About a month ago, Michael Moritz of the venture capital firm Sequoia published an articlein the Financial TimestitledSilicon Valley Would Be Wise To Follow China’s Lead. In the article, Moritz argues that the work ethic of those employed by China's technology companies has outpaced that of Silicon Valley's. This, he surmises,willdrive more success for China. One of thejustifications he uses to support his point is thatemployees of China's technology companieswork more hours. “Here, top managers show up for work at about 8 a.m. and frequently don’t leave until 10 p.m.. Most of them will do this six days a week — and there are plenty of examples of people who do this for seven. Engineers have slightly different habits: they will appear about 10 a.m. and leave at midnight,” he writes.
(Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Perhaps Michael Moritz should read Morten Hansen’s new book, Great At Work: How Top Performers Do Less, Work Better, And Achieve More. After working 100-hour workweeks in my own career, I strongly disagreed with Moritz's argument. And Morten Hansen, a management professor at University of California, Berkeley and an ex-consultant, had just completed a five-year study that demonstrated working more is not necessarily a driver ofbetter performance.
In his book, he lays out the results of a quantitative, 5,000 person study he conducted over a five-year period to test a set of seven hypotheses on work and performance. Hansen was interested in a specific question. “Do the seven hypotheses as outlined here explain a substantial part of individual performance or not? And do people who pursue this approach to work outperform those who pursue the ‘work harder’ approach of working many hours and taking on many responsibilities?” Here are Hansen's ingoing hypotheses:
- Hypothesis 1: "Individuals who do less (i.e., focus on a few key priorities) and then obsess (i.e., make great efforts within those chosen areas of focus) will perform better at work than those who don’t."
- Hypothesis 2: "Individuals who have redesigned their work and created new opportunities in an effort to add more value perform better at work than those who have not."
Great At Work by Morten Hansen
Simon & Schuster - Hypothesis 3: "Individuals who focus on the quality of their learning (trying out new things, reviewing how they work, getting helpful feedback, learning from failures) will perform better at work than those who don’t."
- Hypothesis 4: "Individual who experience high level of both passion and purpose will perform better at work than people who don’t."
- Hypothesis 5: "Individuals who are able to inspire others and deploy smart grit will perform better at work than those who don’t."
- Hypothesis 6: "Individuals who participate in and lead teams that fight and unite will perform better at work than those who don’t."
- Hypothesis 7: "Individuals who engage in disciplined collaboration will perform better at work than those who don’t."
The seven hypotheses tested turned out to impact results to a high degree. “We ran our 5,000-person data set through a rigorous statistical method….It turned out that our seven work-smart practices….accounted for a whopping 66 percent of the variation in performance among the 5,000 people in our dataset.” I knew many of these hypotheses to be intuitively true, but reading Hansen’s study, I felt vindicated. I had recently become a Hypothesis 1 convert, but had yet to find the data to support what I believed to be true.
A 100-Hour Workweek
You don’tunderstand a 100-hour workweek until you’ve worked one. Monday through Fridays call for 16 to 18 hour days. That's a 9 a.m. start time and a 3 a.m. departure from the office. Saturdays and Sundays, work time amounts toanywhere from 5to10 hours.
The first 100-hour week I worked was thrilling. You’re overcomewith a feeling of being valued. You think: I’m doing important work! That feeling, unfortunately, largely wears off by week two. Week three, you start to devolve into a shell of your former self due to sleep-deprivation. By the fifth consecutive week, your body and mind accept this as the new normal.A 100-hour workweek sounded impossible to me until I was thrown into one. Your body and mind eventuallyacclimate. But try it for too long and you inevitably hit a wall. That wall is known as burnout.
Many industries promote working around the clock. “Under the old ‘work hard’ paradigm, high achievers tend to become stressed out, even burned out. You work harder and your performance improves, but your quality of life plummets. I know mine did when I was putting in all those hours at BCG,” Hansen writes. And for anyone ambitious, it isn’t unusual to think you’ll outwork the competition, no matter what it takes, to succeed professionally. The smart ones opt out early. The less lucky have to experience burnout for themselves to deem it a moronic strategy.
Burnout just sounds like an extreme case of exhaustion. It never looks like a big deal. It looks like everything is fine on the outside, but on the inside it secretly wreaks havoc. “Burnout is serious. Research has tied it to ills such as cardiovascular disease, marital dissatisfaction, and depression,” Hansen writes.
In my experience alone, our team suffered endless health issues. One colleague was rushed to the hospital on Christmas Eve because of a form of temporary paralysis in the arm from lack of sleep and stress. Another had a mental breakdown and had to take sabbatical. A third miscarried, she believes, due to thestressful lifestyle. All this on only one team of less than adozen people.
Health isn’t the only casualty. The burden indirectly placed on family and friends is considerable. In retrospect,I think theworst side effect ofclockingin all those hours is how much it hurt thepeople and the relationshipsI cared about the most. Knowing how intolerable I must have been, I'm still grateful to anyonewho put up with me.
