More ammunition for why you should fire the workaholics: They don’t actually get more done.
Q: Do workaholics accomplish more than people who work fewer hours?
A: Often, they don’t. That is because, as perfectionists, they may become so fixated on inconsequential details that they find it hard to move on to the next task, [Psychiatrist Bryan] Robinson said.
As Gayle Porter [a professor who has studied workaholism] put it: “They’re not looking for ways to be more efficient; they’re just looking for ways to always have more work to do.”
Good advice for anyone who wants to be more efficient: When you’re sweating for hours over a tiny detail, stop and ask yourself, “Is this really worth the amount of time I’m spending on it?” If not, declare “good enough” and move on.
Also mentioned in the piece: Companies that believe they’re benefiting from someone’s long hours should think again…
Most companies think that they are benefiting from a workaholic’s long hours, even if it is at the worker’s expense, Porter said. In fact, she said, workaholism can harm the company as well as the worker…
The person may look like a hero, coming in to solve crisis after crisis, when in fact the crises could have been avoided. Sometimes, the workaholic may have unwittingly created the problems to provide the endless thrill of more work.
Sometimes the real hero is already home, because he/she figured out a quicker way to get to “done.”
Ben
on 08 May 08Is that why 37signals is developing the In/Out application?
Oh yeah, never mind, it hasn’t been released yet. Maybe you guys aren’t doing anything on it, thus not making you guys “workaholics”.
Matt Radel
on 08 May 08Nice find. I’d say that the term gets thrown around a bit too easily though. At what point is someone no longer just “hard working” and graduates to a “workaholic”?
Bg Porter
on 08 May 08...a variation on this arises in organizations that reward workers who are able to ‘put out fires’—all this does is create a culture where you’re encouraged (tacitly) to let small problems fester until they become all out conflagrations.
Why handle something with a short note or call today, when you can be the hero next week cleaning up the huge mess you just let happen?
AaronS
on 08 May 08@Ben,
Your statement might be accurate if they were working 14 hours a day and still developing In/Out.
I don’t think the point was you should never give yourself more work, just you shouldn’t give yourself more work if you’re already overworking.
I dunno, just a thought.
Daniel Tenner
on 08 May 08What about when you actually want to achieve perfection?
I imagine Apple’s engineers work hard to achieve perfection – and that’s Apple’s key selling point. The UI designer on our team does sweat it out till the early hours in the morning about some UI detail that to my eyes might seem inconsequential, but to his is very important. The result is a UI that makes people go “Wow!” instead of “Meh.”
Perfectionism certainly has its place in a small business.
Daniel
mkb
on 08 May 08Or, a culture in which nobody has the time to work on anything that’s NOT a firestorm.
Keith
on 08 May 08I think it is important to note the difference between people who are able to set task priorities and those who are not. Everyone has to make a value judgement about task prioritization. Some people are inherently better at this than others.
Employers who let employees become workaholics should shoulder this blame. If employers are not up front about where their employee’s values should be towards project and task prioritization are setting themselves up for this kind of employee burnout and “addiction.”
Don Schenck
on 08 May 08The problem is not the individual … it’s “Work”. Work is the problem.
If you don’t work, you can’t be a workaholic.
Do what you love and it’s not “work”. What would you do if, say, you won $100 million in the Powerball?
That’s your passion. Now go after it. And quit “working”. Sheesh.
cubiclegrrl
on 08 May 08In my experience, dysfunctional companies hire dysfunctional people. The head of the fish stinks first.
Mary-Ann Horley
on 08 May 08Yes, but would he come up with something better and with less suffering if he went home, recharged, slept on it?
Nate
on 08 May 08Dunce hat for Ben please.
Don Schenck
on 08 May 08@cubiclegrrl: Spot on! I love you!
Jon Gilkison
on 08 May 08I love broad sweeping generalizations about human behavior, they are so totally awesome!
There is a tender/delicate balance between “good enough” and “perfection”. “Good enough” might get the task done at the moment, but almost certainly causes headaches when a pile of “good enoughs” turns into a pile of “unmaintainable garbage”.
