This post boils down to one statement: "every 100 days we have a 20-day-long crunch time". I'm all for getting things done, but scheduling arbitrary crunch times is a great way to wear the team down until people quit.
This system works for us, but may not work for others. Either way, I don't think it produces burnout. Empirically, this hasn't been the case. We're 2 years in and I've never had burnout been an issue. For a few reasons:
The people on our team like work to have an ebb and flow. There are times when we're pushing 100% and times we're reflecting. The 100 day horizon is actually quite long so there's time to refactor, vacation, and reflect.
We do our goal planning bottoms up. Almost every one of our goals has originated from the engineering team. 100 Day planning sessions are an opportunity for individuals to lobby for their project. It feels great to push your own project and it feels great to pitch in on someone else's.
We do unlimited vacations (which everyone says) but our team actually takes advantage. We don't have a culture of martyrdom, so people don't feel bad. I've found more people take time off in the beginning of 100 day segments than the end.
Agreed. This sort of advice is great if you're the founder/owner, because you're the one standing to get rich when somebody comes in with a buyout offer.
If you're an employee at such a shop, though, this is a sucker's bet. Most likely your hard work is paid off with a bunch of feel-good bullshit about how you're changing the world, and the expectations that you'll do it all again in three months.
Having a crunch time (especially scheduled) is a tacit admission that you are not, in fact, reducing scope properly.
Startups are machines for learning. This isn't limited to learning the market and finding business fit and reproducibility, it also applies to all the participants, whether they are founders or employees. No corporate job is going to let you become a DBA and a Frontend Developer and a Backend Developer and a Product Manager all at once, in a production environment, with no safety net. There is no other place where you can learn at that depth, and there is no other place you can learn at that rate.
There is also something to be said for the experience of personally identifying with a goal, no matter what that goal is. The other people at your startup will quickly become your best friends (sure, maybe that's because you are spending all your time with them at the expense of your other friends). You work together, eat together, play together. The level of camaraderie and sense of membership that develops can only be compared to military service (I've done both, and it is very similar).
If you are lazy, or you don't want to sacrifice in exchange for an amazing experience where you will learn and grow more than you ever could anywhere else, then you shouldn't be working for a startup. There are plenty of big companies that will pay you a decent salary and let you stagnate, work 10-4, never expect or require of you any growth, and let you phone it in until you eventually die. Good luck whichever way you decide to go!
All I can say is, good luck with that attitude when you get married and have a family. Your perspective on what is important in life will completely change.
Believe it or not, you can be serious about your career without sacrificing your personal life.
You both seem to be guilty of universalising your own work values and denigrating the choices of others as either "lazy and don't want to learn and grow" or "too immaturely self-oriented!"
Take it from the Bard: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
> No corporate job is going to let you become a DBA and a Frontend Developer and a Backend Developer and a Product Manager all at once, in a production environment, with no safety net. There is no other place where you can learn at that depth, and there is no other place you can learn at that rate.
You mean breadth, not depth.
> Good luck whichever way you decide to go!
Wow that was disingenuous. There are non-startup jobs that do not suck, and at any rate, the goal of a startup is to become a big company. You just have a personal preference for working at early-stage, high-growth companies, which is fine.
Specifically, the definition is: "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations"
Example: Letting the air out of someone's tires. This is an aggressive act. It's not passive aggressive, because it's not passive. It is sneaky and cowardly, which has nothing to do with being passive.
Example: Your manager is on the hook to have feature X ready on Monday. He has annoyed you by buying the wrong brand of coffee, so you read HN all day on Friday and avoid working on the feature. On Monday your manager looks bad for not delivering the feature on time. This is passive aggressive, because it was via withholding of sufficient effort that you managed to harm someone.
Not true at all. I work for a 107 year old family owned printing company. I get to be the DBA, Frontend Developer, Backend Developer, and Product Manager (our LOB applications). And it all leads from test to production. So you are just plain wrong. And there are LOTS of companies out there that have people doing what I'm doing. Lots of manufacturing businesses in the $50-$400 million dollar a year range have small in house programming staffs that have to be jacks of all trades. Doesn't always work out so well when people expand knowledge begrudgingly, but those who really have a passion for learning can have a long interesting career solving all kinds of problems that truly make a difference to the company bottom line.
There are also companies that give you room to learn and to grow, help you advance your career in the direction you want, and also let you work reasonable hours.
What? I'm doing it wrong because I work 40 hours a week at a job I love, then go home in time to go for a walk in the park, read a book and watch the sunset, play a sport, and see friends?
I'm glad whatever you're doing works for you, but don't assume everyone else has similar needs.
This is startup management 101. As a startup, you don't have a large HR team, so you need to engage in practices with strong selection bias.
In other words, "we run 100 day dev cycles with 20 days of an intense crunch" will cause people who thrive in a fast paced, results-oriented startup environment to self select.
It'll also eliminate people who don't like this environment.
The practice of 100 day cycles with 20 day crunches is tangible, real, and allows people to make a good decision about whether or not this company is a good fit.
It's much more effective that asking, "do you work hard", "do you work long hours", "do you enjoy a fast paced environment"...
"wear the team down until people quit" should be refined to: wear down people who should not be a part of our team until they quit, thus opening a spot for a someone who's a better fit for our fast, paced, result-oriented, win-at-all-cost environment.
I'm sure the length of the crunch varies. And in a startup situation having a crunch every 100 days doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. Also, people's versions of "crunch" differ... one person might picture 60-hour weeks and another might picture JWZ taking catnaps under his desk every 48 hours.
The people on our team like work to have an ebb and flow. There are times when we're pushing 100% and times we're reflecting. The 100 day horizon is actually quite long so there's time to refactor, vacation, and reflect.
We do our goal planning bottoms up. Almost every one of our goals has originated from the engineering team. 100 Day planning sessions are an opportunity for individuals to lobby for their project. It feels great to push your own project and it feels great to pitch in on someone else's.
We do unlimited vacations (which everyone says) but our team actually takes advantage. We don't have a culture of martyrdom, so people don't feel bad. I've found more people take time off in the beginning of 100 day segments than the end.