Is it OK to have a life?
I met someone this weekend who just moved back to Canada after several years in the U.S. He works in technology at a big company and noticed a huge difference in work pace and intensity now that he’s back in Canada. He can’t believe that people leave at 5pm. And he’s had to get used to not spending evenings on his laptop. I left that conversation wondering who’s got it right? The folks that are working all the time or those that don’t?
This is not a post about whether Americans work harder than Canadians. Its about whether, particularly in the startup world, we should be working all the time.
If you are a startup one of your primary competitive advantages is speed. You can get products out faster and can iterate faster than the big guys. This is what gives you an opportunity. I would argue in fact that speed should be on the primary strategies for a startup. So, in that context, having a life is theoretically not compatible with making your startup as successful as possible. If you’re doing anything with any potential, someone else will be doing it too. And if you’re clocking out early maybe your competitor isn’t.
But does that mean we should work around the clock and sleep under our desks? I don’t think it does. Taken too far, I think this approach could drive great people out of the startup ecosystem as they become parents and realize there is more to life.
Also, you need to consider seniority and experience as well. I’ve been in finance for 20 years and startup finance for 11 years. If I hit the way back machine and think about when I was in my 1st startup I probably needed to work 5X more than I do today to get the same results. Even more. And in many aspects especially in terms of contacts and judgment I could never have accomplished than what I can now. So, if I’m competing against some young punk, I don’t need to work as much to be competitive.
So, that’s OK for an individual, but maybe not for a company. Companies are often led by senior people. But if the leaders work less because they’re experienced that has cultural implications for all team members, regardless of experience level. It becomes a cultural norm to work less and the company loses intensity and pace.
At the end of the day, even though it involves sacrifice and lack of balance, I have to come down on the side of speed and have to say that your life is going to have to wait (for the most part). As an investor, if I have two otherwise equivalent investment opportunities, but one is led by someone hungry and intense with no work-life balance, I will back that person in a heartbeat over someone who’s not. Why? Because my money’s working all the time and, all other things being equal, that person and company will out-hustle and out-execute the competition.
The one caveat is that this work pace should be sustainable over the long run. I have seen many great people over the years check out of the Startup World because they wanted to rebalance. I would argue this is happening for two reasons: i.) the returns (exits that everyone benefits from and thus keep them coming back for more) are not there. This is a separate topic; and ii.) the work pace was not sustainable. In Canada especially this is a concern. We need more talent, not less for our startups to thrive. So, if that means a bit less work intensity so that we can keep more people in the ecosystem, I’m all for it.
From a developer/manager perspective and as a balanced libra, forcing myself to choose whether I am taking time to FULLY relax or to FULLY work is a great lesson I learned. The halfway work/fun time I found was unsatisfactory on both fronts.
Very true. I need to practice that more.
It is a lifestyle choice. Good way of putting it Ian.
There isn't a one size fits all answer to this question. Having a life, or more to the point, doing what makes you happy is what's important.
Not everyone thrives on the same challenges or finds happiness in the same places. Some find happiness through success at work, others through charity work, others through family and friends, others through a variety of hobbies, or some combination thereof. And the things that make us happy usually changes throughout our lives. So it's most important to manage our businesses and our employees as individuals in order to get the best performance out of each. If we have to have a singular culture at work that requires everyone to work extended hours, you need to really do your homework when recruiting to ensure you find the people that thrive in that type of environment. Otherwise you will have either an unhappy workforce, or lots of turnover.
The number of hours matter far less than the quality of hours. Saying we want Type A, win at all costs managers and leaders is a short-sighted view into the value diverse employees bring to the workplace. Over the years a few employees in particular have opened my eyes to valuing different perspectives, different ways of thinking, etc. Those people made the company stronger and better, not slower and less profitable.
While we desire to achieve at a high level, I am reminded of the anecdote about never seeing a tombstone that read, 'I wish I'd spent more time at work'.
Slow down, enjoy life, you may find you like it.
Mark, another provocative post!
Drawing from my experience (age, yrs as a tech entrepreneur & living on both sides of the border), I believe that energy and focus are key considerations for a founder and leader. My mantra was always to lead by example, which meant burning the midnight oil with the dev team when against a deadline, or kicking down difficult doors side-by-side with a sales person. That also meant demonstrating some work-life balance – whether it was calling an early close to the day on a Friday after pizza lunch, taking the team snowboarding or golfing during work days, and insisting that vacation be used during the year, not paid out.
As for a couple of the comments…40 hour work weeks may be fine for government employees or large corporations, but you're not going to make it in a startup. And as for starting companies later in life – how about Reed Hastings (Netflix at 42), Sam Walton (Walmart at 44) and Harlon Sanders (KFC at 65)? And if you'd like data, check out the Kauffman Foundation sponsored study "Anatomy of an Entrepreneur" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
I would add that if
Picking the hungrier guy who works harder faster and longer is true. This usually also means picking younger entrepreneurs. I've seen lots of great entrepreneurs with huge first time successes try to attempt a repeat success in their 40s and it's a no-go. Kids, mortgages, family vacations, etc. — these are wonderful things but they get in the way of building a company, which takes ruthless focus.
If you look at the great American stories of entrepreneurship (Google, Yahoo, Micrososft, FAcebook, Dell, Standard Oil, JP Morgan) many of them were started by males in their 20s or even late teens. The combination of these entrepreneurs' ambition, no outside responsibility, intelligence, and immense personal drive was a big part of the reason why these companies took off and went on to dominate their industries, sometimes for generations and generations (Standard Oil became Exxon, Microsoft still owns the PC, regardless of Apple's immense successes), sometimes for shorter (Yahoo).
Thanks for the post Mark — there's a lot of talk out there about work-life balance and how important it is. That may be true if you work for an established corporation, but not if you want to build an amazing company and defy the odds that are inherent in new company formation.
For developers, 40 hours is the weekly maximum before getting diminishing returns. Working them longer is a horrible idea: not only is the output lower, but it hinders recruitment, especially for senior developers.
I don't code as much (~10hours max), and a lot of the "work" I do isn't nearly as taxing. I'm actually having fun networking, learning about running a business and hiring. I still make time for my hobbies – they increase my network and keep me emotionally grounded.
There's one thing we learn optimizing software for speed of execution: the only way to go faster is to do less. Software developers have embraced this by shipping fewer features faster.
Some entrepreneurs complain about lack of time. Whenever I'm tempted to do the same, I realize I haven't done my job of setting the right priorities.