As an engineering director years ago I had the rule that engineers hours were 10am-6pm, and I'd walk around the office at 6pm and send people home. I'd get complaints that I was making people stop when they were in the middle of something, and I'd just say, you can carry on with it in the morning.
It worked extremely well. Engineers just wanted to get on with their work as soon as they arrived in the morning. We'd have a 5 minute literal stand-up that really did only last 5 minutes because people were so impatient to get on with what they had put down the night before.
The policy had to stop when a new VP was hired who valued presenteeism and the appearance of hard work over focus and energy.
That could backfire. Maybe they were in the middle of something hard that's difficult to pick up from. To use the metaphor, perhaps you would be forcing them to park uphill.
> Maybe they were in the middle of something hard that's difficult to pick up from.
Certainly some of them said that, and I had to push for them to leave anyway. I also feel like that when I’m coding myself sometimes.
But I think the of times when it’s actually true are vastly outnumbered by the times when it’s just an illusion, and it was obvious from the velocity and energy level that the policy worked.
I think this also creates a culture or at least impression of a culture that your boss cares about your work life balance, which, honestly, in today's world is valuable and can make your org stand out from other places where the norm is to work until you're burnt out.
Also shows an understanding of the importance of off-hour processing with any high thought work. Shower time, commuting, cooking dinner, sleeping. All things that give your mind time to coast over the things you may have struggled with in the day. It’s always easier later.
I don’t do offices, but I worked 2 extra hours last night to finish a train of thought. Today I won’t start until 3 hours after normal time and will play villainous with the kids (when they emerge)
I don’t get paid for presenteeism, I schedule my own hours. If someone was telling gme I couldn’t work after I wake up at 2am with a breakthrough, that’s as bad as someone saying I couldn’t stop work at 2pm because it’s a lovely afternoon and I fancy a bbq.
I pick the kids up from daycare at 4:30. Every few days its 4:25, I’m in the middle of something and I’ll spend 60 seconds writing out simple English sentences or bullet-points of what I need to accomplish when I get back to my desk. This context switch allows me to disengage. Sometimes I’m tempted to try “one more thing” a “Hail Mary” but it almost always backfires into a future wrong-approach distraction.
I'm the same way. I have a hard stop every day at 4:45pm to pick up my kids. I have an alarm on my phone that goes off at 4:40pm and I spend the next few minutes taking notes if/when I need to. I might also try to package my current state into a commit if/when it makes sense but I don't tend to stress about it.
> But I think the of times when it’s actually true are vastly outnumbered by the times when it’s just an illusion, and it was obvious from the velocity and energy level that the policy worked.
I agree, and relates closely to the YAGNI philosophy ("You Aren't Gonna Need It") [0]. It's easy to think, "I'm so close, it'll be easier just to do it now".
But what's so special about now? Are you really that much smarter right now than you will be tomorrow (or next week, month, year..)? More knowledgable? More prepared? Possibly... but it's more likely to be the opposite: in the future, you'll understand the problem better, you'll have more data to choose the best path forward, you'll realize there's another way to do it, or you'll simply have bigger fish to fry.
> But what's so special about now? Are you really that much smarter right now than you will be tomorrow (or next week, month, year..)? More knowledgable? More prepared?
Obligatory executive dysfunction angle: the special thing about now is that I'm doing the thing. Once I stop, it will take me anything between 2 hours to 2 days to start again.
I would work for such a guy. That tell me a lot about management caring about talent than any bs marketing pitch they give during interviews. Give me cold hard facts.
I learned this one the hard way, and have found it again and again since: often when it's the end of the day and I'm stuck in the middle of something that seems really hard, the best thing I can do is walk away, and the next morning, it suddenly seems very easy. I call this state "being in the hole." It's a kind of can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees thing. Always so satisfying to smash a thing in five minutes that I'd wasted an hour on the evening before.
Could, but likely won't: if the things you have to do regularly spill beyond the boundary of time set to do them, you're not deciding how to approach the things you have to do correctly.
