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

Is full-time work bad for our brains?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#141

Post by guelo »

groby_b wrote: post #95
dclowd9901 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between department…

Forgetting the other most important role, coaching people on the team. And yet another one, shelter from outside unrest. Oh, and blame-absorber. And coordinating efforts, when yet again three engineers in three different places work on the same issue. You know, this is starting to resemble the "what have the romans ever done for us" skit :) I'm not disagreeing that many managers don't do this. Or that they do it badl…

Coaching happens naturally within a well-functioning team.

Sheltering a lot of times means that the team is not aware of key information they should be aware of.

Coordination can be accomplished via proper use of communication tools.

Managers have the power to insert themselves at the critical junctions of natural process flows in order to artificially increase their own importance.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#142

Post by toolz »

groby_b wrote: post #95
dclowd9901 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"confounder", ha. In my experience, what does a manager do if there's no one around to manage? And how do employees get recognized for their contributions if there are no managers to track it? It's a catch-22. My thought is that if companies simply paid people as much as they could, all of this would go away. You wouldn't even _need_ managers anymore. One of managers' more important roles, liaising between department…

Forgetting the other most important role, coaching people on the team. And yet another one, shelter from outside unrest. Oh, and blame-absorber. And coordinating efforts, when yet again three engineers in three different places work on the same issue. You know, this is starting to resemble the "what have the romans ever done for us" skit :) I'm not disagreeing that many managers don't do this. Or that they do it badl…

That's the thing, though. Almost no one does their job "properly". They do it well enough to not get fired - thus management is usually inept and useless. So is it the managers fault when they are just fulfilling the norm or is it the job all together? I would suggest management as a position is at fault rather than the people who occupy that space and do the minimum to get by.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#144

Post by douche »

JamesBarney wrote: post #136
Mahn wrote: post #31

Could it be that there is some selection bias in this study? I don't mean to say the conclusions are wrong per se, but I would think that people working very few hours (unemployed?) or too many hours (factory workers?) are typically less educated than those in the middle, which could explain the IQ disparity.

I don't think factory workers are more likely to work 40 hours weeks than white collar workers.

If you're allowed to, you go after every minute of that sweet, sweet, overtime. Time and a half (or double time, if you work holidays) is a beautiful thing.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#145

Post by madaxe_again »

freshhawk wrote: post #108
madaxe_again wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those of us who believe otherwise usually get beaten out and decide to not run businesses any more. My confounder doesn't like hiring, likes to have a huge pile of cash in the bank to no particular end, and sends people shitty emails if they're late in the morning. He's successfully killed off enthusiasm and passion for getting things done (mine included), and now people are either making time or leaving. We…

Wow, I've worked with "that guy" before as well. Like you said, it's a retreat to the status quo, and conservatism is a common response to feeling overwhelmed or like an imposter. I now recognize it as a very accurate warning sign, this person has moved from trying whatever they can to help the business succeed to trying whatever they can to cover their ass and put on the appearance that they did all they could.

In our case it's more like newtonian mechanics - for every force there is an equal and opposing force. I've always pushed for growth, for hiring, for bigger clients, for new avenues, for risk - and he has always challenged and pushed for the status quo, and to not spend, not invest, not grow, make sure every month is profitable.

When we were small, my view was dominant, as I worked within and with the team, and we didn't have inertia to overcome, and his conservatism was useful as he talked me out of some risks that in hindsight were crazy. It was a good balance.

Now that we've grown rather a bit, his voice is dominant, as we now have a large team who (as a majority, not all) likewise don't want change or risk or growth, and I've been slowly moved diagonally into a vestigial cto role where I have no direct involvement with the tech team, and instead just deal with escalations, internal and external, technical and non-technical. Chief Tortured Officer.

So - the business will stagnate, then die, and I'm helpless to do anything about it.

The sad thing is he thinks this is success. I feel like we've fundamentally failed.

For added laughs, I feel trapped, as if I leave, I abandon my staff who I love to his mercurial whims, and my agreement is structured such that I would have to sell my equity (not options) (fmv in millions) for £60.

So I'll be saluting from the bridge as we go down, like an idiot.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#146

Post by JamesBarney »

douche wrote: post #144
JamesBarney wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think factory workers are more likely to work 40 hours weeks than white collar workers.

If you're allowed to, you go after every minute of that sweet, sweet, overtime. Time and a half (or double time, if you work holidays) is a beautiful thing.

That's over 40 vs white collar. This study was just comparing people who worked 40 vs 25.

There's a lot more studies showing that working 60 vs 40 is bad for you cognition, but this one is unique in showing the same effects at a much loader working load.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#147

Post by Ductapemaster »

madaxe_again wrote: post #145
freshhawk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I've worked with "that guy" before as well. Like you said, it's a retreat to the status quo, and conservatism is a common response to feeling overwhelmed or like an imposter. I now recognize it as a very accurate warning sign, this person has moved from trying whatever they can to help the business succeed to trying whatever they can to cover their ass and put on the appearance that they did all they could.

In our case it's more like newtonian mechanics - for every force there is an equal and opposing force. I've always pushed for growth, for hiring, for bigger clients, for new avenues, for risk - and he has always challenged and pushed for the status quo, and to not spend, not invest, not grow, make sure every month is profitable. When we were small, my view was dominant, as I worked within and with the team, and we di…

Thanks for sharing your story and your experience so others can learn from it. Please don't stop commenting!

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#149

Post by reedlaw »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #137
reedlaw wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 to 5 school sounds like a breeze compared to China. Kids in China are doing 7 to 7 while in middle school (with piles of homework to do during lunch break and in the evening). In high school there is no leaving campus except for once a month.

It is common for high-achieving US high schools to do similar hours too. My alarm was set to 6:15 AM (I optimized it so I could sleep in as late as possible -- perfected the art of getting ready in 15 minutes because I was in such a zombified state of sleep deprivation every morning), got to school at 7 AM trying my best to concentrate for the next 8 hours on fast-paced AP honors coursework. School ended at 3 PM, and…

That's a lot more extracurricular activity and exercise than average Chinese students get. And forget about computer games. Many students are not allowed to use a cellphone on weekdays. Once they go off to college, however, they experience the first taste of freedom and some become addicted to computer games as attested by the abundance of internet cafes near college campuses.

Re: Is full-time work bad for our brains?

#150

Post by jwatte »

BjoernKW wrote: post #54
quantumhobbit wrote: post #5

Stretching 2 hours of work into an 8-9 hour day through meetings and sneaky Reddit/hn usage is certainly bad for our brains. But this is the norm as long as managers interpret productivity as butts in seats.

As much as I agree with that I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today. It's almost as if everybody wakes up, reads Dilbert every morning thinking "Wow, that PHB guy certainly is a role model to aspire to." It's not as if these patterns can't be changed: The required technology has been available for more than a decade now. There are tried and tested approaches for organizing…

The managers are also looking for the easiest way through the day. Hence, butts in seat managing. Actually reviewing long term contribution and giving constructive (or even bad) news is hard work. Looking for butts in seats leaves more time for fantasy sports, or whatever.
Post reply on HN