Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Success at Work, Failure at Home

scott.a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#21

Post by michaelochurch »

Edmond wrote: post #13
johnrob wrote: post #10

Key question: did Ironport succeed in spite of his family sacrifice, or because of it? It's not fair to recommend spending more time with the family without addressing what the consequences would have been.

Yep..hindsight is always 20/20 when looking through the rose-colored glasses of success. Hope this doesn't give wannabe-founders the impression that they can launch a startup, succeed, all while keeping home life healthy. When you launch a start-up with significant family commitments one of these outcomes is most likely : relationship and business both fail, one fails the other succeeds...if you have nice VC-cushion…

I don't know why you were downvoted.

This is something I hate about rich people. You're not a better person because you can take 8 weeks off each year and therefore get to actually know your kids. You're just luckier. Enjoy being rich, go ahead, but don't pretend it actually makes you a better person. Making better choices isn't as meaningful when life hands you all good options and few bad ones.

It's like the rich girl in college who drinks and sluts it in 43 countries before freshman year but insists that, because of her superior travel, she's somehow superior to the middle-class schlub who didn't leave New Hampshire until he went to college. Until you're 25 or so, being well-traveled is an accomplishment of the parents, not the person. (And after 25, no one really brags about it.)

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#22

Post by michaelochurch »

nicklovescode wrote: post #20
michaelochurch wrote: post #14

It seems like he felt a need to put in long hours as some sort of morale-improving service, but he actually damaged the team by doing so. Bosses should limit themselves to 8 hours in the office, except during times of crisis (and, even in a startup, to be constantly in crisis mode is bad management). If the work calls for more, do it from home. Why? Because if the CEO works 12 hours per day, the VPs are going to feel…

I'm curious to see some sort of data on hours worked on startups if that exists. I would guess that the grunt workers feel that they are obligated to work ceoHoursWorked + 3 as you mentioned and the ceo imagines she has to work gruntHoursWorked + 3

If I were CEO, I'd probably work long hours, especially early on. But I'd do most of that time from home, so people can leave at 5 or 6 if their work's done. Not because I'm a nice guy, but because I'm realistic and know that working at a sprint pace when it's not needed is going to enervate people and leave them unable to handle a true crisis.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#23

Post by MoosePlissken »

Theodores wrote: post #4

One thing you can do at home is the cooking (including buying the food and the washing up). It is not hard to do if it is something you always do. Serve up a great meal prepared from actual ingredients and enjoy eating it - plus the conversation that goes with it. If you can do this then you are likely to succeed at home. If you can make cooking something you enjoy then that becomes an 'inline hobby', i.e. something…

> But you have to do it as soon as you get in, put your feet up, watch teevee, allow an hour to pass and it all goes wrong.

I totally agree with this. If I plop down on the couch right after getting home from a day of work, inertia tends to keep me there. I'll become almost annoyed that I'm hungry and begrudgingly get up to microwave something really fast. If I go straight to cooking and doing other chores as soon as I get home I tend to eat a much better meal and feel much more relaxed once I do sit down.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#24

Post by ItendToDisagree »

Theodores wrote: post #4

One thing you can do at home is the cooking (including buying the food and the washing up). It is not hard to do if it is something you always do. Serve up a great meal prepared from actual ingredients and enjoy eating it - plus the conversation that goes with it. If you can do this then you are likely to succeed at home. If you can make cooking something you enjoy then that becomes an 'inline hobby', i.e. something…

This seems great. But if you have kids and this is your main or 'only' interaction at home, you're going to miss out on a great deal of their lives while you are working weekends, holidays, etc. It is much better than nothing though. And loving your contribution is a great thing. Not arguing against just pointing out that children change the whole game (if you care about watching them grow up in a meaningful way.)