The problem with these kinds of posts is that the shades of gray between a workaholic and people whose work is their passion isn’t properly distinguished. For some people, of a particular genius, balance in life is not a requirement – despite whatever negative impacts it may or may not have on their personal lives, health, mental health. Those things are completely ancillary to what provides them thrust in life: work.
I work 14 hour days, almost 7 days a week and have done so for the last 15+ years. I don’t apologize for it, I’m not ashamed of it. I understand it’s not for everyone. But those of us that fit into that camp understand that the work we produce is almost spiritually satisfying, more satisfying than our hobbies or outside interests can even approach.
I guess it’s the choice between being average and being exceptional and the quest for being exceptional. “Good enough” is average, boring, pat. It’s also sloppy. It’s also lazy, although I hold strong to laziness as a shining quality because I think that’s one shade of gray that differentiates the obsessive compulsive workaholic versus the people that dive headlong into their passions. The workaholic, as you’ve described, is destructive, where the passionate tends to be constructive – utilizing laziness to discern when enough is enough.
Albert Einstein was a workaholic btw. So was Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, RMS, Linus Torvalds and countless others. To discount them because of work habits, using inane standards of judgement like time spent “on the job” is .. well … kind of dumb.
To each their own.
Don Schenck
on 08 May 08@Jon: You just agreed with me. But you used a lot more words. You’re a wordaholic!
laugh
Jon Gilkison
on 08 May 08@Don
Yeah I just thought it needed more clarity ;)
Keith
on 08 May 08@Jon I don’t think you’d be able to make the case that there is any causation between long hours and exceptionalism.
People are exceptional. The hours they work do not make them exceptional.
Because certain people worked long hours only proves correlation (not causation) between THOSE exceptional people and the hours THEY worked.
The bottom line for employers is the quality and completeness of the work that is done towards an organizational goal. A good example would be that exceptional engineers require creativity to be innovative in their field. Creativity isn’t something that long hours necessarily sparks. In fact, most creative people would suggest that their creativity comes from those moments when their mind is free to make the associations which result in a creative solution. This is supported by numerous studies on productivity and creativity.
As DHH and others have pointed out previously, there is a difference between the long evening, or long hours during a week for a project. Those hours and effort are directed toward something the organization values highly and requires so that it can be successful in its core business function. Continuing to work long hours for the sake of “work” or “personal satisfaction” is counterproductive and, as the study points out, results in employees who get burned out on their jobs.
Joe S
on 08 May 08Great post, except that this focuses too much on the employee/worker “choosing” to be a workaholic.
Alot of companies thrive on these heroes/all-stars. Just search a job posting website for the word “all star” sometime. It works this way. Company demands long hours, the all-star workaholic thrives until they get burnt out, developing solutions to crises, then leaving due to burnout. Turnover ensues, but if the management hasn’t learned their lesson, they just look for the next workaholic.
Example of where this exists? Not in solo companies, but in silos and small shops within larger corporate environments.
Workaholics will always be employed, so long as managers believe they produce more.
That being said, people who are too micro-oriented (teacher jargon) end up creating more work for themselves. They aren’t necessarily workaholics though. There’s a difference.
Jeff Rivett
on 08 May 08If there’s any job that needs perfectionism, it’s software development.
Anonymous Coward
on 08 May 08don’t support this post at all. good enough is not a standard one should live or work by. people who work alot are in my experience detail oriented, caring and extremely if not ultra-productive people and not there because they are slow…I am sure there are those that fall under what the post said but none that I have seen.
Will have to tell my daughter tonight, hey you have been at that problem too long…it looks good enough, you should go have some fun. Not…
Jijnes Patel
on 08 May 08There is also a false sense of urgency people tend to have, at least those I have observed in the software development community. You don’t have to get everything done today, pick a couple, do it well, move on the next day.
Anonymous Coward
on 08 May 08need some cheese with the whines…
what about passion to get something done right. worlaholics are all the blame for everything, blah blah blah, tell that anyone that has ever done anything truly innovative.
