Do Long Work Hours Affect Code Quality?

tooTired asks: "At my company the owner is heavily implying that the development staff needs to start working longer hours and weekends to shorten the time-frames on our current projects. The exact quote is 'These 8 hour days have to stop, we need to be working 15 hours a day and weekends, balls to the wall.' We are heavily under-staffed even with my multiple attempts to show the owner that we need more resources. My general feeling is that long hours is generally a symptom of poor project management, and not something to be sought after. I wanted to ask the Slashdot community their opinions on how working long hours during the week and weekends affects the quality of the code they produce, and the overall success of the project." A large reason why many in this industry find themselves working long hours and weekends is that management makes unreasonable expectations and deadlines. Are there ways of communicating to management that long hours to rush a project to completion is not the way to complete a successful project? Update: 08/30 23:11 GMT by C :Grammatical errors in title, corrected. Sorry about that.

Comments

Agreed

[SirSlud]

Humans are not machines. You simply do not up the hours that they are 'on', and it works.

Nevermind code quality - what about burnout, resentment towards management, and seeing domain knowledge go out the door when coders get sick of working 15 hour days and leave for another company?

15 hours? He's not serious, is he?

Re:Agreed

[Albanach]

Indeed, in Europe if they had you working 15 hour days, you could go home at 11am on the Thursday and not return to work until the Monday.

Why? Because the European Union protected its workers by introducing the working time directive which emans the maximum hours you can be contracted to work is 48 per week - you can work longer if you wish and agree, but no employer can force you too, and if you decide not to there's not a thing they can do. Even if later they decided not to promote you on that basis you could take action against them.

Usually I'd be cautious about such intervention, but certainly here I have to agree that it's to everyone's disadvantage being forced to work these crazy hours - I've done it myself and veryone loses - employer, employee and families.

Hmm...

[Retarded Penguin]

Long hours dont affect code quality, employees ambition affects code quality! If its late and im working on a project (personal) that i enjoy, and im way tired, i still code fine. If its something my hearts not into it then i wont be able to work. My suggestion to employers: Pay lots for overtime and reward good coding with acess to a "special fridge" filled with energy drinks and jolt!

Re:Hmm...

[sphealey]

The nuclear power industry has done extensive studies on this subject. Tradition in the industry (partially the electric utility industry; partially coming from ex-Navy guys) was to work long shifts - 24 and 36 hour work days were not uncommon.

The conclusion of the studies was that people become increasingly ineffective after 10 hours per day, and very ineffective after 12 hours per day. BUT - they don't realize it. If they are "motivated" they think they are doing fine at hour 16 or hour 20. Objective testing shows that they aren't.

And similarly, anyone can work one or two 16 or even 24 hour days. But after a week of 16s, or ever 7 straight days of 12s, performance again drops significantly.

But hey, since your project won't hurt anyone else if it melts down, go ahead and work those hours!

sPh

Re:Hmm...

[langed]

A small anecdote to relate to the article:

At my university, we installed a computer-controlled train lab. It was the first semester of the course, so we students were put in groups of three "in order to be more effective software pioneers." My group was unfortunate in that one student dropped the class, so we were shorthanded. Then another student decided to focus on his senior project. So from a group of three, I became the only student in my group writing code.
I was the only student in the class with experience with electronics and device drivers, and several years experience with linux. So I got to be the volunteer sysadmin in addition to course assignments, and additional code that would be provided to the other students in the class; it was assumed that they would not be capable of writing device drivers, and these were outside the scope of the course anyway.

Long story short, at least 5 nights per week were tied up in that computer lab (the other 2 nights were long nights at a part-time job), keeping the machines going, performing backups, fixing windows and linux interoperability problems, and coding the drivers that were passed out free to the rest of the class. Since we were given keys to the lab, I came in any free moment I had, and worked until I passed out and fell out of my chair, only to be found unconscious by the professor the following morning. Then I'd get up and go at it again.
I got sick frequently, but came in anyway. I was in the only group that didn't have a working program to control up to 3 trains running the tracks simultaneously, and my code was errorprone and buggy. The other teams actually had to code failsafes for contingencies when my device drivers actually failed.
My attitude changed that semester, much for the worse. When repeatedly accused of being severely sleep-deprived, I responded with "Sleep is for the weak! It's an addiction! The addiction should be broken!"
But even the professor, for whom I was putting in so much effort, accosted me of pushing too hard, and getting nothing done. I was then enlightened of the cliche "diminishing returns"--you can keep putting effort in, but without proper rest, you'll get less and less back out.
On the other hand, this rather lengthy post (and its likely incoherent babblings) comes from the bleary-eyed eyes of someone working on a goofy kludge of socket programming in C to interface to Java applets. Thing is, I have no control of how many users can connect, so I must assume that there can be thousands of simultaneous connections.

