Completely agree. I'm far more efficient working about 5-6 hours a day with breaks whenever I'm feeling mentally stretched (fortunately, I'm given leeway to work however I want).
Rather split my pay-check with another person (which fights unemployment too) than working more than 8 hours a day. Life is short, I don't want to spend my youth working, I want too enjoy life. I have no interest in making a lot of money if I don't have time to spend it...
You're devaluing money and thereby self-sabotaging yourself. Work hard, make money, and then make your money work for you so you never have to work another day in your life (if that's what you want). Don't make excuses for why you don't want money.
CosmicF I'm not sure how you would call it devaluing money. Money is just another way to buy or own another tangible object. There are more purpose and value in life than collecting money for your "future" self. IMHO Experience and gaining knowledge are much more meaningful rather than having a lot of money.
shukry sharby Well in fact, you're doing it too. Money buys so much more than tangible objects. Money makes the world go round. Money provides ability for change. Feed people. Clothe people. Cure people. Train people. Take care of loved ones. It's very close-minded to think of money as only being about providing YOU with nice things. Earn money, makes LOTS of it, and at least have the option of doing any of the above. To take any other attitude towards money is the number one way to ensure you'll never have much of it.
Thanks, I really appreciated your perspective. I'm not sure why we're so locked into the 9-5 40 pattern except everyone else is. i work at night and am fortunate enough to have some flexability, but i think I could do better work if we negotiated about time vs objectives and when those needed to be accomplished rather than a set schedule.
Completely agree with the flexible approach to working, the good news is that over the last 2 to 3 years more and more companies are starting to understand the philosophy behind a flexible more motivated workforce. We have noticed more and more people using our website for this exact purpose. Great post!!
There is a huge culture problem. When you enter a company where people usually work 60h a week, even if your contract is 44...you still feel the pressure to put in the extra hours. Because people see being in the office = working.
From what I can find about Martina Horner's study, she used the male experience as a benchmark for success. Misogyny much? And she was looking only at how women are affected, ignoring men's experiences, because...well men don't have any issues do they? So misandry too. Well done! Whereas the men in the study were more likely to provide a narrative free of internal conflict, can we not consider that to be a result of the male gender role being so firmly ingrained that they can't consider any alternative than to seek to define themselves though a career? Is that really what we want for women too, or should researchers examine the downsides to the male experience rather than use it as a template into which women are pressed? And why is 'misandry' still not in the spell checker?
It's nothing new. The problem with that are the companies themselves. If her method is applied, productivity as a whole will decrease as well as competitiveness. I don't think that's something many companies are willing to risk, I.e., Apple, Amazon, etc. it may work for smaller ones including non-profit organizations - which are already mostly populated by women, anyway. So, it's not for most, at least.
Pure nonsense. I know that's flippant, but her comments are naive and Pollyannaish. The reality is that for highly complex, demanding positions, there are literally not enough hours in the day to form strategy, to think about/analyze problems, to meet with people inside and outside the company, to make the right hires, to study the competition, to consider the larger picture while minding details, etc. Even delegation takes time. That means everything else being equal, the person working 100 hrs/week gets more things done than the person working 80 hrs/week and so on. Of course, beyond a certain limit, say 100 hrs/week, the productivity declines offset the increased hours. Nonetheless, time put in makes a difference. Those who refuse to play the game will find themselves lagging behind their competitors. While some able candidates will be discouraged by the rigorous schedule required of lucrative CEO positions, they are a small percentage of the pool of ambitious, qualified people who are willing to make such sacrifices. A tech company that allows its female CEO to work 50-60 hrs/week so that she can have a more fulfilling, self-realized life will find itself obsolete. That is the reality of the situation. No matter how much we wish upon a star things could be otherwise.
Interesting idea. Though you'd have to really change the landscape of business. Hourly wages would have to be traded for salary, etc... I think the hardest obstacle however would be confronting the exponential growth business model that's created the current economic landscape. I don't see massive commercial entities meshing very with such an idea. I could be wrong though. Maybe it's the opposite and such monolithic companies and corporations are the only ones capable of sustaining such an approach? Idk. Really enjoyed the ideas present. A good video.