Kenenth Miller
on 08 May 08“That is because, as perfectionists, they may become so fixated on inconsequential details…”
This bit of “ammunition” is based on the assumption that workaholics are perfectionists who “may” become fixated on details “assumed” to be inconsequential. This is a fairly weak argument, and in my experience, infrequently the case.
Work, in general, is a commitments game. I have, on occasion, found myself having to work for 30+ hours nearly non-stop. Was it because I really wanted to? Or because I was avoiding home life? Or because I was fixated on details? No. It was because I had made commitments to people and failure to deliver on those commitments was something I was unwilling to allow. I routinely work 10 hour days – because the commitments I make simply require that amount of work. Making such commitments is my choice entirely – and I enjoy the income which is a direct result of those commitments.
I find it interesting that the central argument behind “fire the workaholics” is that “clarity of thought/purpose” and “long hours of mental work” are somehow mutually exclusive. The human body is an incredibly adaptable work of evolutionary wonder – given enough training it can be made to do amazing things. Sure, you are not going to have your most brilliant ideas after churning for 12 hours – but this does not mean you cannot get an enormous amount of scut work done – which is often 80% of the work-load for 90% of the software developers who are working in corporate America. Not everyone has a series of hits like 37Signals. Most software developers are wiring up forms to meet businesses needs, and fixing bugs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone can simply “Get Real” to solve all their productivity and efficiency issues. It’s easy shouting from an ivory tower. Perhaps D.H.H. can have a “Fuck You and your commitments you inefficient Work-a-holics” banner made to hang from the tower. I’m sure someone at 37 Signals has taken up sewing as a hobby.
It’s also interesting to me just how insistent some people are about placing “work” and “life” on opposite sides of the existence scale. I’ve never been willing to write-off ~1/2 of my waking hours as necessary-evil “work”. Every time I take a breath I am living. Every waking minute is life. This whole idea of “work/life” balance is a vain and unsettling product of late-stage capitalism. I willing to bet you would not “fire-the-workaholics” if the they were working long hours to make food for you to eat in a world absent of grocery stores. It’s all value. Value exchanged for value. How about instead of firing the “work-a-holics” we fire people who do not produce value at a multiple of the value you pay to them based on the risk you assume in a salaried arrangement.
The problem here is that we are often dealing with knowledge-work – the value of which can be difficult to determine. So, let’s just fire anyone who makes everyone else feel bad for not assuming the same commitment load. While you are at it, how about we all agree to just pay people less the more they work. Like progressive taxes. It’s got the word “progressive” in it – it must be good.
Ok – This has become a silly rant.
Hoof Hearted
on 08 May 08This post hits home for me. In my previous job I was not a rockstar when it came to fulfilling requests our department received. There were people who would come in early and work later every day. I would not and could not because my wife and family wanted me to be home.
Eventually I became frustrated with some manual processes we had to do and started to learn how I could automate them with scripts. I was very successful at it and it became my full time job. Overall I probably saved anywhere from 2 to 5 hours of work a day for each person in the department. Did those people stop coming in early and leaving late? NO!
They continue to come in early and leave late everyday. I am a full time developer now but my previous co-workers confirm that this post rings true.
Anonymous Coward
on 08 May 08How is it that the “workaholic” camp always has time to respond to these blog posts with 600 word missives that must have taken an hour to write?
Don Schenck
on 08 May 08My post, about not “working”, is the best one on this subject.
Jus’ sayin’.
GeeIWonder
on 08 May 08Don’s got the right idea.
Being inefficient is not a virtue, but neither is being lazy or taking shortcuts. Doing ‘more’ isn’t necessarily a vice either. Lots of big things wouldn’t have happened as quickly, and lots of safe things wouldn’t be as safe, without people going above and beyond.
And please, no more ‘workaholic’ type posts. Obviously, if you’re an ‘-aholic’ you have some sort of pathology, but it’s hard to find any real insight there.
