If you want to earn more, work less
bbc.comEver since graduating from college, I've adhered to one principle: I only work for employers who either 1) value output, not seat time, or 2) who explicitly require 40 hours a week (no more, no less; this can be an average over the previous year). It's not because I'm not dedicated, or a high performer--in fact, I'd argue my preferences are rooted in actually being a high performer. I know that not much of additional value occurs beyond 40 hours, and I value time beyond that 40 hour mark at an exponentially increasing premium.
So for me, I do a very solid, focused, and productive 40 hours and leave time in life for everything else which matters: family, friends, hobbies, sleep.
I definitely have experienced the judgment of my peers for being so strict about how I work. Even though I do great work, they frequently give me a hard time for, apparently, not being dedicated enough. But isn't that a little ridiculous? When you're an employee, even of a great employer, it's still just a job. If, in that job, you cease to be an asset (no matter the quality of your work, or the number of hours you put in), you will be reassigned or terminated. To me it's idiotic to treat any job as being anything other than that: a job. There's good, interesting jobs with lots of challenges and great pay; there's really horrible jobs which are menial, micromanaged, abusive bosses, with low pay. It's a continuum of jobs, but that's all they are: jobs. It's almost like people are turning work into a religion. Or that there's a belief that if you sacrifice your life, health, etc. for work that you are to be honored and respected. But that's just masochistic.
Work to live, not the other way around.
I totally agree. For about 30 years I usually set my cap at 32 hours/week, which worked well for me. Now that I am in my 60s, I set the cap at about 20 hours a week, and actually prefer 15 hours a week.
The 'extra' time allowed me to write a lot of books (a fun activity) and spend more time with friends and family.
Interesting perspective. I completely agree with most of your sentiments but I just can't shake the feeling that this kind of attitude is much more difficult for people who are non-knowledge workers with more labor intensive work (i.e. cleaning etc).
It is absolutely more difficult. It is very easy to wax poetic about the types of jobs one will and will not do when one has job security in the form of many readily available, high-paying jobs. Most are not that lucky and in fact would be grateful to work more hours because it might put them over the threshold to full time and benefits for example.
Others like lawyers, are on a similar situation treadmill tied to hours worked. It is often up or out at big firms, and going up always entails working lots of billable hours. Work fewer hours, make less money and no great future.
Ultimately, the path to success increasingly seems to be freeing yourself from a single entity that controls your pay (i.e. Employer, single client or customer, etc.). From there it is down to finding ways to scale your output beyond your hourly constraint (you only have so many hours in a day you can work, even for high pay) and ways to diversify income to reduce risk.
For others live to work is a reasonable motto as well. it is deeply ingrained with their life purpose. of course its probably easier if your job is something very valuable to society like a nurse, doctor or police officer as opposed to a cube rodent
The 'lights out at 10pm' thing at Dentsu has actually been tried before: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWX6--sQtsA
I'm not sure how useful the Japanese comparison is, to be honest. Japan is so ridiculously out of step with how the rest of the world does things (it's not just the ridiculously long work hours, but the semi-compulsory socializing with colleagues after work) that it probably doesn't tell you very much. Not least because, having worked in a Japanese office, the working environment becomes markedly more relaxed after 6pm anyway (there were beers at my place).
This doesn't work in my office. The lights go off at 9pm and the few rare times I've been there myself, the hard workers, self starters, and "getting the job done" people that were still there, kept on working. In the dark. Half the times, I was the first and only person to go hit the buttons to turn the lights back on lol.
I have to say this piece is really quite ridiculous.
Japanese workers who work longer hours DO make more.
This is because no one cares (primarily) about worker productivity - they care about being a "team player" & similar intangibles.
Most Japanese salaries are quite low at the beginning and for the early years, but increase over time until at the last part of your career with the company you are living nicely and prepared for retirement.
Team players are promoted. Non-team players are not.
So, for places outside the Japanese corporate world the idea of less hours == more pay may hold true, but in the situation they chose to highlight in the story that is completely wrong. There, you make more over your career by "butt in seat" time, and little else in most cases.
The article says Japanese salarymen work themselves to death. Then it says their culture looks down upon people who leave early. Then it goes on to quote an American study that working less hours pays more. Am I the only one seeing the problem here?
No, but there's a bigger problem than the mismatched cultural observations made in support of the article's claim that people also miss.
Regardless whether the American experience in the US study applies to the Japanese office, there's a point that remains: while those Japanese might not get promoted or get fired for working less, it would still be better for them to quit their career than work themselves to death.
From the article -- "someone who puts in 70 hours doesn’t produce anything more with those additional 14 hours"
This was something I always wondered about at Google. Because you could eat three meals a day there, shower, do your laundry, and nominally sleep[1] does that make their employees that much more expensive than people with out the extra perks?
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truc...
Those extra percs are insignificant in cost compared to their salaries, that they'd get anyway.
For all it's outdatedness, Japan is changing (slowly) [1]. The government is instituting new laws that give employees more free time to spend their money. Though it is partially an economy reviving measure for the government, I already see employers setting (sane) hard limits on overtime and pushing employees to use 100% of their paid leave. (Most employees use paid leave very minimally because they don't want to "cause trouble" to their fellow employees who have to cover for them working while they are on leave)
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-three-day...
Work smart not hard. Automate everything you can automate. I do this and I routinely finish projects 30% faster than my peers. Another plus is that automation results in less human error.
Is their only evidence one line about how people who make more also take more vacation? Correlation != Causation
No, but lack of correlation does prove no causation.
So if "more vacation" is not correlated with earning less, one might as well take it.
That's great advice. Everyone release a company wide memo with that text. /s