Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work.
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
That said, productivity/achievement might be a bit overrated. Will your life be better and will you be happier when you achieve your goal? Will you ever achieve it? Most of us disregard the fact that wealth is not remotely correlated with happiness and still hunt for the big payday.
[edit: lots of folks are asking for data. FWIW, I founded and ran RescueTime, so I was hip dip in this world for a long time.
The data actually shows that, for line workers, hours worked have diminishing returns. However, when you look at people at the top of their game (executives, etc), they work extreme hours. Correlation does not equal causation, of course. But when you look at the most successful/productive people in your circles, how many of them talk about work/life balance, have lots of hobbies, etc? Maybe they're successful DESPITE their crazy work hours, for all I know.]
There are studies out there showing that productivity is proportional to days spent on the problem, not hours. It's likely that for a knowledge worker, sustained schedules with long workdays actually reduce average productivity.
It makes logical sense-- combine the ability to work long hours (rare) with talent and you will blow the normal fatigue-able people out of the water in terms of output and (in a sorta-meritocracy) rise to the top.
I know an entrepreneur that bought a well known franchise. He told me he worked without a day off for the first year before finally taking a Sunday off. My gut was to call bullshit. Employees around from that time confirm. He's very successful today.
It's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember reading something along those lines in "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates...). The thesis is that our motivation to do things is along a spectrum of intrinsic (for the love of the work) vs extrinsic (e.g. money). Generally the former yields better results. Some studies even showed that paying people to do things they love can be detrimental, because you're now adding an extrinsic motivator to something that they are intrinsically motivated to do, thereby making what they love feel like "work."
In spanish, "empirico" means exactly the same thing. Based on well tested observations, not your just "personal experience". Sure it is a little overused some times, but it still means some degree of confidence greater that "in my experience"
Empirically, people who succeed on a grand scale work their asses off because they love (or are addicted) to their work.
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
Could you point me to that research?
Coz every time I've measured hours worked against productivity (with a few different dev teams now) insane hours do not correspond to more productive work.
Just coz people do it doesn't mean that they're more productive doing it.
One of the author's (more interesting) premises is that individuals with mild forms of autism like Aspberger's, who came to typify the sorts of personalities drawn to tech in the early years, may be able to effectively work excessive hours, but ordinary individuals will experience diminished quality of work, just like everyone else.
CEOs and directors aren't primarily "knowledge workers", they are networkers/connectors/presenters. It isn't the same sort of concentration as programming or accounts payable.
Running RescueTime is still no data, it is a claim of authority... Have you analysed it properly, was it peer-reviewed, can we see it for ourselves?
I don't believe that people who put in more than 35 to 40 hours of real work will be more productive. A lot of people pretend to work a lot, or are forced to be in the office 50 hours or more, but that does not make them more productive. It just makes them seem more productive, and have less of a life...
When I worked in the US I considered the whole startup-hours-macho culture of the SF-area to be quite pernicious both to productivity and happiness. In private conversation most people I spoke to had the same view, but nobody dared speak about it with the boss within reach.
I mean I loved coding, I was excited about the project, and was on a team I liked, but the forced nature of having to show this love by being there 10 hours a day just reminded me of the two hours a day Cubans had to volunteer (in addition to their day-jobs) to show love for their regime.
No data here either, but at least I don't claim empirically, apart from my own experiences.
Interesting point. I guess, as an extension of this, I have noticed I'm accomplishing the same amount of net work in fewer hours. I can safely say I love my work, and that's definitely a driver in -wanting- to work more, but because it's exciting and fulfilling. (Obviously still balancing my non-work/family life with this.)
Personally, my only goal in doing all of this is to create great things which are fulfilling for me and others to use, and that hopefully have some lasting/tangible benefit in my/their life. In a sense, I've already achieved that. The idea of great wealth is not a driver (and I think would only distract me.)
I'm not sure I buy your ability to understand your own productivity (people are notoriously bad at that). It's hard to believe that more work doesn't strongly (but certainly imperfectly!) correlate with more output... Up until that work exhausts you to the point and you start doing BAD work. Maybe that # is 35h/week. I suspect it's widely varied based on type of work, type of person, depth of love for the work, diet, exercise, etc.
I look at it from a standpoint of what tangible things I need to accomplish, and what I estimate I'll need in terms of time to do them. In the last 3-6 months especially, I've been constantly -under- my estimates. This correlates with starting to work a shorter week, taking more frequent breaks, etc.
Not scientific by any stretch, rather simply my own observations.
And yes - I'm thinking more in terms of folks working insane amounts of hours, at levels that put them well into the "doing bad work & burnt out" realm.
...and a good way to start hating your work is by doing too much of it for the wrong reasons. Working very hard to make somebody else rich, what's the point in that?