Anonymous Coward
on 08 May 08Eh. it would be the same thing if someone was saying “fire-all-the-9-to-5-ers”! Then you could write, “Maybe if they spent less time writing comments they could get something done in the measly 8 hours they work a day.”
carlivar
on 08 May 08Wow, 37signals is a workaholic at anti-workaholic posts.
michael
on 08 May 08It’s been said of Joe DiMaggio that he rarely made an impressive-looking play in center field because he was preternaturally good at being in the right spot when the ball was hit. The fielders who had to run like mad to catch up to the ball were the ones making diving circus catches. DiMaggio made it look easy because he was already there.
Mike Yam
on 08 May 08Anonymous Coward 08 May 08
... Will have to tell my daughter tonight, hey you have been at that problem too long…it looks good enough, you should go have some fun. Not…
That’s not what the article is saying. The article is more like telling your daughter to move on to her biology homework, instead of trying to perfect her English essay… which she was writing with a fountain pen on parchment paper instead of a computer word processor.
roger j
on 08 May 08It’s not that I don’t agree with you, but SvN’s continued fixation on this topic is probably an illustration of confirmation bias more than anything else.
Derek Sunshine
on 08 May 08I think the reason why someone works long hours matters a great deal. I occasionally will get into a very good flow and just decide to work late. Stopping the momentum until the next day would slow me down. Personally, I find this occurs early in a project when I’m excited about a particular solution or approach. In fact, when it does happen, I easily hit my deadline since I’m enthusiastic about what I’m doing.
The Herald Tribue article is talking about people who are actually addicted to work -
I’ve know folks like this – in particular, a freelancer who would rework material long after it was satisfactory for the client. He didn’t meet his deadlines any earlier or do more volume (and get paid more). He just put in more hours. I think he was using work to avoid other issues.
Working late occasionally doesn’t mean someone is a workaholic anymore than calling a cab after a few drinks would mean that you’re an alcoholic.
Matt is talking about is something entirely different – folks who equate hours of effort with output. I don’t think of that as workaholism as much as the factory management mindset. In a factory type of job, output is going to be directly influenced by time spent. In knowledge based jobs – software development, graphic design, writing – this doesn’t apply.
Don Schenck
on 08 May 08Derek got me to thinking: If I could get a job at a bourbon distillery…
NewWorldOrder
on 08 May 08When I think about it, this is really true. When I think about the times when I’m spending LONG hours on something, it’s never long hours of productivity in the traditional sense where you’re knocking out task after task.
Usually it’s because I hit some sort of jam, and I haven’t figured out a way around the jam yet.
A jam usually takes the form of a hard problem or a something foreign to me.
GeeIWonder
on 08 May 08something foreign to me.
This is one reason that makes a very strong argument to be made for first reaching that point, and then working beyond it (possibly down a pointless path).
Thank goodness guys like e.g. Fleming hit a jam, and then wasted some time working through them.
Todd
on 08 May 08I do agree that criticism of “perfectionists” who focus on “inconsequential details” sounds a bit… I don’t know… risible with 37signals as the source. Especially when I’ve seen you argue several times as advocates of perfection in interfaces. Sometimes it sounds like you are trying to convince yourselves as much as you are the rest of us. Perhaps we all struggle with the conflicting desires to make amazing products and keep a healthy work/life balance?
Michael Lee Stallard
on 08 May 08Workaholics focusing on inconsequential details conjures up nightmares of of the control-obsessed Nurse Ratched prowling the halls of the the psychiatric facility in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
I just wrote a changethis.com manifesto about the workplace where people thrive entitled “The Connection Culture: A New Source of Competitive Advantage.” I would be grateful to hear any reactions about my connection thesis and if it is consistent or not with your personal experiences in the workplace.
William Holstein of The New York Times had this to say about it: “For those of us who write about business, every once in a while, a book or an article comes along that seems so simple on some levels yet communicates great wisdom. “The Connection Culture: A New Source of Competitive Advantage” is one such work.”