Enforcing a constraint for the 90% scenario makes more sense than designing around the 10%.
Or they are on a hard nut to crack and better should sleep over it. I know unsolved bugs can make you sleepless sometimes but sleeping over them often does the right kind of "backtracking" in your mind that leads to the "branch" with the solution the next morning.
In almost every case that I find myself working on something "hard" stepping away, losing focus, and then thinking periodically about the problem leads to higher levels of clarity.
William Carlos Williams would do the same thing with his writing. He wrote for exactly one hour every morning, and he would leave mid-sentence many times. He said it made it much easier to get started immediately the next day.
Or it could be that you had a brilliant idea for the rest of the sentence, but the strict rule prevents you from writing it down, and next day you can't remember it and chase it all day and still be unsatisfied in the end. Either because of lost time or because you couldn't remember/recreate it, or even both.
I suppose it just goes both ways. Try not to finish sth so that you don't have the somewhat hard task to start with sth new next day. But at the same time don't stop in the middle of sth that's difficult to pick up from. A strict timing rule does only help if you are statistically more often at a point where it's easy to pick up again. I doubt that you are though, so I'd try a more concious approach than a clock.
> A strict timing rule does only help if you are statistically more often at a point where it's easy to pick up again. I doubt that you are though, so I'd try a more concious approach than a clock.
Although I disagree with you when it comes to corporate policy, I basically agree with you at a deeper level.
I think that being able to be completely asynchronous about how and when you work, while also being unafraid and deeply reflective about your process would be more of an ideal.
However this isn’t realistic in a corporate situation, and in such a setting most people are more likely to be suffering from meaningless workaholism induced by relentless corporate pressure than they are to be operating at the highest levels of self-actualization.
One should try to create a study to investigate the effects better.
As alternative to "6pm you guys all go home, period.", there is likely a difference between "6pm you all go home, but if you really must finish sth, I'll wait until 6:30pm to pull the plug" and "go home whenever you want" (which may end up being 8pm or 10pm and in a game theoretic setting may lead to later and later time).
> A strict timing rule does only help if you are statistically more often at a point where it's easy to pick up again. I doubt that you are though
You really think so? You think you spend the vast majority of your time at work doing things that are so complex they're hard to pick back up 12 hours later?
That's not how I read the comment. Between the "easy to pick up from here" (downhill parking) and "hard to pick up from here" (uphill parking) there is the most likely most common "indifferent" (parking flat). The main theme of this article is to try to always park downhill. So, an interruption that is anything than parking downhill is to be avoided. The claim is that you spend the vast majority of your time at work not facing downhill. Intuitively, that makes sense.
I'd have quit over that. If the work is interesting and going well I'm not stopping because someone likes to exercise control over my schedule, I'll build something else instead.
I do get what you’re saying on the one hand, I feel the same way, but - is your employer compensating you for working past 6pm, in this imaginary scenario? I started out doing a lot of hourly work earlier in my career, and sure, if I was on a roll I could jam for hours, and I was gettin paid accordingly.
Lately, in salaried positions, I’ve basically had to break myself of that habit - that’s my free time I’m cutting into when I stay late. In emergency situations, I’m happy to stick around later if possible, with the understanding that there’s bonus compensation or at least comp time queued up for me - but if I’m just feeling engaged when 6pm rolls around? Im out, I’ve got dinner to cook and videogames to play.
Work will wait for tomorrow, part of what I’m getting paid for in standard work week is developing on a schedule, you know?
I'm currently in a team that works pretty much 0800-1600, people mostly start logging off 15 minutes before four and after four everyone is either at home or packing their stuff. (Or playing a game if they're WFH :D )
There's zero pressure to work overtime and leaving on time is encouraged. If people work late, we encourage them to leave earlier and relax. Not all tasks can be solved with brute force head smashing.
maybe worked extremely well for the company, but not for the worker. I would rather solve the issue before going home (thus having a clear mind at ease) than carry the burden of the looming unresolved issue till the next day.
