Ask Slashdot: Is Logging Long Hours a Recipe For Burnout or the Only Way To Get Ahead? (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Over the weekend, I came across this story on Bloomberg that illustrates a common dilemma that many of us face ourselves: are we sure we're working enough? From the article: "Earlier this month, venture capitalist Keith Rabois set off a Silicon Valley firestorm about what it takes to succeed. When another tech investor wrote on Twitter that working on the weekends and burning out isn't cool -- and doesn't work -- Rabois fired back. "Totally false," he said. Rabois cited icons like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Belichick as proof that dogged dedication (usually measured by long hours) was the only way to reach the top of your field. Lots of people objected to this assessment, for reasons ranging from VC privilege to its gendered implications." I was wondering where Slashdot readers find themselves in this debate.

Comments

Not to state the obvious, but

[BarbaraHudson]

Burning out is certainly a way to not get ahead. And eventually lose your job, and your career, and then everything else.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but

[rogoshen1]

It's one thing if you have 'skin in the game', meaning it is YOUR business that you're working yourself to death over -- that's a gamble that at least has the potential for a favorable outcome. Quite another to be a worker drone, making someone else money. It's in their absolute best interest to keep the drones productive for as long as possible -- best case scenario you'll be put out to pasture aka, moved into middle management once your productivity drops off.

(More likely: you'll be laid off, and then posting in slashdot threads about how h1-b's are taking all the tech jobs)

tl;dr; treat your work for other companies as practice: learn some skills, develop contacts -- but be cognizant of the fact that your employer in truth cares very little about your success (outside of what you can do for their bottom line)

Re: Not to state the obvious, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly a century of evidence says that working more than 35-40 hours per week makes you less productive, not more. Workers get trapped in a cycle of working longer hours because they're less productive, from fatigue, to make up the shortfall in their productivity.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but

[serviscope_minor]

A bit extreme, perhaps but yeah kinda.

First you are not going to succeed like Zuckerberg or Musk. Doesn't matter how smart or hard working you are, the chance of succeeding like only the most cherry picked individuals is basically nil. The people who do get to that position are also phenomenally lucky, had skills in areas which happened to be important at the right time and were in the right place at the right time, in addition to any other attributes.

And anyway, it's only working on your own thing which will lead to that kind of success, not working for anyone else.

Hard work will certainly get you ahead to some extent, if you measure purely in career progression or money. Burnout can be recovered from too.

But really, what's the point? chances are you'll work 80 hours per week, have a thoroughly miserable time, be unable to enjoy being ahead the burn out!

Re:Not to state the obvious, but

[rijrunner]

I have rarely met an engineer who has put in those hours who has "gotten ahead". In most small businesses, IT is a dead-end and there is rarely any sort of management track for an engineer. You're putting in those hours to just tread water. And, start-ups are a lottery and most people barely break even. Developers are in the same boat as most of IT in that regard also. And, in large enterprise, very few businesses have any sort of advancement that means much. You stay an engineer or become a manager - and established businesses tend to favor business or marketing in terms of management advancement.

He's identifying a small subset of survivor bias. For every name he mentioned, there are tens of thousands who got nothing for their time.

Re: Not to state the obvious, but

[gweihir]

An that is just it. The first solid numbers here were researched by Henry Ford and others that are not in any way suspect of wanting to do good for their workers. They just wanted the best productivity. Working long hours is a pure act put on for show, as productivity doing it is actually lower.

False dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't it be both?

My thought..

[fluffernutter]

If I'm working long hours, it will be for myself thanks. Keep in mind that Zuck works long hours because he won the lottery and the project he works long hours on is actually something of his own. If a company wants to hire me then they can either appreciate me for the good work I do during my eight hour day or I will take my skills elsewhere.

It's a different thing when it's your business

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a different thing to slave for a company you own, and may one day reap the benefits of and to work your ass off just so the bossman can buy another supercar.

Too many hours...

[Oswald McWeany]

Too many hours and you don't produce quality of work. Studies have shown extra vacation and time away from the office INCREASE productivity.

Even if the above were not true. "Getting ahead" is not worth missing out on time with friends, family, and ..."me time". Happiness will always trump "getting ahead".

Re:Too many hours...

[Calydor]

It's the classic question all over again: Do you work to live, or do you live to work?

Re:Too many hours...

[Jason Levine]

In fact, at a certain point, you actually get negative productivity out of a worker. Sure, they might be producing, but their work will likely be so riddled with errors that you'll need a second or even a third person to check their work. At that point, you might as well just give the first person some time off. They'll come back rested and more productive that before. Yes, it's a short-term productivity dip, but you get long-term productivity gains. (Versus a "death march" scenario where you get gains in the very short term but longer term losses in productivity.)