互聯網公司大多都是open的，更多的是彈性工作時間。
但是，對于一些創業觀念比較老舊的老板來說，似乎996的工作時間才是拿融資，謀發展的唯一途徑。
沒有歧視和地域社彩，但是個人覺得北京中關村的創業公司加班更嚴重，換句話說強制996的互聯網公司更多。
一直困擾我的問題就是強制加班與工作效率的問題，今天就與諸位分享，不足之處請指正。
1 創業公司的程序員自主性很高 對于創業公司的software engineering來說，自主性都很高。都是想做出一點成績，都是在盡量向大公司出品app的效果、性能看齊。所以，如果手中的活沒干完，大部分創業公司的程序員會選擇自動加班，會晚走一兩個小時， 甚至偶爾加班到半夜。這是自愿的，也許公司就為他付出一頓晚餐的代價。
2 強制加班導致效率低下 但是不得不說，強制加班肯定會導致效率低下。這是人性的普遍心理，大家都知道，不管我早干完還是晚干完，都是要熬到21點下班。強制996的工作時間會嚴重影響程序員的日常生活，沒有健身的時間，沒有跟朋友聚會的時間，沒有陪老婆孩子的時間。時間久了，導致程序員越來越自閉，說話越來越少，心情也越來越差。
每天晚上21點下班，到家后幾乎都是0點之后入睡，第二天的狀態不可能好。所以出現了一個特普遍的現象，程序員上午幾乎不干活的，看看新聞，刷刷微博。。。
強制嚴重的拖延癥，反正老板也不提倡早下班，為什么還要著急把事情趕緊做好？到了公司大可以先看一圈娛樂新聞，然后去走廊抽根煙，泡杯咖啡，和同事們湊在一起背后分享點狗血八卦，時間倒也過得飛快。轉眼到了晚上八九點，回頭看看自己真正做的事其實屈指可數，當然這也不妨礙到了10點的時候來一張自拍照發到朋友圈來一句“累并快樂著”。看似什么都沒做還得到了老板的認可，實則是在消耗自己的生命。
3 溝通方式導致效率低下 互聯網時代的工作方式絕對不再是QQ、微信、郵件，市場上很多好用的工作協同軟件，比如牛逼的slack。但是很多守舊的創業者還沒意識到，以員工學習成本大為緣由，繼續使用著qq、微信。 這樣有什么后果呢？ 每天你都會聽到，上次你發的文件再給我發一遍唄，最新的客戶端在哪，把圖片再發給我一遍。。。。。。
看看Slack為什么會如此受歡迎？
你可以得到兩方面的實惠。其一是透明度的增加：你可以看到別人正在做什么，沒有必要一大早開公司例會；你不再需要類似階段性報告的文件了。它還支持跨部門合作，工程師們可以看到設計師們的工作，技術團隊也可以看到客戶服務是如何處理。你所要做的僅僅是從其他頻道的數據流上輕輕滑動手指。
第二點是公司內所有進行著的通訊表現為數字化的知識體系。在大多數系統中，知識基于郵件且零碎分散，就好比每個人都有自己的特點。但你將這些提供給他人時，他們在現在以及將來都會受益。所以當某人不管什么時候加入進來時，他的收件箱都不會是空的。曾做出的每個決定，進行的討論，每次某人提起的資源、公司或組織機構，任何時候任何人分享的鏈接、交換的文件，所有的這些都是可以搜索到的，你要做的僅僅是回看而已。這是非常有意義的。
4 開發方式導致效率低下 這個應該是很少見的吧，但是我遇到了。 說說這個開發團隊吧，三個服務器，一個iOS，一個Android，一個產品經理。 老板有什么問題，需求跟產品經理講，然后產品經理跟工程師講做什么，需求是什么。 接下來，你總會聽到產品經理問程序員，開發這個功能需要多久？我敢保證，即使一天可以完成的任務，你會說需要兩天，更有人會說需要一個星期。
為什么會這樣？ 老板說我們創業公司，要打造一個自主性特別高的團隊，所以不需要技術總監分配任務之類的。 但是，程序員中的老司機會把老板和產品忽悠的團團轉。
Developers should not be allowed to work overtime 以下是一老外寫的文章，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.新聞熱點
疑難解答
