"Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest. Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest."
the question is, when you "work" more, are you actually "working" more. I'm not advocating for either side, but I believe a few places that have moved to a shorter work week haven't seen lower productivity. Might be a sign that most people actually can't do ~40hrs of work per week.
I think if you take someone like me, and really most people, and have them sit in the office for an extra hour per day, you probably won't see much benefit. But I definitely feel like there are some people who grind work all day, putting in ridiculous hours, and they do amazingly work, beyond what 1.5 or even 2 people can do. Especially when you consider career progression over time, maybe the people who are hustling will have ranked up a couple times over an 8 hour/day person, and is contributing at a much higher level.
I think you make a good point that it's more complicated than "just stay longer", but I do also agree with GP that there is some kind of compounding interest when it comes to how many hours work. Don't know how it works though.
That’s because most people work at bullshit jobs they don’t care about, where productivity can’t be effectively measured and they are distracted more than half the day anyway. With a shorter day you are compelled to focus more to get essential things done and this is probably where people get the idea that you can accomplish just as much in fewer hours.
FWIW, as I'm edging close to burnout, I've noticed that at work, I exhibit one of two modes on any given day:
- If doing some incidental bullshit or chore or otherwise work that I don't like, I struggle to keep focus and am all stressed until I clock out, after which I eventually unwind and calm down;
- If doing something I like, or when I feel I'm making good progress, I'm highly focused and productive, but half-way through start to stress about coming end of work day; in those situations I absolutely do not want to stop working - and if given a chance, I'd continue until I'm done or too tired to continue.
With that in mind, I have mixed feelings towards the idea of a shorter work day. While I'd love to have more personal time, where I can exercise my autonomy, I'd also hate it on those days that I'm making good progress and don't want to stop.
You shouldn’t burn out, and we should design a system that doesn’t make you burn out, and then you won’t have to arrange your workflow around compensating for your burning out.
> but I believe a few places that have moved to a shorter work week haven't seen lower productivity
First, it's hard to measure, I wouldn't believe any of the studies I've seen at the moment (good or bad). (BTW I was the one who pushed for a 4-day week at my previous company.)
Second, lots of companies waste a lot of time with meetings. A shorter work week actually doesn't always translate in less work time, it can translate in useless meetings getting trimmed, and in people still working during time off but now being able to work during these days peacefully and focused.
I agree with you. Lots of positions ask you to stay "at work" when in reality all you are doing is watching your inbox for another email or something even less important.
But that assumes that productivity measure is accurate - which is almost certainly bullshit most of the time.
I'm perfectly fine with wanting a work / life balance and choosing a job just for the easy money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 40, 35 hours per week, maybe 30 hours - depending on the country.
But whenever there is a job where the 'productivity' can be directly evaluated - say some parts of finance world, sports, startups, cooking come to mind too - it's crystal clear, that it's people who dedicate their lives to it that accomplish the most. And it's not even close.
My opinion is that on average, people achieve as much on less time, but individually, that may not be true. Evidently not for Carmack nor a lot of the high-performing, always-on people I know (though a lot of the time, them “working” doesn’t necessarily look like “work” in the traditional sense).
Is more hours more work, though? If so, on what basis?
Frequently when the team was crunching at work, the result was that people had to bring their personal lives into the work hours in order to be able to actually stay at work longer, whether it meant making personal phone calls (because they couldn't postpone them until home), or even bringing their kids into the office for a few hours before going home. That was not Productive Work Time.
Similarly if someone comes in to work while sick, I don't think you can argue that those 8+ hours spent working with a cold or the flu are going to be at full productivity, and then they probably make their coworkers sick too.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
"Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest. Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest."
The payoff of working more is not linear.