"...I have never put in hours just for the sake of putting in hours, which I think many people do. I have always been results oriented, which is why I think I will enjoy entrepreneurship. When I did engineering work, I hated having to stay around for 40 hours a week even if I could do all the work of a *normal* employee in about 25. From a results perspective I should be able to go home and still get the same pay, but that just doesn't fly..."
I really like the way Rob thinks - he is a smart guy!
Back in June 2001 (issue 47) Seth Godin wrote an article in Fast Company - "There is no correlation at all between success and hours worked."
"It's an old saw, but it's still true in the new economy: Work expands to fill the time allotted for it. If you allot 12 hours to work every day, you'll spend 12 hours. But are you going to make more decisions? Better decisions?"
There is also a good recent post on FCNow - Dissembling the Schedule - Charless Buffett asks:
The question I pose to them is: Instead of working for a week or a month & then get our remuneration, what if we worked for 2, 3, 6 months & earned enough income to last the rest of the year, next year, 3 years?
Most interesting - as are the comments on the post...
In my book 'The Cash Register Principle', I suggest that the typical 40 hour (or more) work week doesn't work for everyone and employers should think about how they are compensating people.
Measure (and reward) output, not hours - What’s more important to you, the output of your employees or the hours they spend at their desk? I know that is a stupid question. Of course you care more about the output. But what do you pay them for? You pay them for “the old 9-5”.
So, how about you? Are you compensated for the hours that you work or the results you produce?