Meetings can be incredibly useful (at least until we invent telepathy), but only if they're run well and held sparingly. Otherwise they turn into an easy way to look busy.
As you suggest, efficient meetings aren't really possible when people are overworked. Even one-on-one conversations can fall apart when sleep deprived. I've had work-related conversations at the end of an overly long 8h day where neither one of us could form coherent sentences about the code we were discussing. In an ideal world, we would have left work two hours prior.
This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project).
I'll agree with you in general on this one (though perhaps then you should be happy with s 'standard job' salary), but disagree with OP.
This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project).
Not quite; it's more like "most people aren't effective for more than four single-task focused hours per day, myself included, so everybody should be able to 'work' fewer hours."
Working on a side project might use a different part of the brain or a different sort of willpower reserve, so it's entirely possible that someone will fall asleep after four hours of actual work, but could then go home and spend another two hours on something completely different.
I agree that not every hour is super productive, but not that 4 hours is 'normal' as said above. Nor that you could be 100% productive in a 4 hour job timeslot. There's also productivity losses if you have 2 people working on a project half the time rather than 1. I agree people should probably work less and have more time for their own projects but there is nothing normal about this in other professions apart from the odd artist who may well hover around the poverty line.
When we're talking about programming/system engineering etc, there's the part where you might spend 4 hours doing "measurable" work -- ie: producing artefacts. Be that designs, code, documentation -- and in your "free time" your brain is still working on the problems in the background. I think part of the idea is that (to paraphrase Greenspun[1]) there's no point in keeping people from having fun while they're thinking.
Like the new head of our CS department said: he doesn't really care if his professors spend most of their time in the office or at a cafe -- as long as they're comming up with new ideas and do research (the institute has a very high rate of publication for its size).
This is great. Just that its the rare position of the privelliged profession where staff are in demand (more jobs than workers). It doesn't fly for Architects, Engineers, industrial designers etc who have a similar creativity requirement but have more workers than jobs...
