all the difference.

It doesn’t apply to all people or all industries though.

He might've but he wouldn't have done it for an entire month, he'd probably have stretches of it.

 

[Ancalagon]

Agreed, hence my qualification of "real" work. The gist being really, that you just have to do an hour more real work than your colleagues, and (subject to certain types of work), you may be able to become exponentially more capable.

I highly doubt this.

First, sample size of one.

Second, sure practicing something more makes you more competent at it. But exponentially more so? We both know what exponential curves look like - I doubt that a highly intelligent and motivated person is going to end up 3 times as competent as other highly intelligent and motivated people just by working one more hour per day.

Sure, it will make a difference, but I would not expect an exponential increase like you say.

Also, you might be bumping into other limiting factors that make this less effective. Fatigue is an obvious one, but perhaps there is a limit to how much a brain can grow and change in a day? Perhaps if you work extra hours, something else becomes the bottleneck?

 

[SauRoNZA]

He might've but he wouldn't have done it for an entire month, he'd probably have stretches of it.

I wouldn’t rely on “probably” either way as we then don’t know for sure either side of the coin and are all just guessing at it.

Most of these tech guys especially didn’t get there by spending the least about of hours possible on the job.

Bill Gates seemingly came out of it more balanced than most, but then he was somewhat of an unknown quantity in the beginning.

But yes I don’t think 80 hours a week every week. But certainly a much higher average than most.

 

[R13...]

Please share your secret, master!

To paraphrase the famous grandmaester Pycelle, "as I grow older I find I need less and less sleep"

 

[Bobbin]

To paraphrase the famous grandmaester Pycelle, "as I grow older I find I need less and less sleep"

I didn't realize V is that old

 

[cguy]

I highly doubt this.

First, sample size of one.

Second, sure practicing something more makes you more competent at it. But exponentially more so? We both know what exponential curves look like - I doubt that a highly intelligent and motivated person is going to end up 3 times as competent as other highly intelligent and motivated people just by working one more hour per day.

Sure, it will make a difference, but I would not expect an exponential increase like you say.

Also, you might be bumping into other limiting factors that make this less effective. Fatigue is an obvious one, but perhaps there is a limit to how much a brain can grow and change in a day? Perhaps if you work extra hours, something else becomes the bottleneck?

He wasn't making a statistical argument, so sample size doesn't matter. Apart from that, I've known a lot of 10x and even 100x developers/scientists. I can't say for certain that an extra hour is making the difference, but I do believe that the argument is plausible.

 

[hj007]

Being in the same office for 8 to 9 hours a day doesn't mean you're being productive, the really smart and successful people probably put in a few long hours here or there and the rest of the time they are doing smart leisure things. You think Bill Gates puts in 80 hour weeks?

Actually his hours are mostly irrelevant. He made his money from holding equity. Most 'successful' people have equity, once the business has scale your hours don't matter much anymore. If you work 100 hours, but have 5000 staff who each work an hour, your 40,60,100 or even 168 hours a week no longer makes an impact really, the big financial performance depends on the business' performance ultimately.

I think that correlation and causality may confuse items a bit. Just because you work 100 hours per week won't make you a Bill Gates etc. But 100 hours per week will give you a good income if you earn a lot per hour. Your chance of success may increase with lots of hours, but I do know of wealthy people that may never have worked a long work week, it all came down to owning equity in something successful...

 

[Ancalagon]

Actually his hours are mostly irrelevant. He made his money from holding equity. Most 'successful' people have equity, once the business has scale your hours don't matter much anymore. If you work 100 hours, but have 5000 staff who each work an hour, your 40,60,100 or even 168 hours a week no longer makes an impact really, the big financial performance depends on the business' performance ultimately.

I think that correlation and causality may confuse items a bit. Just because you work 100 hours per week won't make you a Bill Gates etc. But 100 hours per week will give you a good income if you earn a lot per hour. Your chance of success may increase with lots of hours, but I do know of wealthy people that may never have worked a long work week, it all came down to owning equity in something successful...

In the case of most CEOs who became wealthy through their equity, I'd say that their hard work likely has a lot to do with how well the company did. When Microsoft was at its height, Bill Gates probably put in long hours to make it work. Probably easily 80 hour weeks.

There aren't many CEOs who can work 35 hour weeks and still have their companies worth billions.

 

[hj007]

In the case of most CEOs who became wealthy through their equity, I'd say that their hard work likely has a lot to do with how well the company did. When Microsoft was at its height, Bill Gates probably put in long hours to make it work. Probably easily 80 hour weeks.

There aren't many CEOs who can work 35 hour weeks and still have their companies worth billions.

My point is that most CEOs that work 100 hour weeks don't have companies worth billions. We only see a handful billionaires, their work habits and infer from that.

 

[Ancalagon]

My point is that most CEOs that work 100 hour weeks don't have companies worth billions. We only see a handful billionaires, their work habits and infer from that.

How do you know?

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of CEOs - especially the ones running successful companies - work longer hours than most. Probably at minimum 60 hour weeks.

Besides, in the context of this thread, I don't think many of us realistically aspire to be billionaires. Statistically it is very unlikely. But to be a dollar millionaire would be something. So, I think most or all of us would be very happy with the level of success achieved by CEOs of medium to large companies, even if those CEOs are not billionaires.

 

[Brontosaurus]

There aren't many CEOs who can work 35 hour weeks and still have their companies worth billions.

The trick isn't to work hundreds of hours to make a company successful, the trick is (in the case of a CEO) to employ the right people to make your company successful.

I work a lot less hours than I did previously, because I have better employees. They don't work overtime, they just do a good job and I don't have to micromanage.

They also don't work overtime because they are efficient workers. Our staff turnover is stupidly low because management have created a favourable work environment.

Working 80+ hours a week is NOT a favourable work environment.

 

[Ancalagon]

The trick isn't to work hundreds of hours to make a company successful, the trick is (in the case of a CEO) to employ the right people to make your company successful.

I work a lot less hours than I did previously, because I have better employees. They don't work overtime, they just do a good job and I don't have to micromanage.

They also don't work overtime because they are efficient workers. Our staff turnover is stupidly low because management have created a favourable work environment.

Working 80+ hours a week is NOT a favourable work environment.

Sure, but I can guarantee you don't work 35 hour weeks either. You probably work 50 hour weeks - in fact, I'd probably guess you are the hardest worker at your company.