中关村程序员的996强制加班与工作效率

互联网公司大多都是open的，更多的是弹性工作时间。

但是，对于一些创业观念比较老旧的老板来说，似乎996的工作时间才是拿融资，谋发展的唯一途径。

没有歧视和地域社彩，但是个人觉得北京中关村的创业公司加班更严重，换句话说强制996的互联网公司更多。

一直困扰我的问题就是强制加班与工作效率的问题，今天就与诸位分享，不足之处请指正。

1 创业公司的程序员自主性很高

对于创业公司的software engineering来说，自主性都很高。都是想做出一点成绩，都是在尽量向大公司出品app的效果、性能看齐。所以，如果手中的活没干完，大部分创业公司的程序员会选择自动加班，会晚走一两个小时， 甚至偶尔加班到半夜。这是自愿的，也许公司就为他付出一顿晚餐的代价。

2 强制加班导致效率低下

但是不得不说，强制加班肯定会导致效率低下。这是人性的普遍心理，大家都知道，不管我早干完还是晚干完，都是要熬到21点下班。强制996的工作时间会严重影响程序员的日常生活，没有健身的时间，没有跟朋友聚会的时间，没有陪老婆孩子的时间。时间久了，导致程序员越来越自闭，说话越来越少，心情也越来越差。

每天晚上21点下班，到家后几乎都是0点之后入睡，第二天的状态不可能好。所以出现了一个特普遍的现象，程序员上午几乎不干活的，看看新闻，刷刷微博。。。

强制严重的拖延症，反正老板也不提倡早下班，为什么还要着急把事情赶紧做好？到了公司大可以先看一圈娱乐新闻，然后去走廊抽根烟，泡杯咖啡，和同事们凑在一起背后分享点狗血八卦，时间倒也过得飞快。转眼到了晚上八九点，回头看看自己真正做的事其实屈指可数，当然这也不妨碍到了10点的时候来一张自拍照发到朋友圈来一句“累并快乐着”。看似什么都没做还得到了老板的认可，实则是在消耗自己的生命。

3 沟通方式导致效率低下

互联网时代的工作方式绝对不再是qq、微信、邮件，市场上很多好用的工作协同软件，比如牛逼的slack。但是很多守旧的创业者还没意识到，以员工学习成本大为缘由，继续使用着qq、微信。

这样有什么后果呢？

每天你都会听到，上次你发的文件再给我发一遍呗，最新的客户端在哪，把图片再发给我一遍。。。。。。

看看Slack为什么会如此受欢迎？

你可以得到两方面的实惠。其一是透明度的增加：你可以看到别人正在做什么，没有必要一大早开公司例会；你不再需要类似阶段性报告的文件了。它还支持跨部门合作，工程师们可以看到设计师们的工作，技术团队也可以看到客户服务是如何处理。你所要做的仅仅是从其他频道的数据流上轻轻滑动手指。

第二点是公司内所有进行着的通讯表现为数字化的知识体系。在大多数系统中，知识基于邮件且零碎分散，就好比每个人都有自己的特点。但你将这些提供给他人时，他们在现在以及将来都会受益。所以当某人不管什么时候加入进来时，他的收件箱都不会是空的。曾做出的每个决定，进行的讨论，每次某人提起的资源、公司或组织机构，任何时候任何人分享的链接、交换的文件，所有的这些都是可以搜索到的，你要做的仅仅是回看而已。这是非常有意义的。

4 开发方式导致效率低下

这个应该是很少见的吧，但是我遇到了。

说说这个开发团队吧，三个服务器，一个iOS，一个Android，一个产品经理。

老板有什么问题，需求跟产品经理讲，然后产品经理跟工程师讲做什么，需求是什么。

接下来，你总会听到产品经理问程序员，开发这个功能需要多久？我敢保证，即使一天可以完成的任务，你会说需要两天，更有人会说需要一个星期。

为什么会这样？

老板说我们创业公司，要打造一个自主性特别高的团队，所以不需要技术总监分配任务之类的。

但是，程序员中的老司机会把老板和产品忽悠的团团转。

Developers should not be allowed to work overtime

以下是一老外写的文章，很好：

I have a very simple tip for software companies and engineering managers who want to make their developers happier and more productive (and less likely to produce buggy code). Forbid overtime.I give this advice based primarily on what I've observed personally (and anecdotally via friends in the industry). What I've witnessed is that people who are flogged like mules either burn out, quit their jobs unexpectedly, or (worse) stay with the company, carrying a new, sour attitude.Conversely, I've seen that developers who are encouraged to go home at quitting time tend to do a better overall job, because they know what's expected of them (i.e., finish what you're doing by 5:00) and come to work in the morning well-rested (or at least with a reasonably positive outlook compared to their counterparts at other companies who are doing 60- or 80-hour weeks).People who know they have to leave at 5:00 (or 6:00, etc.) tend to go to extra lengths to finish whatever it is they were working on before the clock runs out. They ramp up their productivity as necessary to get work done in the time allotted. This is what you want.Productive employees become more productive when they have to work within time constraints, because they learn time-management skills they wouldn't otherwise learn. That sounds like a tautology, but it's true.It works in reverse as well. You find out quickly who your less-productive people are when they're under time constraints. This is valuable info if you're a manager.The no-overtime rule tends to enforce good project-management discipline. People become realistic about how much progress can be achieved in a given length of time and set milestone dates accordingly. If delivery goals aren't met, new dates are set (assuming there's a firm no-overtime rule) and project managers assume responsibility for the initial misjudgment. (Of course, the project managers get their time estimates from the various engineering managers, so the responsibility for missing a goal actually gets cascaded down through management.)Without a no-overtime rule, people are expected to adjust their work day as needed in order to meet milestones, and failure to meet the goal is blamed on employees rather than management (because the underlying assumption is that if you put in enough hours, you could have made the goal). Putting the onus for lateness on regular employees rather than managers only demoralizes workers and makes them less apt to deliver on future deadlines. The right thing to do (the productive thing to do, in the long run) is let managers bear responsibility for lateness -- as they should.When I see or hear tales of people sleeping under their desk and drinking energy drinks while they bang out code at 2:00 in the morning, I know that the company in question is poorly run and will ultimately suffer (in any number of possible ways) for making (or letting) people work crazy shifts. "But," you may be saying, "what if people are putting in those hours because they truly want to?" In my experience, people with families like to be with their families. Some people take classes at night (or need to change a baby's diapers in the middle of the night), or have ailing relatives to take care of, or have any number of other outside responsibilities. Working till dawn is not an option for some people, and in my experience most people do not choose it voluntarily. There are exceptions, of course (such as with short-staffed entrepreneurs who are trying to bootstrap a new business), but as a general rule, working till 2:00 or sleeping under your desk not only reflects bad company policy but poor personal judgment as well. (Again, though, if you're a founder of a new business, you do what you have to do. But if you know what's good for you, you won't make others work that way.)I'm sure there are some who would say that in these troubled economic times, special measures are called for. Many companies, after all, are fighting for their very lives right now. Surely workers should expect to work overtime some of the time, until the economic storm passes?To which I say: If your situation is so desperate that you think making people work a few extra hours is going to save the company, you're in more trouble than you think. Way more.