If you love/are addicted to your work, you don't care if you're making some else (or yourself) rich. And because we KNOW that wealth doesn't correlate with happiness, why SHOULD you care if you make them rich?
I think we're having a disagreement over our definitions of "wealthy", which makes for a pretty boring debate. After reflection I don't think you're advocating for "work for peanuts! money sucks anyway!" so much as "charging market rate, working sane hours, and being OK with the fact that you won't ever have $10M in the bank is a perfectly sane choice", which I'd absolutely agree with.
What's a stooge? Someone who enjoys their life and the byproduct of that is that someone else gets rich? The point is-- that guy you made rich? You didn't make him happy. You didn't impact his happiness at all (long term). So someone who gets rich on the back of your (rewarding/enjoyable work) isn't getting ANYTHING but shiny objects your monkey brain tells you equal happiness. I pasted these into another comment, but here are some studies around wealth and happiness:
The other guy doesn't just get shiny objects, they also get influence and power over other people, along with freedom to do (mostly) what they want.
One very relevant example: you can move to the US and get a green card as an investor, if you invest a six figure amount. This is also true for other Western countries. Money buys you freedom to not work, freedom to live wherever you want, and sometimes it can even buy you laws (or avoidance of existing laws).
Yep. All(most) rich people have lots of power and freedom. Does THAT make them happy? Because all of the data indicates that wealth (and all of its accompanying benefits) do NOT.
Note that $ does correlate with happiness on the low end of the scale. i.e. being very poor correlates with unhappiness. But beyond about $75k/yr, no correlation.
Since wealth won't make the rich happier, but poverty seems to make the poor suffer in very concrete ways (like lacking medical insurance), it would make sense for the poor to be paid better, and the wealthy to have smaller paychecks.
It wouldn't actually help. The reason poverty makes the poor suffer is that they struggle to afford basic necessities of life. The price of those necessities is set by how much money the average person has available to spend on them. If you give everyone more money, then the price of food/rent/medicine will just rise accordingly.
Just look at what's happening with Bay Area rents. Larry and Sergey having a few billion doesn't materially impact them. Google expanding from 20,000 => 35,000 employees and paying all of them $150K+ does. Now there's someone else who makes just as much as you who's willing to pay a premium for that apartment.
The way to drive down the cost of basic necessities is through massive improvements in productivity that suddenly make the supply of a good large enough for everyone to have one. Think of Ford and the automobile, or GE and household appliances, or Apple/Dell/Microsoft/Intel and computers, or the green revolution and food.
The poor by definition make less than average - and right now they make a lot less than average. A median income earner at around 50k per year makes over three times what a minimum wage worker earning around 15k per year makes.
These folks are going to qualify for Medicaid in 2014. They can't participate in the market-based healthcare system. They're just too poor. Give them more money, and they'll be able to participate in a market-based system.
That's at odds with your argument about high tech gentrification in the Bay Area. Those workers were going to start out at the median income, and only earn more over time. So the effect of their getting more money is going to raise prices.
My argument is that the janitors at Google (and other companies owned by the wealthy) should get paid more. My argument is that that housekeeper hired by Meg Whitman should have been paid more, and paid overtime etc.
That applies to food, hopefully medicine in a few decades, but not to rent. Until we adopt some sort of land/wealth tax, or make land/house management public and available to everyone, land is going to be scarse and sold at a premium.
Agree with webwright. Found the article to be sorta silly. When you really love something nothing will stop you from doing/achieving. This seems self evident to me at least.
This isn't to be confused with the world full of different peoples, worldviews and personalities. Only some of us find satisfaction in a productive 14 hour day.
Another way to put it, is that if you can work 60 "productive" hours a week you will most likely be more successful than someone that can only work 40 "productive" hours.
I'm not necessarily unconvinced by this, but I too would like to see some research or stats proving that people who succeed mostly work more than 8 hours a day.
So no, you won't be as productive if you aren't addicted to your work, don't love it, and/or don't think about it all/most of the time. (aside: yes, you need to eat well and exercise and take a breather from time to time).
That said, productivity/achievement might be a bit overrated. Will your life be better and will you be happier when you achieve your goal? Will you ever achieve it? Most of us disregard the fact that wealth is not remotely correlated with happiness and still hunt for the big payday.
[edit: lots of folks are asking for data. FWIW, I founded and ran RescueTime, so I was hip dip in this world for a long time.
The data actually shows that, for line workers, hours worked have diminishing returns. However, when you look at people at the top of their game (executives, etc), they work extreme hours. Correlation does not equal causation, of course. But when you look at the most successful/productive people in your circles, how many of them talk about work/life balance, have lots of hobbies, etc? Maybe they're successful DESPITE their crazy work hours, for all I know.]