[alkonaut]

Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4. You have 125% right there and the fact that you aren't burning out people means you'll have less employee turnover. THAT's what costing you. Not people working 40h. You'll get better people for your money by being clear that even though it's a young, growing startup, work/life balance is valued. A single key person burnt out or unhappy will cost you more productivty than those extra nights and evenings ever could.

> It it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

Then make sure people don't overwork. If something happens with a deploy that means people had to work late on thursday, then make sure they are compensated with time off.

> how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset

Yes. Here is how: if they aren't unhappy about working a lot then they are inexperienced. Another tell is if they have a family. In your situation, don't hire anyone with kids. Their kids will thank you. and those people don't want to work for you anyway.

The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well. I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

[logfromblammo]

There was a time in my life when I was willing to go through the entire interview process only to reject the offer demanding 45h work weeks. There was even a time when I would ask about hours per week up front and walk away from answers I didn't like.

Now, I'll say point blank that if you're telling your salaried employees to work more than an average of 40 hours a week, you're just an asshole. Even more so than if you're just saying those who would otherwise be skilled wage laborers are salaried exempt as a dodge around relevant labor laws.

The only people who should be living at the office are those with an actual, significant equity stake in the success of the company.

Here's how you detect 40h-or-unhappy. First, check to see if the person has a normal, cocaine-free, methamphetamine-free pulse rate. Then, pat them down and check their pockets for fully vested stock in your company. If you find the first, and not the second, that person will be unhappy working extra-long hours for your benefit.

Parent is absolutely correct. Paying fewer people to work longer hours will absolutely cost you more in the long run. Just hire another person.

[laughfactory]

Yep, this is right on the money. Very few people actually want to work more than 40. Most who I know would kill to work less, even if paid proportionally less.

That said, I always try to get a sense of expectations in interviews. I don't care if it makes me look like a clock watcher (I'm not). I ask about how the hiring manager works and if they expect their employees to adopt a similar schedule. Or I ask about what the work life balance is like. That kind of thing.

I work to live, not the other way around. I don't want to be just another person who works their ass off until 65 or 70 and then finally gets to retire, only to be dead within a year or two.

[mjolk]

> Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4.

That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation.

> The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

> Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well.

We're very clear with compensation and living wage and actual equity is something we make sure is on the table.

> I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

This is really important to me and I make sure the candidate actually knows what he/she is getting into.

This is exactly why I wrote:

"I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon."

The problem isn't that I'm trying to hustle people, it's that people tend to agree to situations they don't actually want when interviewing.

[alkonaut]

> Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

Sorry, no offense intended - I was reading between the lines. Basically if you expect people to be able to always stay after hours, then you are excluding pretty much everyone with a family for example.

It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.

People have different ambitions and different needs. The time when I could stay at an office to 6PM is over. I might be willing to do it again in 15 years but now I'm expected to put dinner on the table at 6. A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive. A varied set of people will be best. That also means you'll have people with different needs. Cater to those needs and be open with expectations.

Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.

> I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30"

Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?

[mjolk]

> It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.

Oh yeah, totally. My motivation for asking was to make sure we don't end up in a monoculture of people that stick around after being surprised by the startup grind. That won't work for our business as we _need_ a mix of people, backgrounds, interests to really make it work (opposed to say, a hft/fintech platform, where diversity of thought/life experience isn't crucial).

> A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive.

Yeah, it's definitely hard. Funding is limited and early stage is about maximizing the value of capital and speed of validating assumptions, and unfortunately, that often means preclusive criteria for people that need to leave "on time" regularly. Not saying it's right, but that's the reality of most startups.

I want to actively combat the bias of just short circuiting to people that are 22-30 and probably without kids, which means being able to have the conversation of "hey, please don't say this expectation is fine if it's not" and knowing how to tell if someone says it's fine for the sake of getting an offer, but it's actually not.

> Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.

The first 5 you hire are basically hopping into constant crunch with you, which is why their equity should be the carrot to make the stick worthwhile.

I think I rubbed people the wrong way or reminded them of a negative employer, but a weekend meeting for us is a few lines on Slack that essentially serves the purpose of "hey, so I decompressed and reflected, and here's where I'm thinking for this week. is this reasonable?"

I don't call meetings without a purpose and I _definitely_ don't want this to be the norm after we grow.

> Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?

This is exactly it. If a candidate expressed this, I would say "okay, thank you for your time, I hope you're available when we know we can respect this."

[El_Oso]

I think this has a bit to do with the song-and-dance ritualization of the hiring process. Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear, and when one side presents a question that the other side receives as signalling--you may say "We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later" and they may hear the stock "Are you a hard worker"--they do what they always have done: signal back the appropriate response.

I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.

I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.

[alkonaut]

> We expect you to work as long as necessary to meet deadlines, even if that's until 10pm or later"

I think the song-and-dance is very much the problem. Just be explicit. If you want a company that has 50h weeks as norm, then say that (It's insane though). But saying "we expect you to work as long as it takes to meet deadline" is terrible. I'd certainly agree to work more at crunch time - but when is crunch time? how often? The problem is the culture of permanent crunch time.

Be open as a candidate too. I might say

"I'm fine with working a 50h week when required, unless it is the norm. Is it usually OK to do a 30h week the week after such a week?"

The response to that might indicate whether the employer was hoping to see me there for permanent crunch time or not.

[mjolk]

> Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear.. I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.

You nailed it. The problem is that even when being explicit in expectations, candidates will still try to get that offer, even if it's not the right fit at that time. It's really hard to tell if someone means it when they say "oh, that's fine." I think startups have a certain glamour that masks the reality and people see interviews as tests, not conversations.

Further, I'd love to keep that person in the pipeline -- employee happiness and feeling valued is huge for me, so if that person needs to come in at 10 because they need to drop a kid off at school, I can respect that, and hope he/she is available when we can accommodate it.

> I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.

I really appreciate you saying this.