Oh how I long for the days of sysadminning--I got more sleep as a sysadmin than I do as a programmer!

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly did not like my programmers working extended hours; at least not routinely. It made them tired, irritable, and a pain in the ass to have around the office. The code got sloppy, too.

As for deadlines, I found the way to achieve them was to have the deadlines set by the coders and tie their bonuses to the quality of code and ability to deliver it on time. When I did that, the deadlines were met and the bugs largely went away. Obviously, you need to know enough about the technical aspects of the project to tell if they're blowing sunshine up your ass.

I found that to mitigate extra hours, I let the programmers work from home via VPN and I kept track of the extended hours to comp them extra time off. To be honest, some of the most productive days had all my coders at their houses VPN'd in and conference calling to work out issues. Some worked at night, some early in the morning. They worked out their stuff between them. As long as good code flowed, it didn't matter.

Not bugging the programmers is the number one key to good code.

I never felt that the programmers really had a large enough equity stake in the company to justify working extended hours.

It's a professional thing. Pay people well for doing their job well. Give 'em a cost of living raise for simply doing their job well. After all, that's the expectation; it's why they're paid. They shouldn't make less each year for doing a good job. Give 'em a raise as the market and their knowlege makes their talent more valuable. Bonuses are for extra effort. Can be equity (if it's worth anything). Can be more vacation if cash is short. Cash is good too.

But long hours with no real equity stake? Screw that. Sounds like someone has some project management issues. Get out as fast as you can.

Just my 250,000 pre-IPO options (or $0.02, whichever)

And lay off the spelling, it's late and I don't care.

Re:Hmm...

[dubl-u]

I certainly did not like my programmers working extended hours; at least not routinely. It made them tired, irritable, and a pain in the ass to have around the office. The code got sloppy, too.

That last one is the real killer.

Whenever I see one of these if-you-aren't-sweating-you-aren't-working projects, I can guarantee that they will spend a lot more time fixing bugs than is sane. Of course, many of those bugs won't surface until the last part of the project, so it looks like more progress is being made.

This is the same mistake a lot of people make with credit cards. For the first few months they have them, they're rich! And then suddenly, they're screwed; all their income goes to interest charges, so they're suddenly poor. Some people will make minimum payments for years; some will just declare bankruptcy; a very few will get a clue, pay off the debts, and then never use credit cards again.

I am not owned by a company.

[antis0c]

You're damn right it affects coding quality, and work quality. How can I be expected to work well, with a clean mind and plan if I no longer have my own personal life.

These 8 hour days have to stop, we need to be working 15 hours a day and weekends, balls to the wall.

The company doesn't own me. Period. If I heard that statement from my boss, I'd be in my car and on my way home before she had a chance to even blink at me. Despite I do frequent Slashdot, I have a life outside work. When I get hired by X company, I didn't sign on so I could spend my every waking hour and moment working for that company. Any manager who doesn't realize an employee has a life outside the company isn't qualified to manage employees. Period. ..8 hours day have to stop.. BULLSHIT. Period.

Long hours...

[steppin_razor_LA]

I've managed a number of development teams over the years. Here are some of my thoughts. Flame away if you want.

Sometimes, there are days/weeks where it is neccessary for the team to put in some unreasonably long hours in order to get the project done. Especially during the time immediately before a release/launch.

That said, when I ask my staff to put in long hours, I'm there with them. If the team doesn't need "management", I roll up my sleeves and do whatever needs to be done whether that is coding, infrastructure work, or being an HTML monkey.

I don't think it is reasonable to ask for that sort of performance on an ongoing basis or for an extended period of time. It is very draining.

I also think it is very important for both myself and the organization to show it's appreciation for the people who make these sort of sacrifices for the company. This includes:

When people are running late, pay for the pizza. Look for other ways to be considerate.

Have some sort of launch festivities. Celebrate your success. Publicly acknowledge (preferably -- not just within IT) the people who made it happen.

I think that if management and the company treats its employees reasonably well, that the techies should be willing to work their assess off and burn the candle at both ends when needed.

Re:Yup

[netruner]

I always understood that people don't do much more than about 8 hours worth of work per day regardless of how long they're at work. 8 hours was defined as a work day for a reason- it's the point of diminishing returns.