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#25

Post by md224 »

npc wrote: post #19
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what, you're always going to be at a disadvantage to someone who is willing to sacrifice more than you, whether that be health or family or anything else. Not always. If you're in a line of work where your own competence matters, sacrificing your health or family life will burn you. It doesn't take long. The relevant issue is that most white-collar workers (even programmers in many dysfunctional organizatio…

>willing There was an important word there that you seemed to miss. I didn't say that he who sacrifices more will always win, but they do have more options available to them, so to speak. Please don't think I'm advocating sacrificing health and family in the name of success, far from it. I just don't like this post facto moralizing that glosses over the difficulty of choosing between working late on something that mi…

I think this discussion highlights something very important about any Darwinian system, be it inter-species rivalry or free market competition: evolution has no higher ideals. Whatever is best at domination will dominate; whatever is best at spreading will spread.

People put so much faith in evolutionary processes as if they believe that evolution honors some kind of Platonic ideal. Evolution is a cold process, and it does not give a shit about you or anything you hold dear, unless what you hold dear is conducive to dominance in the specific arena under discussion.

Not to say natural selection is bad or good... I'm just pointing out that it's a value-neutral process, and I think it's a good idea to remember that, especially when we get the urge to derive norms of behavior from evolutionary evidence.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#26

Post by ItendToDisagree »

michaelochurch wrote: post #21
Edmond wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep..hindsight is always 20/20 when looking through the rose-colored glasses of success. Hope this doesn't give wannabe-founders the impression that they can launch a startup, succeed, all while keeping home life healthy. When you launch a start-up with significant family commitments one of these outcomes is most likely : relationship and business both fail, one fails the other succeeds...if you have nice VC-cushion…

I don't know why you were downvoted. This is something I hate about rich people. You're not a better person because you can take 8 weeks off each year and therefore get to actually know your kids. You're just luckier. Enjoy being rich, go ahead, but don't pretend it actually makes you a better person. Making better choices isn't as meaningful when life hands you all good options and few bad ones. It's like the rich g…

>enjoy being rich

Or you could enjoy getting to know your kids. Its not really an either or sort of thing. You could not be rich and spend time with our kids. Unless of course you are willing to sacrifice that to try and become rich, thus closing the circle, trying to become the thing you talk about hating.

Agreed that privilege begets privilege without effort. But I really do not think that getting to actually know your kids is something only the wealthy can do.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#27

Post by nailer »

> And that part about sitting on my ass in front of the TV with a cocktail? This ran counter to all of her efforts to teach the kids about pitching in as a family. The message of everyone helping to cook, clean, and be responsible for the household fell completely flat when daddy wouldn’t so much as take out the trash or change a light bulb.

Take out the trash and change a lightbulb by all means, but seriously if you're providing for your family, it counts.

If his children don't think he's pitching in by paying the rent /mortgage, then something's very wrong.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#28

Post by ItendToDisagree »

elnate wrote: post #9
LambdaAlmighty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume working on his project doesn't bring him happiness? Also, though I'm sure you are well-meaning, advising strangers how they ought to live their life makes you sound like a prick.

Article is titled: "Success at Work, Failure at Home" and they say they can relate to this. Laments that "...comes at a cost: I might not ever be able to have a normal relationship." I'm not saying working on their project doesn't bring them some happiness, but they hardly sound like they're as happy as they could be. And I'm probably just a prick.

I agree with your prior statement (happiness should be your goal, and you probably haven't invented 'sliced bread'). You can't 'have it all' if your work makes you more happy than (or is more important to you than) your relationships/home, you should probably focus on that and divorce/leave/whatever so everyone can move on with their lives.

I read the article as a lament. Although maybe I misread and we're both pricks. :D

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#29

Post by altero »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #17

So what I'm reading here is why CEOs shouldn't go to the office on weekends and check their mail at dinner. What's glaringly absent from the second part of this article is not asking the engineers to come in on weekends, either. Those guys have families and their negligible equity certainly doesn't justify 80-hour weeks. It sounds to me like the author would rather have gone home on weekends while the engineers staye…

I had similar impression.
Post reply on HN