Not if you don't get there until 10 is isn't. But enforcing a late start is a lot harder than enforcing an early finish. What are you going to do, refuse to let people in if they show up early? Besides, sometimes you can't help it. When I was taking BART to work, I had to get to the station before the parking filled up.
It’s still late in absolute terms. Not everything can just shift around to an abnormally late work schedule.
This sort of schedule gives you virtually no free time with kids. Get home, eat, put kids to bed, wake up early because school doesn’t start at 10am, send them to school, wait a bit, leave for work.
We are lucky that things are more flexible now. I don’t blame the manager. It was a different time. But it’s a schedule that doesn’t work well for a lot of people.
I seriously think that the specific range of hours was not at all the point of the example. Would you disagree?
If you're going to nit-pick, my kid starts school at 9am, so I can't start work before 9am. What about remote workers and the example of walking around the office?
I'm pretty sure the example was specifically to note that cutting off their work hours was a successful tactic with respect to leaving them with something to start in the morning, vs letting them finish what they're working on and then have to figure out what/how to get started on in the morning.
Literally the point of the article there, leaving your work unfinished or broken, as it were, so you can just jump in knowing the next thing you were already going to do last night, but forced yourself not to or were forced to not finish.
I’m not not picking, I’m disagreeing with the idea that the relative end time is all that matters. I specifically did not blame the manager in my comment.
It’s really not clear what you’re saying other than that 6pm would be too late for you personally.
As I’ve explained - I picked that time as the latest people were allowed to work in the office. Before I adopted this, people were randomly staying much later.
It’s true that the team was made up of mostly young, unmarried men. I think only one senior person had children. I don’t recall what his needs were, but I wasn’t a hard-ass about not leaving early if people were productive.
And certainly if the team in general hadn’t liked the hours, I’d have negotiated. We moved from 9am to 10am for that reason.
Your problem should not be how early or how late the schedule is - your problem should be that it’s arbitrary across all workers, regardless of circumstance.
We all would prefer to work a particular schedule - we all deserve to be able to negotiate our hours based on necessary overlap with our coworkers preferences.
“I wake up early so all of you have to wake up early” and “I work late so all of you have to work late” are both not nice.
Are you younger than 25? Because working 100 hour weeks used to be common in startups. Look up stories from the early days of google and Facebook. People lived in the office. It was by choice. No one forces you to do it and plenty of other companies to work for if you wanted balance.
Much older than 25 here. I still do insane hours when I'm starting my own business. But I have never, and would never, work that sort of schedule for someone else's startup (nor would I expect employees of my own startups to do so). If I'm going to kill myself like that, it's going to be to build my dreams, not someone else's.
I'm over 50. I work from home now, but when I did have to go into the office, I'd typically show up just before 10:30 standup and head out by 4. And I'd take an hour or two to workout in the one of the fitness facilities on campus in between. My bosses have always been happy with my work and output.
With an hour for lunch, that’s only 2.5-3.5 hours of work a day. Even less factoring in the stand-up.
What role were you able to be successful at while only putting in 2.5hrs of work a day?
Posted as an edit, since YC is doing its inexplicable rate-limiting on replies to this thread:
> Work != presence. In a role in which you don't have to sit in front of a computer, 3h presence could mean 8+ hours of work. … I typically start working when I step into the shower in the morning. … I think that all counts as work hours.
I work from home, but I do not count my showers as working hours. That’s patently ludicrous, and frankly, 2.5-3.5 hours of “presence” a day is unbelievable. Someone putting in so few hours is shirking their work, period.
My work is in software verification, so it’s not as if I don’t need time to think, but I also put in the actual hours required every day to appreciably kick the can forward.
I’d be livid to be stuck working with (and waiting on) someone who considered their shower and commute as working hours.
Work != presence. In a role in which you don't have to sit in front of a computer, 3h presence could mean 8+ hours of work.