Also - driving your employees like sled dogs will cause them to look for employment elsewhere, and if you don't think that will effect your code quality, you shouldn't be leading a pack of cub scouts, much less a project with a real product.

The biggest problem with management is that they make decisions they aren't qualified to make. I see it time and time again- it only takes one PHB shooting his mouth off to get the whole development team 6 months behind before the project even starts.

Sorry- managers are like alcoholics- you can't tell them they have a problem because they think you're out to get them. This is particularly bad in technical jobs because managers that were promoted from within have poor social skills which are necessary to be a successful manager.

Re:Spend The Time Wisely

[gwernol]

Ask yourself, how many dotcom tales of people agreeing to work without pay for a while; work long hours; all the rest of it, you've heard. Now, how many of those companies actually survived by doing that? Next to none?

Of the dotcoms, practically none, but then none of the dotcoms that didn't work that waysurvived either. Conversely, look at the older Silicon Valley companies that did make it. How many of those were born from huge efforts by their staff? Apple. Cisco. Palm. Intel. HP. Sun. The list goes on; all companies that were and/or still are legendary for the long hours they expected of their employees.

This doesn't prove that long hours are a good thing, but there are at least counter-examples to the claim that this approach never works out.

Re:Yup

[MaggieL]

the important point is to make sure you are paid punitive overtime rates

Um...do you live on a planet where programmers are paid overtime?

Time for Physical Exercise

[rapidweather]

Time has to be provided for adequate rest (sleep), and also some form of exercise needs to be done, walking, bicycling, not just pumping iron, or working out with an exercise machine. A lunch hour, actually about an hour and 20 minutes, spent walking will improve the overall health of the person. Remember, we are a human animal, and not a machine. The health of the circulatory system, lungs, needs to be maintained. Sure, if one is on a roll as far as coding goes, then spend the time working, then rest. Otherwise, the health of the individual will eventually suffer, and the employer will only get new employees to replace those who come down sick. Bicycling is dangerous, but gives enormous benefits. When you go up that first long hill, you'll spout cuss-words, etc. as you work to get up there on that bike. When you get to the top, and you back off, and start to yawn, that's when you know that you have done all you can for your heart, lungs, and circulatory system. Coast for a while, then go after another hill. Be sure and get a reliable bike, one that the gears and transmission won't slip when you press it hard. These cost several hundred, but you'll love the thing. Watch what you eat, and you'll soon begin to lose weight. It's your health, not your employers. Eventually, you'll be replaced in your job, and you want to have your health when you leave there.
Oh, btw, hope you don't smoke, or all bets are off.

2 opinions: Steve McConnell and Philip Greenspun

[Lumpish Scholar]

Chapter (cached) from Steve McConnell's book, Rapid Development

"Chapter 43: Voluntary Overtime: Too much overtime and schedule pressure can damage a development schedule, but a little overtime can increase the amount of work accomplished each week and improve motivation. An extra four to eight hours a week increases output by 10 to 20 percent or more. A light-handed request to work a little overtime emphasizes that a project is important. Developers, like other people, want to feel important, and they work harder when they do."

"Use a developer-pull approach rather than a leader-push approach.... Gerald Weinberg points out that one of the best known results of motivation research is that increasing the driving force first increases performance to a maximum, and then drives it to zero (Weinberg 1971). He says that the rapid fall-off in performance is especially observable in complex tasks like software development: 'Pressing the programmer for rapid elimination of a bug may turn out to be the worst possible strategy-but it is by far the most common.'"

"Don't use overtime to try to bring a project under control.... Ask for an amount of overtime that you can actually get.... Beware of too much overtime, regardless of the reason."

Slashdot discussion of [Philip] "Greenspun on Managing Software Engineers"

The original is lost, but I squirrelled away some choice quotes:

"From a business point of view, long hours by programmers are a key to profitability. A programmer probably needs to spend 25 hours per week getting coordinated with other programmers and comprehending the structures of the systems being extended. Thus a programmer who works 55 hours per week is twice as productive as one who works 40 hours per week.... A product is going to get out the door much faster if it is built by 4 people working 70-hour weeks (180 productive programmer-hours per week, after subtracting for 25 hours of coordination and structure comprehension time) than if by 12 people working 40-hour weeks (the same net of 180 hours per week)...."

"If you see one of your best people walking out the door at 6:00 pm, try to think why you haven't challenged that person with an interesting project. If you see one of your average programmers walking out the door at 6:00 pm, recognize that this person is not developing into a good programmer...."