Here’s the link to the download: http://www.changethis.com/44.06.ConnectionCulture
Joe Flood
on 08 May 08Great article. When you’re designing web sites, it’s easy to become a complete workaholic and perfectionists. Web sites, unlike a newspaper, are never really “done”. They can always be improved upon and optimized. The line about “fixated on inconsequential details” really describes people I’ve worked with, who sweat some little pixel detail or rare browser issue. At some point, you just have to say “done!” and move on.
Geoff
on 09 May 08Sure, some workaholics might be knuckleheads, but plenty aren’t. Michelangelo, Carnegie, Edison. The list is long.
Gary R Boodhoo
on 09 May 08something about this just rubs me (apparently others too) the wrong way. I don’t discount the role of UI as package design, but the so-called “wow” factor is a pretty limited return on investment of time spent in development. My own feeling is that more is achieved by creating work that enables user goals than simply engaging them on such a superficial level. Interface design isn’t graphic design, and to be fair, even if it was, I don’t look for kewlness or meh when critiquing work – I look for constraints, edge cases, usability, give & take between tactile and symbolic manipulations, etc…
So to the unnamed UI designer in question, I’d suggest that the same quality of work was as achievable in 8 hours as in 16.
Benjamin Lupton
on 09 May 08Posts like this from 37signals are getting increasingly annoying.
Kenenth Miller’s and Derek Sunshine’s comments are spot on. Workaholics are only a issue, if they are not being productive, which can be seen when the they work excessive hours due to addiction, not enjoyment which somehow 37signals has twisted.
Workaholics that work because they enjoy it (not addicted to it) are the ones you want to keep. They enjoy their work, so strive to be better at it hence they are more productive in the long run, making them cheaper than others, plus they don’t mind working extra hours when they hit a role, making them cheaper and more effective and productive yet again. Which I am sure all the 37signals crew are, people that love their work, so why can’t we?. We are the keepers of our own happiness (refer to your deadlines are make believe post), are we not?
I use to read this blog a lot 6 months or so ago, but with every post, it just shows me how much more 37signals have their heads up their own asses.
Justin Bell
on 09 May 08Daniel Tenner: I can safely say, that as a Mac user, Apple aren’t really perfectionists. They certainly realise that a bit of polish can make all the difference. They also know it’s better to let something be a bit late rather than rush out something with bugs in it. But there are many things that are far from perfect in OS X and their hardware, but good enough.
Peteris Krumins
on 09 May 08That’s ridiculous. I hack at a computer for 20, 30, 40 hours straight and have never felt better.
Eric
on 09 May 08Being a perfectionist is one thing, but being unhealthy is a completely different thing. Piling on work and stress leads to someone being unhealthy, and unhealthy people cannot produce good results.
You need someone who truly cares about being the best at what they do, but also understands what it takes for them to do that. I’ve always found that people that take care of themselves are best capable of producing great results.
Cormac
on 09 May 08To all the superhumans who work n hrs without a break and still do an amazing job – what you describe doesn’t fit with my experience at all. Sometimes you can successfully push through jams, but almost always, with everyone I’ve ever worked with in 12 years as a professional developer, attempting to push through results in lower quality than you would have got if you simply went home to bed and started again tomorrow.
Don Schenck
on 09 May 08@Cormac: You are wrong and need to know it.
Name a passion at which one cannot make a living. Besides, say, sleeping.
People don’t need to be told what their passions are? When do I tell people what their passions are? Where?
Many, many people are not living their passion. Some haven’t discovered their passion. Too many are “working” instead of “living”.
“Workaholic” is not a badge of honor, but of shame. NO ONE disrespects the “Live-aholic” (tm).
Too simple
on 09 May 08Your argument is too simplistic. There are those that overwork and those that underwork. It’s all shades of grey, not black and white, in these questions you pose and then answer. These posts are just dogma, and a waste of time as they merely support your own declared position. You might try looking at the other point of view if you’re really seeking the ideal balance.
akshay
on 09 May 08@too simple
i agree with you
Drew
on 09 May 08Folks, hard-worker != workaholic.
Nothing about this article makes me thing Matt is unaware of the distinction. Though the responses certainly show a lot of anxiety about it on the part of the responders.
