Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One thing that bothered me about the lecture was reinforcement of the idea that working hard is the same as working long. I can appreciate the fact that at times as a founder you have to work all hours of the day, but surely this is not the optimum scenario for maximum productivity. If I look at my own work situation currently, it's abundantly apparent to me that the law of diminishing returns affects me strongly after working 8-10 hrs straight.

I would have expected the message to be that the most successful founders in the long-term are the ones that figure out the right work/life balance, to ensure they don't burn out. In other words, successful founders are able to be focussed and driven for the hours that they work, and in recharge-mode when offline.

This is intuitively what I would have expected and I'm curious if the message from the lecture of "work all day, everyday" is really right.



Let's say you have 10 employees and you decide to work 7 hours/day. All your employees decide well sounds good. Versus, let's say you work 10 hours day and on average your team work 9 hours day. 3 plus 20 = 23 hrs * 350 days = 8000 more hours that year. Your an investor which team do you pick?


I think some part of your comment is missing, as I can't follow the numbers.

The whole point of my comment is precisely about the fact that extra hours don't necessarily represent proportionately greater productivity. If investors only look at number of hours you work and not what you produce, then I'd be fearful for their cash.

The lecture conveyed the "all day, everyday" message and that goes against my intuition.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: