Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer On 130 Hour Work Weeks

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What is the secret to being able to work almost 19 hours a day, seven days a week? According to Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer, scheduling showers and poop breaks is a big part of time management. :rolleyes:

The other piece that gets overlooked in the Google story is the value of hard work. When reporters write about Google, they write about it as if it was inevitable. The actual experience was more like, “Could you work 130 hours in a week?” The answer is yes, if you’re strategic about when you sleep, when you shower, and how often you go to the bathroom. The nap rooms at Google were there because it was safer to stay in the office than walk to your car at 3 a.m. For my first five years, I did at least one all-nighter a week, except when I was on vacation—and the vacations were few and far between.
 
And that's great, but there has to be reward for that. You only have so much time on Earth. If you love what you do, then sure, triple time is probably what one wants to do. Work is their life. Most jobs simply don't pay enough and offer the reward for that kind of tradeoff.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is any job that I could do for 130 hours a week regardless of money. My personal time is too important/valuable to me. Companies that expect this of their employees are not places I would work.
 
If you're doing what you love then that's cool and all, but once you get a significant other + kids I just can't see that being healthy for them. I typically work 60-65 hours a week + taking 2 masters classes and I have virtually no time left for side programming projects or spending time with my wife. Can't imagine 130 work weeks.
 
I remember putting in 80+ hours/week at various startups during the internet boom (bubble). It was fun working crazy hours, playing Diablo at 2am, then repeating the cycle, but the money is what motivated me. I only worked on contract-basis, so was paid for every hour. $45 - $60 per hour made it very easy to put in all that extra time.
 
Rizen said:
I don't think there is any job that I could do for 130 hours a week regardless of money. My personal time is too important/valuable to me. Companies that expect this of their employees are not places I would work.
Click to expand...

I've done close to it. I was single, the money was great. 7 days a week, 14-16+ hours a day. It was great. I saved a ton of money. I was also 21. Worked great.

Now? Fuck no. I have a family and stuff to do. I have housework that needs done and other responsibilities. I like to have fun. I am on call, but I'm still only ~50 hours a week most weeks. A few weeks of the year, I can pull 80 hour weeks, but I can feel it. Exhausting. Great money, but it's not that often, so I don't mind it. Plus, the company pampers us during those weeks. Nice hotel room, good food, take us out to a nice dinner the last day, etc...
 
heatlesssun said:
And that's great, but there has to be reward for that. You only have so much time on Earth. If you love what you do, then sure, triple time is probably what one wants to do. Work is there life. Most jobs simply don't pay enough and offer the reward for that kind of tradeoff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you are one of the relatively rare people lucky enough to have a true passion for your work, then something like this can work.

For the rest of us, stuck at work so we can afford the things in life we have true passion for, this would never work. 40 hours a week is already too much, and most of us have to work more than that.
 
Commander Shepard said:
I remember putting in 80+ hours/week at various startups during the internet boom (bubble). It was fun working crazy hours, playing Diablo at 2am, then repeating the cycle, but the money is what motivated me. I only worked on contract-basis, so was paid for every hour. $45 - $60 per hour made it very easy to put in all that extra time.
Click to expand...

But this is the key, you LIKED it. When you're doing something you like it's easy to lose track of time.
 
Hi All

As much as I like my job there is no way I'd work those hours. Wife and Kids are very important to me, so I need time to spend with them.
 
MotionBlur said:
If you're doing what you love then that's cool and all, but once you get a significant other + kids I just can't see that being healthy for them. I typically work 60-65 hours a week + taking 2 masters classes and I have virtually no time left for side programming projects or spending time with my wife. Can't imagine 130 work weeks.
Click to expand...

You REALLY have to love what you're doing. Even if you do, 130 hours a week, it will grind you down. Personally, if I can do 130 hours a week and make millions, I'd do it short term and cash out after a bank what I feel is enough to live and and to make wise investments.
 
130 hours a week suggests something more like being on call during waking hours when outside of the office, not constantly doing productive work. IOW, what's expected of a CEO. Good for her though. She's getting a platinum parachute for essentially doing nothing to improve Yahoo's worth.
 
Last edited:
I'd put in 130 hours/week if that's what it took to figure out the dynamics of Transparent Aluminum's matrix. Once completed, I'd be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
 
Probleminfected said:
I do 80hr work weeks and it's terrible.

130 impossible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you'd think that even if you love it, you'd burn out in a hurry.


130 hours a week is 18 hours and 34 minutes a day (including weekends) on average.

That means if you do NOTHING ELSE you are only getting 5 hours and 26 minutes of sleep per night, on average.

That does not result in a healthy, effective lifestyle, or productive work even if you love what you do.
 
pxc said:
130 hours a week suggests something more like being on call during waking hours when outside of the office, not constantly doing productive work. IOW, what's expected of a CEO. Good for her though. She's getting a platinum parachute for essentially doing nothing to improve Yahoo's worth.
Click to expand...

If she is counting on call hours while she does anything other than work, she is being disingenuous. That's not a 130hour work week. Only count the hours you actually spend working. And no, time at the golf course with your executive friends does not count either.
 
Even if you love whatever it is you are doing for 130 hours a week, I'm skeptical you can keep any sort of performance level with that amount of hours. At some point, productivity is going to plummet.
 
Only thing I'm willing to do for that many hours a week is breathe, basically. :)
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, you'd think that even if you love it, you'd burn out in a hurry.


130 hours a week is 18 hours and 34 minutes a day (including weekends) on average.

That means if you do NOTHING ELSE you are only getting 5 hours and 26 minutes of sleep per night, on average.

That does not result in a healthy, effective lifestyle, or productive work even if you love what you do.
Click to expand...

I agree, and if someone wants to claim 130 hours a week of work, then the 5 hours and 26 minutes is everything else, of which sleep is just a part. Take the 5 and 26 then subtract eating and a shower and you are less than 5, maybe more like 4 or 4 1/2 hours or so for sleep. Unless of course the 130 hours thing is a load or crap.
 
I'm not sure how it is at google but the most common jobs that "work" these crazy hours are investment bankers and lawyers and most of their time is spent waiting around so it sucks but not as stressful as you might think. Other jobs that require an actual 130 hours of productive work being done a week is completely insane and much harder to do. I worked about 100hrs a week right when I got out of college because the money was good and I think everyone young should try to do it if they are getting paid well for it.

If you save $100,000 by the time you're 25, compounded at 8% for 40 years, = $2.17m dollars. That's assuming you don't even put anymore money into the account.
 
There is research that shows that the more hours you work the less productive you are and at some point you actually stop being productive at all. I read that in one study managers could not effectively tell the difference between someone working 80 hours a week and those who lied about it. I can understand working more than 40 - say, maybe 60 or so when needed - but after a certain point you just get too burned out to focus and your productivity is worse. I've experienced this myself. I work at home and my office is the same room where all the gaming PCs are so I often will find myself working random hours outside of the typical 9-5, and past a certain point every week I just get too burned out to focus on tasks effectively.

My guess is "working" 130 hours a week didn't actually happen, much like the Japanese salaryman lifestyle where people stay at the office until 10-11pm because it's a social taboo to leave early. But they aren't actually working.
 
I think it would be best to ask Marissa's children when they are of age how a 130 hour per week work schedule affects the family. Regardless if it is the mother or father, you become effectively a genetic and financial donor rather than a family member.
 
I use to do 120 hours a week, for weeks if not months on end, I sure didn't make what she was though, money was good for me however, and I would do it again. For the time and money she was making, I am sure most people would think about it, sure 3-5 years of nothing but work, however in that time you would have made more than what most make in their life, after that you could put everything else aside and do whatever you want, pretty fair trade off if you ask me. At the time my 120 hours was also not office work, but pipeline, your meal consisted of Twinkies and a red bull and 5mins sleep here and there in the truck, it was very rare you went to the hotel for those hours and got solid sleep.

So yeah, 5 years of no life in trade for a few hundred million? Sign me up.
 
Of that 130 hours a week only 60 hours of it were actually productive. Being at work on the clock vs actually doing work @ work is a big difference. This is dumb and Yahoo definitely isn't showing any benefit from this so she's obviously failing.
 
Seventyfive said:
I'm not sure how it is at google but the most common jobs that "work" these crazy hours are investment bankers and lawyers and most of their time is spent waiting around so it sucks but not as stressful as you might think. Other jobs that require an actual 130 hours of productive work being done a week is completely insane and much harder to do. I worked about 100hrs a week right when I got out of college because the money was good and I think everyone young should try to do it if they are getting paid well for it.

If you save $100,000 by the time you're 25, compounded at 8% for 40 years, = $2.17m dollars. That's assuming you don't even put anymore money into the account.
Click to expand...


Or you could just pull $5k a year, and give yourself a 3% every year for life, and just live in a trash can for $400 a month. Never work again.
 
I am at a point in my life where my friends are still in college and we enjoy having fun. I can't fathom having to work non-stop no matter how much money I made. After 30 once my life has settled down and everyone has begun to raise their own families and have less free time on their hands? Sure, I'll do it once I am alone and I have nothing better to do.
 
The most I ever worked in a week is 124 hours. Once the shutdowns at the plant were over I took 3 days straight off to recuperate. No one can do work like that on a continual basis unless they were able to eat and sleep on the job while still getting paid.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That means if you do NOTHING ELSE you are only getting 5 hours and 26 minutes of sleep per night, on average.
Click to expand...

That's more then I get on Weekdays. :/

Kind of highlights that salaried employees basically have no worker protections. Boss says work 100+ hours, you work that many. Period.
 
I think this speaks to why Marissa could not turn Yahoo around. Simply working hard 130 hours (or whatever) a week on something does not make a successful business. You have to be working hard on things that actually make money.

I have seen this fallacy in the tech culture a lot. Last week my sister was talking to some guy at a bar who worked at a startup to make wireless signals better for people who own 5+ bedroom houses (it's what the guy said). I am not sure why they thought people would pay a bunch of money for some special device when you could simply have a second access point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top