I like the idea that it's not about how many hours you work but how much time, talent, and energy it takes to complete a given task. However, that approach neglects one very important point. Modern America is a service-based economy far more than product-based. Thus, any such business' success isn't about completing this or that task. It's about maximizing personnel availability, and that requires "man hours". Also, all her talk of people who, "...want to work three months a year...four days a week...six hours a day," forgets an important logistical point. In order for any person to survive, one must generate enough revenue while working to cover the down time (or live on some form of welfare, but that's a different conversation). Let's say a product-based company has four three-month teams, each of which produces a year's worth of revenue. On paper, that should generate immense profit for the company, BUT in order for every employee to survive the whole year, the company must provide a year's worth of income and benefits to each worker. Thus, even if (as she claims) those employees are ultimately more productive than their full-time counterparts, unless the difference is consistently significant, most of the profit disappears in the form of payroll. Certainly the employees could say they are successful because they can live comfortably while still having all that free time, but the company's overall success will be ultimately no greater than most others. In this MORE, MORE, MORE society, the ideals she puts forth only work if employers and/or workers are all content to have merely ENOUGH. I love the idea of living minimally, but most businesses (and people for that matter) don't equate success with just getting by.
As a woman I want success in my chosen profession. I want to be and do the best I can at my job. Women are intelligent, commited and ambitious. We want a career that takes us to the next level, absolutely! Don't underestimate the female agenda! Big Mistake!
Interesting perspective from the point of view of an employer, but I can tell you that from the perspective of an entrepreneur, this will never work. If you're happy to work for the man, or climb the corporate ladder, then good luck to you with finding this balance. But if you want to create your own empire, I can assure you you'll never get anywhere with this advice. You need to put in 100hr weeks running at maximum efficiency or you'll fail, simple fact. As an employer now, I see the value in this thinking for my advantage, but I never would have made it to were I am now if I didn't sacrifice the things I did. 35/M/Single.
Completely agree. I'm far more efficient working about 5-6 hours a day with breaks whenever I'm feeling mentally stretched (fortunately, I'm given leeway to work however I want).
Rather split my pay-check with another person (which fights unemployment too) than working more than 8 hours a day. Life is short, I don't want to spend my youth working, I want too enjoy life. I have no interest in making a lot of money if I don't have time to spend it...
You're devaluing money and thereby self-sabotaging yourself. Work hard, make money, and then make your money work for you so you never have to work another day in your life (if that's what you want). Don't make excuses for why you don't want money.
CosmicF I'm not sure how you would call it devaluing money. Money is just another way to buy or own another tangible object. There are more purpose and value in life than collecting money for your "future" self. IMHO Experience and gaining knowledge are much more meaningful rather than having a lot of money.
shukry sharby Well in fact, you're doing it too. Money buys so much more than tangible objects. Money makes the world go round. Money provides ability for change. Feed people. Clothe people. Cure people. Train people. Take care of loved ones. It's very close-minded to think of money as only being about providing YOU with nice things. Earn money, makes LOTS of it, and at least have the option of doing any of the above. To take any other attitude towards money is the number one way to ensure you'll never have much of it.
Thanks, I really appreciated your perspective. I'm not sure why we're so locked into the 9-5 40 pattern except everyone else is. i work at night and am fortunate enough to have some flexability, but i think I could do better work if we negotiated about time vs objectives and when those needed to be accomplished rather than a set schedule.
Completely agree with the flexible approach to working, the good news is that over the last 2 to 3 years more and more companies are starting to understand the philosophy behind a flexible more motivated workforce.
We have noticed more and more people using our website for this exact purpose.
Great post!!
I'm glad she mentioned men and didn't focus just on women.
Yeah. Its a nice break from all the man bashing you see in the media everyday.
Im inclined to think that most people work the long hours, for the money.
There is a huge culture problem. When you enter a company where people usually work 60h a week, even if your contract is 44...you still feel the pressure to put in the extra hours. Because people see being in the office = working.
I think differences in direct and relational aggression are more the root of societies structures than women's fear.
From what I can find about Martina Horner's study, she used the male experience as a benchmark for success. Misogyny much? And she was looking only at how women are affected, ignoring men's experiences, because...well men don't have any issues do they? So misandry too. Well done!
Whereas the men in the study were more likely to provide a narrative free of internal conflict, can we not consider that to be a result of the male gender role being so firmly ingrained that they can't consider any alternative than to seek to define themselves though a career? Is that really what we want for women too, or should researchers examine the downsides to the male experience rather than use it as a template into which women are pressed?