I typically start working when I step into the shower in the morning. (I have a typical coder job.) Thinking about what to work on today, remembering the problem I left off yesterday (having parked downhill), etc. It's a great distraction-free environment. Some of the best ideas come there. No slack, no email. No CI pipeline that screams at me. Sometimes I keep thinking after the shower before turning on the laptop. Just sitting on the sofa. By the time I log in, I may have already worked for an hour. Or perhaps two, if I started thinking about work right after waking up. On office days, I typically think work during the commute. There mostly, but often even on my way home. I think that all counts as work hours.
Seconded. My daily walk to Starbucks is my time to meditate on my coding issue of the day, free from distractions of emails, office visitors, and meetings. Many coders I’ve met say a change of scenery can help you solve a problem you were stuck on.
Also a chance to say hi to the local crows who appear to recognize me nowadays and don’t fly away when I walk by :)
I work from home, but I do not count my showers as working hours. That’s patently ludicrous, and frankly, 2.5-3.5 hours of “presence” a day is unbelievable. Someone putting in so few hours is shirking their work, period.
My work is in software verification, so it’s not as if I don’t need time to think, but I also put in the actual hours required every day to appreciably kick the can forward.
I’d be livid to be stuck working with (and waiting on) someone who considered their shower and commute as working hours.
The whole concept of salaried roles is that you're being paid to achieve enough to keep your employer happy. If my boss feels like he's getting his money's worth based on my output, it really shouldn't be anybody's business whether I'm achieving that in 3 hours or 12 hours. In fact, if I can produce a satisfactory work output in 3 hours versus somebody else's 8, then I'm not shirking at all, I'm simply better at my job.
And as a knowledge worker, I'm being paid to solve problems, and have and structure the knowledge to solve problems in the future. If I'm solving problems for work in the shower, or on my way to lunch, or while making coffee in the morning, I'm literally being paid to do my job. As a software developer not responsible for operations, literally nothing in my job can't wait 30 minutes. Even if I was at my computer, actively coding, it would probably take around that long for me to get to an appropriate stopping point to respond to a message.
Some people at a previous job used vscode, passed their day clicking at stuff with their mouse, navigating directories via a native file explorer, using GUIs to commit their changes, using windows with no knowledge related to virtual desktop management, automating nothing etc... That wasn't no problem at all : they did their job and at the end of the day they wrote code.
But then, with the right tools you could have done what they did in half the time, minimizing all the unnecessary micro-movements with some keybindings and some editor plugins or some really good text editor.
Now, if paired with this mechanical mastery you have a good ability to pack related problems/functionalities to implement and are efficient at solving them/implementing them; then you can add some multiplier to the mechanical speed explained in the previous paragraph.
That's some weird way to think about this, but let's say the ideal instance of the project requires X lines of code; if you work faster, then you reach a higher level of expertise on the project codebase and by this excess of expertise you gain speed relatively to others which in turn makes you more expert and so on.
Except, working "fullspeed" is more tiring than working "normally" and you usually don't want to have a tornado in your team that write 50+ -major changes- commits a day and that cannot cooperate with others because they cannot follow up and are "too slow" to even review those changes.
You decide to fire "slow" workers, but then the tornado must work 9+ hours a day to keep up with your expectations and finally burn-out leaving a work that every other member of the team fails to understand, due to too much litterature to read written by some sort of alien.
So I'm fine with programming 2 to 4 hours a day, since, as an alien-tornado, I prefer my code to be read, reviewed, and understood by my peers.
What I am saying is that this conception of work is absurd. The truth is you are hired to build stuff, not for being at an office during X time.
I like fishes, that's cute.
Working 2.5 hours per day is enough for me some days to meet expectations.
If the person you work for is happy about your output, then should you care ?
If you’re okay working to such low expectations, and do not fear being replaced by automation, then that’s your prerogative.
I would not feel secure in the stability of such an easy job, nor proud of my accomplishments. I also expect that we work in very different stratums in both skill and renumeration.
It worked extremely well. Engineers just wanted to get on with their work as soon as they arrived in the morning. We'd have a 5 minute literal stand-up that really did only last 5 minutes because people were so impatient to get on with what they had put down the night before.
The policy had to stop when a new VP was hired who valued presenteeism and the appearance of hard work over focus and energy.