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

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#131

Post by burgreblast »

ececconi wrote: post #65
001sky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's glaringly absent from the second part of this article is not asking the engineers to come in on weekends, either. Exactly. The culture should be 'everybody else' works 80 hours a week and dealts with a nasty commute? But the CEO, lives a couple blocks away and blocks out time here and there to play with his kids...? Ok, There is certainly nothing wrong with this advice for CEOs, but the question goes begging a…

Got the same impression.

I wonder if you might have skipped or didn't relate to the 50% - 75% travel part.

In my experience it's not the travel, per se, even though the jet lag can be killer. It means being On 100% of the time you're away. The raw number of hours of being Always On for your company--around the world, with different people in different contexts--creates an emotional distance to one's family, because your mental world becomes intensely focused and 100% only on work, and work issues. Product issues, team, management, all that you can balance, but being on the road is the chaos of (enterprise) customers. They may love you, but they're needy. And all the time you're together, you're considering every word, and interaction to drive to a preferred outcome. It's never a "dinner". It's part of a never-ending orchestration to achieve specific outcomes.

Coming off of /those/ trips, he should have re-engaged with his family, but the challenge is the trips exhaust your mental and (jet lag) physical energy. Re-engaging with family means another "on" time, but it also means the expensive context switch from being able to talk business any time any where, in any state--leaving that mental zone-- to talk about family issues.

No, I don't get the sense he meant only engineers should work hard and CEOs should play with their kids.

I think the message is CEO's should consider forcing family-life onto their schedule, instead of being 100% consumed by work.

Yes, there are other pressing issues, and you might not be able to predict the value, but Scott says take it from someone who has gone though the struggle--it pays dividends at home, and at work.

I can relate.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#132

Post by philwelch »

epx wrote: post #113
steven2012 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, it might not be harder than brain surgery, but neither is your current job, and raising kids is probably harder than your current job. If you don't give a shit about how your kids turn out, then raising kids is pretty easy, but if you actually care, it's probably going to be the hardest job you'll ever have.

The hardest part is when the kid asks for something and you don't have money.

Really? Geez, that was easy for my parents. "We can't afford it." Getting your kids whatever they ask for is a terrible idea anyway.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#133

Post by sabbatic13 »

rphlx wrote: post #102
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…

Indeed: the writer comes off as a major narcissist, with a minor in status display ("Harvard MBA/VP Wife"). I suppose a near-total lack of empathy for your fellow man is, if not defendable, at least an understandable trait for a CEO working an engineering team to death, and then moaning about how "generously" buying them dinner every Sunday night was impacting his family life, until he could cash out based on their e…

In my experience, some narcissism is a requirement to be a startup CEO. And I don't mean that in a smart-ass way. The incessant representation of the company seems to require a strong identification of one's self with the company. It's sort of an enabling trait which has some potential negatives consequences. Among the latter would the perspective that sees everyone around them in the company as an extension of their will. Getting to the point of being a "real" CEO also usually requires some more-than-usual self-involvement and identification of one's endeavor with one's self. Good CEOs (by my standards) just have a touch of this. Many have too much. As you indicate, there's a certain logic to it.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#134

Post by whyme »

This reminds me of car ownership... When you ask people if they like their car, most will say yes they do; that is until they decide to get a new one. It's then that they quickly come up with a large con list to warrant an upgrade. Afterwards, they will almost always say that last car was never any good. After all look at the current car vs. the con list of the last. The thing is, they'll be doing this again with their new car until they outgrow it or find problems with it too.

And my point is: Hindsight is always 20/20 when your current perspective conveniently matches the narrative for your newly made situation.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#136

Post by nailer »

steven2012 wrote: post #71
nailer wrote: post #27

> 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…

It doesn't count. Your kids didn't ask to be born. You decided to have them. If you're going to raise your kid by simply providing for them, and not nurturing them and spending time with them, then all of your "providing for" is worthless. If you decided to have kids when you could barely afford it, and had no extra time to do anything besides work, then they are right to consider you a bad parent. Go listen to Cat's…

Spend time with your kids, sure.

But don't be seen 'not to be contributing' because your partner works at home while you work at an office.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#137

Post by nailer »

jusben1369 wrote: post #91
nailer wrote: post #27

> 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…

The 1950's called they want their rationalization back! Think of this a different way. If the woman who decides to stay at home keeps the house incredibly clean, the children bathed and well nourished and is there when they wake up, come home and go to bed but speaks to them only once or twice a day is she crushing her role or sucking at it? I'd say sucking. Your role is to nourish their brains and souls not just cov…

These aren't exclusive: he can pay attention to his children and keep his 'contributions' to the office.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#138

Post by nailer »

codingdave wrote: post #52
nailer wrote: post #27

> 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…

This is a common misunderstanding in young families, and one that causes a lot of damage to families in the long run. The misunderstanding is the assumption that the wife was not working all day. IF she has a job, then she was working. If she stays at home with kids, she was also working. Coming home and relaxing, saying, "Hey, I'm paying the mortgage" is also saying, "Hey, the work my wife did today was worth nothin…

> Coming home and relaxing, saying, "Hey, I'm paying the mortgage" is also saying, "Hey, the work my wife did today was worth nothing."

I think you have it precisely the wrong way around.

Assuming someone providing 'is not contributing to the house' assumes their providing has no value.

This is modern feminist reduction of the value men (who most often perform this role) provide, and it's shameful.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#139

Post by eps »

wpietri wrote: post #48
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…

Yeah, that was the same reaction I had. I also long ago stopped believing that 80-hour engineering weeks are much more productive than 40-hour weeks. For one week? Sure. Two? Maybe. Months? Nope! Definitely not better, probably worse. (Why is a long answer, but for one take, this is good: http://www.lostgarden.com/2008/09/rules-of-productivity-pres... But even if none of that human-factors stuff were true, I'd still…

80-hour work week for months is the only option if you are working on your ideas in parallel with stable, paying job. Then you quit and the project is just barely getting off the ground. You worked 80h/wk so far, so you have this chance to double your productivity. In fact, that's exactly why you quit, so it's damn sure that you keep working the 80h schedule. And then it becomes progressively hard to go back to the normal working hours, because it implies slacking.

So it's not a matter of believing in 80-hour engineering weeks and it's not a matter of choice for many people. It's just how things naturally develop when you are starting on your own.

Re: Success at Work, Failure at Home

#140

Post by Gaurav322 »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #115
ececconi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got the same impression.

I believe you guys misunderstood him. I think he is not saying he should not have done those 100 plus hour weeks as a CEO necessarily, but that he was simultaneously being a dick to his wife and eventually this probably had some negative impact on his CEO performance, not just on his personal life. What I got out of this is his advice is, try to the extent possible to be present for your family and get rid of "I am a…

I agree with you vasilipupkin... It is very hard for both employee and CEO to manage their work and Family Life Balance. But, we do not forget that CEO is the commanding officer of his army and It takes lot of stress and thinking to take a right step for his company future...

But, I have a solution for these as well... Give some of the responsibility to your co-founders means they can take the final decision in that particular area. Through that, CEO can save himself from lot of stress and also can make some time to share with his family...

Post reply on HN