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

Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

blogs.hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#21

Post by orangecat »

insuffi wrote: post #18
QuantumChaos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

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 performa…

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.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#22

Post by zoba »

I wonder what sort of life experiences might influence whether one is a segmentor or an integrator. I am heavily a segmentor, which I suppose I'd attribute to growing up with divorced parents. I was shared between my parents, one week at moms and one week at dads. Each house had it's own rules, toys, friends, etc. I'd never considered it before, but, it seems like I was raised to be a segmentor.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#23

Post by insuffi »

orangecat wrote: post #21
insuffi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 performa…

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.

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.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#24

Post by incision »

Bulkington wrote: post #4

Is it possible for anyone who thinks for a living to truly 'segment'? The best I can hope is really intense distraction: mountain biking, sailing, even golf. It's amazing how little I consider anything else while playing golf--but I couldn't get away in the middle of the afternoon unless I had the flexibility to get good work done from 4-7AM. Intuitively, I'd bet job satisfaction is right up there with mate selection…

>"Is it possible for anyone who thinks for a living to truly 'segment'?"

Sure.

I'm finding this really hard to articulate, but here goes...

I feel like this should be self-evident, but we've been trained to think otherwise, to believe that giving so much of our time and energy is completely normal or even noble.

I've worked with my hands and with my mind, as a full-time employee, a union member and an at-will contractor.

There's actually nothing terribly special or unique about thinking for a living - it's still work with energy and opportunity cost for doing it. When the toll is primarily mental it's harder to perceive, but just as real.

The big difference between knowledge workers and everyone else is what individuals and workers as a group will put up with.

Tech workers accept being sent home with laptops and cellphones by an employer who doesn't want to pay three shifts worth of coverage for a 24/7 operation. Elsewhere this is prevented by unions, regulations and the implicit understanding that allowing the next man to devalue himself today will devalue the group tomorrow.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#25

Post by calibraxis »

These Boss 3.0 names obscure the old concepts. Google's moves are part of building a "company town." [1] People Operations is "human resources" [2], and its People Science is the same "scientific management" data-gathering used by slave-owners [3], corporations and the military.

Model View Culture minces fewer words about how tech corporations mold their workers' individual identities: (http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/tech-workers-political-sp...)

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19sfvalley.html?pagewan...

[2] http://www.google.com/about/careers/teams/people-operations/

[3] http://hbr.org/2013/09/plantations-practiced-modern-manageme...

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#26

Post by dave1629 »

What's missing from this is that Google's culture is designed to eliminate work-life balance by making as much of life as possible focus around work. A significant part of the compensation for Google employees is in the form of good "free" meals (including dinners), lots of services, entertainment, etc., all without leaving the Google campus. Would be interesting to see how the results are different from similar surveys done at a company like Microsoft that doesn't have such an all-encompassing work environment.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#27

Post by nostrademons »

insuffi wrote: post #23
orangecat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#28

Post by nyrulez »

insuffi wrote: post #12
QuantumChaos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 jus…

>>>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.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#29

Post by saalweachter »

Bulkington wrote: post #4

Is it possible for anyone who thinks for a living to truly 'segment'? The best I can hope is really intense distraction: mountain biking, sailing, even golf. It's amazing how little I consider anything else while playing golf--but I couldn't get away in the middle of the afternoon unless I had the flexibility to get good work done from 4-7AM. Intuitively, I'd bet job satisfaction is right up there with mate selection…

I use physical activities as a counterpoint to job-thinking. Fixing an engine or cutting down a tree requires attention and engagement, but aren't mentally taxing, so it's a good way to unplug. Plus, spending a weekend actually doing things instead of pushing buttons and flipping bits is very satisfying.

Re: Google’s Scientific Approach to Work-Life Balance

#30

Post by pmiller2 »

I'm interested in identifying companies that focus on results and not hours of "butt in seat" time. What's the best way to do that?

I prefer to be a segmentor, but it seems like a lot of companies prefer integrators, to the extent that they want, as alluded to in another comment, to eliminate work/life balance by making work and life synonymous. That's definitely not for me.

Post reply on HN