Greenspun said the following in the Slashdot discussion:

"Most of the people at ArsDigita are young. They have no families. They have no personal reputation. Find me a 35-year-old who has accomplished a lot IN ANY FIELD, who has changed the world in some positive way, and who has never worked long hours. The articles I put on my various Web sites are not intended to help people who just want to live a quiet comfortable life (I'm not an expert on this). They are intended to help young people turn into Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman or Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston (Visicalc)."

"At ArsDigita we do tend to get fairly young people who are very bright. They want to do something that will impress their classmates from MIT or UCLA or Caltech or wherever. The key to successful management is to provide an inspiring goal that these guys and gals can buy into and then a working environment that lets them achieve the goal. It does result in some long hours but [at ArsDigita, at Greenspun's insistence] they have 5 weeks/year to recover. If they get sick of it they can always join a slacker company and work 40 hours/week."

"Let me say that I did not intend "Managing Software Engineers" to be the last word on the subject.... I don't want to be remembered for advocating a long work week. There is a lot more to the article and I certainly wouldn't advocate long hours to anyone who didn't love his or her job and wasn't learning every day."

(The banner ad for this page says, "Find a better job, NOW!" I tend to agree.)

Re:Prediction: you will get fired

[sphealey]

You mean Enron, WorldCom et al.? These aren't anything to do with executives ignorning the deadlines that their employees tell them about. These are totally different problems. Besides they represent only a small fraction of the companies in the US.

Enron and Worldcom merely added illegal behaviour to the practice of ignoring reality. Consider John Chambers for a moment - every sales nerd I knew at Cisco was reporting up the line at the end of 2000 that customers just weren't going to be buying very many routers in 2001. Chambers returned those forecasts to his sales team with instructions to "make the numbers". Totally out of touch with reality. Cost him about $2 billion personally so far, although I guess I feel a little worse for the 7,000 who got laid off when actual sales were To a certain extent, any good leader has to ignore objective reality and push on regardless - otherwise nothing new or significant would ever get accomplished. But the US economy does seem to create a lot of people (Ellen Hancock comes to mind) who work their way to the top, ignore reality, and fail big time. As long as they get out before Chapter 11 is filed, they usually have another CxO position within a month or so.

sPh

depends

[bob_jenkins]

My personal experience is, when designing code, I prefer to work 6 or 7 hour days. When debugging new code I prefer to work 12 hour days. I never work weekends; working weekends burns me out by Tuesday and I get nothing done Wednesday through Sunday.

I've never succeeded in doing 15 hour days for any length of time. I spend at least 8 hours sleeping (9 or 10 when designing something hard) and 2 hours eating every day. That rules out 15 hours days right there. (I do a lot of design work in my sleep or half-sleep. I often wake up at 4am to do algebra on paper when I realize I can't handle the math in my head.)

Re:Yup

[MaggieL]

Funny, but the only situations where I've seen this kind of mismanagement and staff abuse are those where the staff is on salary. Set an ignorant deadline, then tell the coders it's *their* responsibility to meet it, "whatever it takes"...the additional time and work effort being "for free".

What's truly astounding is that the same managers, who were at pains to hire the brightest people they could find, think that those same people won't figure out what a fraud that is.

Re:Yup

[Rakarra]

So .. what you are saying is those that are working harder than others shouldn't be paid more? And that companies shouldn't be allowed to ask their employees to give a little more?? Reminds me of a Union shop I worked where I was told not to work so hard because it made the others look bad.

There's a difference between telling an employee to work more efficiently throughout the day (your union example) and telling an employee to work longer than is reasonable. On one hand, yes I do believe work should be rewarded, but on the other hand, you don't want to create an environment where long hours are expected and considered reasonable. Work should not have to be an employee's whole life (yes, I'd define 60 hours per week as "your whole life"), and an employee who wants to have a decent life outside of work shouldn't lose out because other employees either don't have or don't want a life outside of their workplace. Around the places where I've worked, unless something was breaking terribly, a sysadmin was expected to work 40-45 hours a week. And there's no reason why this shouldn't be the expected.

Always, always remember: the company is not more important than the employees. We heard a lot of bullshit during the dot-com era about how the employees needed to sacrifice everything to advance the company.. somehow it was reasonable to expect 80-hour work weeks, weekends, all because the company was in a groundbreaking new field and it would make all the employees rich.. and we know how empty those promises ended up being.

I guess my (admittedly rambling) point is that employees should have the right to expect the 40-hour work week. Some people might want to work a little longer for extra pay, and I have no problem with that. The only things I fear is that then this becomes expected for other employees, and they are pressured (or simply fired) for not upping their own hours.