And why is 'misandry' still not in the spell checker?
great talk
And do you compensate based on number of hours worked, by output, all the same no matter how many hours worked???
It's nothing new. The problem with that are the companies themselves. If her method is applied, productivity as a whole will decrease as well as competitiveness. I don't think that's something many companies are willing to risk, I.e., Apple, Amazon, etc. it may work for smaller ones including non-profit organizations - which are already mostly populated by women, anyway. So, it's not for most, at least.
Pure nonsense. I know that's flippant, but her comments are naive and Pollyannaish. The reality is that for highly complex, demanding positions, there are literally not enough hours in the day to form strategy, to think about/analyze problems, to meet with people inside and outside the company, to make the right hires, to study the competition, to consider the larger picture while minding details, etc. Even delegation takes time. That means everything else being equal, the person working 100 hrs/week gets more things done than the person working 80 hrs/week and so on. Of course, beyond a certain limit, say 100 hrs/week, the productivity declines offset the increased hours. Nonetheless, time put in makes a difference. Those who refuse to play the game will find themselves lagging behind their competitors.
While some able candidates will be discouraged by the rigorous schedule required of lucrative CEO positions, they are a small percentage of the pool of ambitious, qualified people who are willing to make such sacrifices. A tech company that allows its female CEO to work 50-60 hrs/week so that she can have a more fulfilling, self-realized life will find itself obsolete. That is the reality of the situation. No matter how much we wish upon a star things could be otherwise.
I don't care how much money you make. If you work more than 80 hours per week, you're not successful in my opinion.
Corporate America just needs to slow the fuck down.
Interesting idea. Though you'd have to really change the landscape of business. Hourly wages would have to be traded for salary, etc... I think the hardest obstacle however would be confronting the exponential growth business model that's created the current economic landscape. I don't see massive commercial entities meshing very with such an idea. I could be wrong though. Maybe it's the opposite and such monolithic companies and corporations are the only ones capable of sustaining such an approach? Idk. Really enjoyed the ideas present. A good video.
I like the idea that it's not about how many hours you work but how much time, talent, and energy it takes to complete a given task. However, that approach neglects one very important point. Modern America is a service-based economy far more than product-based. Thus, any such business' success isn't about completing this or that task. It's about maximizing personnel availability, and that requires "man hours".
Also, all her talk of people who, "...want to work three months a year...four days a week...six hours a day," forgets an important logistical point. In order for any person to survive, one must generate enough revenue while working to cover the down time (or live on some form of welfare, but that's a different conversation).
Let's say a product-based company has four three-month teams, each of which produces a year's worth of revenue. On paper, that should generate immense profit for the company, BUT in order for every employee to survive the whole year, the company must provide a year's worth of income and benefits to each worker. Thus, even if (as she claims) those employees are ultimately more productive than their full-time counterparts, unless the difference is consistently significant, most of the profit disappears in the form of payroll.
Certainly the employees could say they are successful because they can live comfortably while still having all that free time, but the company's overall success will be ultimately no greater than most others. In this MORE, MORE, MORE society, the ideals she puts forth only work if employers and/or workers are all content to have merely ENOUGH. I love the idea of living minimally, but most businesses (and people for that matter) don't equate success with just getting by.
As a woman I want success in my chosen profession. I want to be and do the best I can at my job. Women are intelligent, commited and ambitious. We want a career that takes us to the next level, absolutely! Don't underestimate the female agenda! Big Mistake!
Why are you bringing feminism into this?
Feminism? If saying what I feel is feminism then, how can I not? I don't remember what I spouted forth but I'm sticking to it!
Get over yourself, women aren't THAT great.
Interesting perspective from the point of view of an employer, but I can tell you that from the perspective of an entrepreneur, this will never work. If you're happy to work for the man, or climb the corporate ladder, then good luck to you with finding this balance. But if you want to create your own empire, I can assure you you'll never get anywhere with this advice. You need to put in 100hr weeks running at maximum efficiency or you'll fail, simple fact. As an employer now, I see the value in this thinking for my advantage, but I never would have made it to were I am now if I didn't sacrifice the things I did. 35/M/Single.
She spells her name like me! :)
she looks little like tom cruise doesn't she?
Take fucking notes feminists.
So woman will lead if it's not hard work? Ok...
First ?
I think she lost me!
Ugh, "success".