Good post, thanks! To sum up the best of recent 37signals as I read them:
1) Get enough sleep or your performance and health will suffer. 2) Work only as hard as is necessary to fully accomplish your goals. 3) Have as rich and varied a life as you can, as this will help provide perspective, adaptability and energy to everything you do.
Sounds good to me, what’s all the complaining about?
Greg
on 09 May 08Reminds me of a story (Tom Peters, I think) about a site manager that only kept the office open 9-5 (he was the last to leave and kicked everybody out). His staff was efficient, they only had 40 hours a week to do their 40 hours of work.
Manager gets promoted, his successor believes in long days and face time. Productivity plummets as people drag out their days and take 3 hour lunches (since they will be there until 10 every night).
Jin Y
on 09 May 08@Don Schenck, do you have kids?
i’d love to build plastic gundam models all day long, or play video games. but i have a family to support, therefore i can’t.
most people with obligations choose the practical way instead of idealistic ones.
as for the topic: productivity shouldn’t be measured in number of hours. however, if someone works longer time doesn’t mean they’re unproductive.
Tor Løvskogen
on 10 May 08@Jin Y: I think Don Schenck meant a real passion, not entertaining yourself, by say, playing video games. But if you really enjoy building plastic Gundam-models, you could start selling your unique work, or create a community around it.
But you have to be really passionate about it, not just something you do to relax after a hard day.
Paul
on 10 May 08An interesting post and some interesting comments—and clearly an emotive subject for many.
I am not going generalize and knock anyone that works long hours (I work 14-18/day, 7 days a week), nor would I call out the nine-to-fiver for specific criticism. On the contrary, everyone is free to follow their own work ethic.
My biggest gripe throughout my career in the IT industry has always been that of management perception, and the perception specificially of the “workaholic”.
In a lot of companies, face-time counts, period. Those that are there long hours, all-nighters and weekends are “perceived” to be the hardest working; they always seem to manage to “save-the-day” and achieve “hero” status in a team.
The problem with this is two-fold:
1) Such individuals are often not around when you (a.k.a other members of a “team”) need them as they are usually spent, crashed in bed recovering from the previous 36 hour stint of day-saving and fire-fighting.
2) Management actually perceives this behavior as positive and either actively encourages it, or at the very least, endorses it through lack of any action to change it.
I am looking forward to the day when the quiet, hardworking guy (or gal) in the corner who works hard, works smart and pulls for the team is rewarded with the same “hero” status as our “workaholic”.
Longest hours != Hardest working
And if you are a workaholic that does “work smart”, producing the highest output of the highest quality and is always there for your team mates, even after your last 46.29 hour bionic, day-saving, fire-dousing marathon—all credit to you. But you are most likely just a legend in your own mind … imho.
Don Schenck
on 12 May 08I have the two most wonderful children in the world.
Automakers employ model builders.
I know of at least two people who made a living testing video games.
Heck … I’ve heard of people making a living surfing!
Jin Y
on 12 May 08Don, the point i was trying to make is, depends on your social obligations, it’s not as easy to switch to a career that’s your true passion. yes, i think it’d be fun for me if i switch career to a game tester. however i won’t be able to afford paying bills.
there’s no doubt you can making a living just about doing anything. however, if it involves the quality of life for the family you support, sometimes the choices go to the practical ones.
i actually happen to love my job(web ui design). and i do encourage those who are young to take risk to pursue their passion. (not saying married /w kids people can’t, but it does become more complicated later. mortagage, schoolsystem, etc etc)
anyways, i think i’ve gone off tangent from the OP far enough. carry on.
Don Schenck
on 13 May 08@Jin: We agree! The deeper one gets into “life”, the harder to change (rather, correct) your course. I could not agree more. I’m working, fighting and struggling to get out of my current vocation (self-employed web developer) and into my passion: Public Speaking.
My only point - and I’m sure you’ll agree - is that we should pursue our passion rather than just sigh and whisper “some day…”.
anne flor
on 13 May 08:)
This discussion is closed.