The problem with these long hours is they perpetuate a cycle. Because you become increasingly more tired as the weeks wear on, it takes you a lot longer to complete any reasonable task. An occasional 100-hour week is alright. But I’ve never seen it work as a consistent practice. You end up feeling like you’re constantly playing catch-up in your own life.
That’s true of all long hours whether it’s a 65- or a 100-hour workweek, and it’s becoming increasingly common. Hansen cites a study to show exactly how commonplace. “In a 2009 survey by Harvard Business School professor Leslie Perlow and research associate Jessica Porter, 94 percent of the 1,000 professionals surveyed reported working 50 hours or more a week, and a staggering 50 percent of them said they worked more than 65 hours a week. The latter figure translated into 13 hours per day, five days a week. Ouch! In a study of high earners, management writers Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce found that a full 35 percent worked more than 60 hours a week, and 10 percent worked more than 80 hours a week. A job with the traditional 40-hour workweek seems like a part-time gig.”
The Trap Of Linear Thinking
Of all the 80-100 hour weeks I’ve worked, there wasn’t a single one I thought necessary. Long hours are often made longer by a lot of rework, lack of clarity on what problem we’re trying to solve, lack of focus on solving the problem, or a last-minute change in direction. And yet the idea of more work for more results is still widely accepted as a plausible approach for professional success. As Hansen puts it there’s a “perverse tendency to equate volume of activity with accomplishments….Being busy is not an accomplishment.” You can’t help but wonder: Why?
We have our brains to thank. As human beings, we’re wired to think linearly and therefore, many people fall trap to thinking more work will equal more results. The relationship isn’t linear, though. The more we work, the less productive we become. There are diminishing returns to consider. And Hansen found in his study that between 50 and 55 hours worked per week was the sweet spot for optimal productivity. Working more hours beyond that didn’t drive higher performance.
Hansen recommends being much more strategic not only in the number of hours worked, but also in the work we choose to engage in. Hansen emphasizes working strategically to focus on the specific areas of work that will generate the highest return. “The conventional wisdom states that people who work harder and take on more responsibilities accomplish more and perform better,” Hansen writes. Instead, he offers, “In our quantitative study of 5,000 people, we found that employees who chose a few key priorities and channeled tremendous effort into doing exceptional work in those areas greatly outperformed those who pursued a wider range of priorities.”
As a case study of one, I’ve seen this to be true in my own life. I tested the hypothesis, playing around with the number of hours I worked and what I worked on. Aftera variety of tests onthe optimal work-life balance equation, my life found equilibrium working about 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, a total of only 48 hours. Those 48 hours, I should point out, are the ones I spend producing work. No emails, no chatter, no distractions. Beyond those hours, I still think about work if I feel like it or not if I don’t.
Michael Moritz may make claim to wanting employees who trade their lives for their jobs. But my own experience tells me I make a much better employee, and human being frankly, today than I ever did at the height of working all those hours.
Follow Stephanie Denning on Twitter:@stephdenning
And also read:
An Unconventional Take On Success
The Benefits Of Meditation In Business
Finding Success In Failure: Lessons From Ray Dalio
As someone deeply entrenched in the intersection of productivity, work ethic, and professional success, I'm compelled to respond to Michael Moritz's recent article advocating for Silicon Valley to emulate China's work culture. Moritz contends that China's tech industry outshines Silicon Valley due to longer working hours. However, as an enthusiast with a wealth of knowledge on this subject, I draw on evidence from Morten Hansen's groundbreaking work and my own experiences to challenge Moritz's assertions.
Hansen's book, "Great At Work: How Top Performers Do Less, Work Better, And Achieve More," presents a comprehensive five-year study involving 5,000 individuals. Hansen explored seven hypotheses related to work and performance, aiming to discern the practices that truly drive success. Astonishingly, the study revealed that a focus on smart work, rather than simply working longer hours, accounted for a substantial 66 percent of the variation in performance among the participants.
These hypotheses encompass critical aspects of effective work, such as prioritization, learning quality, passion, teamwork, and disciplined collaboration. Hansen's research refutes the notion that excessive work hours directly correlate with better performance. Instead, he advocates for a strategic approach—choosing a few key priorities and investing substantial effort in excelling within those areas.
I resonate with Hansen's findings on a personal level, having navigated the demanding landscape of a 100-hour workweek. Initially, the allure of feeling valued and doing important work masked the impending toll on well-being. However, sustained long hours led to burnout, affecting not only my health but also the dynamics of my relationships. Hansen's study aligns with my own realization that quality of work, not quantity of hours, defines success.
Furthermore, Hansen's insight into the trap of linear thinking sheds light on the misconception that more work equals more results. He argues that beyond a certain threshold, productivity diminishes, and strategic focus becomes paramount. The optimal productivity range, as identified by Hansen, falls between 50 and 55 hours per week.
In conclusion, the evidence from Hansen's research, coupled with my firsthand experience, challenges the conventional wisdom propagated by Moritz. Silicon Valley, rather than emulating China's exhaustive work hours, should adopt a strategic approach, focusing on key priorities and leveraging smart work practices for sustainable success. As we navigate the evolving landscape of professional achievement, the key lies not in working harder but in working smarter.
