[QuantumChaos]

I didn't really get the point of the article, so I'm just going to comment on work-life balance at Google in general.

Basically, you are freed from any unnecessary constraints in choosing your own work life balance. You are judged by the work you do, regardless of how long it took you to do that work, or which hours of the day you did that work.

The company goes to reasonable lengths to allow remote working, but they can't make up for the inherent disadvantage of not being in the office/campus when other people are.

In my opinion, that is the best that a company can do in terms of promoting work life balance. A company could also actively try and stop people from working more than X hours, but I don't see why that is a good thing, if a person really wants to do it.

Many posts on HN suggest that when a person chooses to work long hours, this is (A) an irrational choice on their part and (B) imposes externalities on other people, and therefore should be culturally discouraged. On (A), it's hard to judge all cases, but some people really want/need the money. On (B) that is really just wanting to avoid competition. If another person is willing to work longer hours or accept less pay, that is going to harm me, but it is also how the free market works. I'm happy to accept market wages because that's how capitalist societies work, and both in theory and practice, they work* pretty well.

* And by "work" I mean that they provided the overall best outcome, including for the worst off. I added this disclaimer because there is always one comment that says something like "yes capitalism works... for the rich".

[insuffi]

Except for B) having nothing to do with free market. 1)The problem with a long-hours work culture is that long hours don't translate to productivity, and it's rather hard to quantify productivity in a programming setting. It's an emotional/managerial phenomenon.2)It's not avoiding competition either. If the optimal work hours for a programmer are 4-6 hours, then 10 hours surely will lower his/her productivity and just project "more work". As a result, we get a badly competitive micro climate based on "projections" of more work.

I suggest you look at how Finland approaches non-competitive study in elementary and high schools, which propelled them to the top of the world in terms of quality.

[QuantumChaos]

I'm not describing encouraging people to work long hours for the sake of it, but rather people working longer hours in order to get more done. It seems like you don't believe it is possible for a company to reward people based on their actual results, ("it's rather hard to quantify productivity in a programming setting") but that is what Google does. No one really notices how much time you spend in the office.

So I would accept your points (1) and (2) to the extent that they apply in a particular setting. But these arguments don't apply to Google. If a person at Google chose to work longer hours, and ended up being less productive, that would really only harm themselves.

[insuffi]

1) No such thing as long hours for the sake of it. It's always to get more "done". And like I mentioned in my parent post, there's no such thing after a certain number of hours. 2)I don't believe it's possible for a company to do that, or at least not to the extent that you're saying. 3)Based on some of the interviews people have had here with Google, it seems that Google could use some more "reward based on performance" in their culture.(or a lot)

p.s. Keep in mind that my competition point still stands. Longer and longer hours are of no good. It's a slippery slope. And yes, I think such competition is poisonous and detrimental, even if some more work gets done. Working more hours just pulls everyone down,* in regards to your free market comment. It's price competition.

*even if it's not projection, but actual performance. Soon enough, everyone is working more and more to catch up to you, and everyone's miserable. That's not sustainable practice.

[orangecat]

Soon enough, everyone is working more and more to catch up to you, and everyone's miserable.

That's an argument against high performance regardless of hours. But I doubt many Googlers are miserable because they have to "compete" with Jeff Dean.

[insuffi]

I guess it is. It sounds wrong to me as well, but there's only so much performance you can fit into certain hours. Thus, more hours are bound to become the norm, in my opinion.

[nostrademons]

That assumes productivity remains constant, which has historically been a poor assumption, both in the economy at large and with individual people. When you do something a lot and have a modicum of intelligence (and most Googlers do), you figure out new, more efficient ways of doing things. That lets you accomplish more while working shorter hours.

The unfortunate thing is that if you're really good at making things more efficient, people want you to do it all the time, but if you're paid for results (Googlers are) and decent at setting boundaries (by and large Googlers aren't, but this is an individual-responsibility thing), you can work out compromises that give you both professional advancement and time for a life.

[nyrulez]

>>>The problem with a long-hours work culture is that long hours don't translate to productivity,

I have no idea how you can make such statements for everyone. Feel free to talk about yourself. It is ridiculous to claim that working "extra" does not result in anything "extra" for everyone. That may be true for you. It is in fact not true for me. Now you can call me deluded. But I think I am smart enough to measure my results and decide accordingly.

[yummyfajitas]

he problem with a long-hours work culture is that long hours don't translate to productivity,

[Citation needed]. Note that citing a source that vaguely asserts data exists is insufficient. So is citing a source showing that mean hourly productivity in construction/manufacturing goes down.

Make sure to differentiate between lowering productivity (=production/hours) and lowering product in your answer.