Getting a New Hire to Work More

Focus on Results/Value Instead of Hours

Instead of focusing on the hours worked, I would strongly suggest judging the employee on the value that he is delivering. Since you're happy with his work, you can have a relatively positive discussion with him about how you would like him to take on more work/responsibility and make a bigger impact within the company. If you can clearly set expectations for the results he needs to deliver, then it shouldn't matter if he works forty, fifty or sixty hours. You should be able to say "We're getting enough value/results from this person."

A good book on this subject is the Results Oriented Work Environment (R.O.W.E.) which has gotten some very positive reviews. It's about compensating people for the actual results they provide while simultaneously giving them much greater freedom to structure their work life. The link (above) is to a BusinessWeek article providing a good introduction of how it was created and later implemented at Best Buy. (*Note: I have no affiliation with ROWE or its creators... I just found it to be a darn good concept for treating employees like adults and having employees be truly responsible for delivering real value.*)

Regardless of whether sixty hours a week is normal or legal, you've already seen that this employee isn't naturally geared up for such hours. Give him a chance to do more, but don't be shocked if he doesn't step things up to your satisfaction. At best, you can inspire him to meet your expectations of delivering the results you need in order to help make you company successful.

Good answers all around, but I feel one aspect deserves more attention:

Get it under your skin that employee != founder.

• Founders have a rich set of emotions to draw strength from, they are energized by their own vision of the company's future, and by their social standing as entrepreneurs in society.
• Founders share richly in the future profits of the company, which makes it rational to work like a slave for a few years, in the hope maybe of never being forced to work again.

Employees have none of the above. Employees treasure a good working environment, and are happy to get exciting work tasks -- but at the end of the day they work to live, not the other way around.

(There are exceptions, of course, I know. But as a rule it's pretty much correct. Sometimes the employee has a large stock options pool and the market appears virgin. Some employees are simply so energized that they behave as founders (treasure them).)

OP did not mention anything about this person's stock options / equity compensation. I'm harsh here, but if this person doesn't have equity, then what OP is doing is simply exploitation. If this person does have some ownership, then what OP is doing can be ethically fine, but it can still be counter-productive in practice for the reasons given by others.

We don't want to treat our employees like, well...employees.

That is unavoidable. If you have decision power over another person's sole income, then you're his boss (in commercial life). You may not be aware of this, but he will have it in the back of his mind.

You shouldn't treat your employees as 'just employees' -- but you should treat them as respected employees in a great company with competent, enlightened leadership.

We don't want to have a corporate boss-employee dynamic

You have it already, for the same reason as above, it will always be on the employees mind. To highlight your options by drawing up the extremes, you can choose on a spectrum between:

• you can be a bad, insecure boss by being an amateur with regards to management responsibilities, and zig-zagging in your daily management.
• or you can be a good boss, by taking care of your responsibilities, and having open and clear dialogue with your employee about his work.

HTH, and all the best!

You say he's not working enough hours. Why is 60 hours enough? Why not 70 hours? Why not 80 hours? Why not 100? How many hours are your working? Let's say you work N hours a week. How would you like it if I told you that N hours a week is not enough? I expect you to work N + 10 hours! Stop expecting employees to be your slave. If you want to get things done faster hire more people.

Is it legal where you are to ask for so many hours? If you are in the USA you could get into lots of trouble, since it has been determined time and time again that programmers are not exempt employees (they are not management, basically, and so the employer cannot pay them only their fixed salary without overtime) and so they are due overtime if they work over 40 hours a week. I used to work for a company where this happened, so I know for a fact that in the US, you can get sued retroactively by programmers you ask to work over 40 hours per week. Some lawyers would argue that it does not apply to employees making over $X amount per month, but I saw a highly paid programmer successfully sue the company after he left. This guy was, in my opinion, out to make money, since nobody forced him to stay longer, he just did. It seems that you, as an employer, have to literally ask people to leave the building at the point they would start working overtime, lest you expose yourself to a leech like this guy.

Setting the legalities aside, if I were you I would ask for deliverables every week instead of a set amount of hours. I cannot imagine something more demoralizing than being required to work so much. I'd think that, even tough you had an agreement beforehand, you are setting your employee up to leave at the first chance he gets.

EDIT: Here is something that talks about the employee/consultant divide in good depth: (from http://medicine.johnstrogerhospital.org/irb/irs.html)

Not so long ago a number of academic institutions allowed investigators to classify persons who were actually employees as "consultants" or "independent contractors" on grant budgets, mostly to save on fringe benefits. But if you employ someone, it doesn't matter what you call them, you still have to pay certain payroll taxes, such as social security and workman's compensation. If you don't, you -- or your institution -- will be liable not only for back taxes owed, but also for IRS penalties. A number of universities found this out the hard way.

Telling the difference between an employee and a consultant is not usually difficult: your instinct is probably right. If you provide the person in question with an office, a computer, a telephone, and other tools of the trade; if you expect this person to show up to work on a schedule you set; if this person doesn't have the option to say no to assignment from you; if this person does not routinely accept assignments to do similar work on other projects, then this person is your employee. You must budget for, and pay, at least the minimum payroll contributions for that person.

If the person in question works out of his/her own office, with tools supplied by him/her; if this person can turn down an assignment from you; if this person sets his/her schedule to do the work on your project; if this person accepts similar assignments from other people, then this person is a consultant or contractor. Payroll contributions are made by this person, or his/her employer, and you need not budget for them.

I agree with much of the above, especially the need to manage the work being done and the responsibility handled, rather than hours.

Also, consider these issues:

1. Sitting at your desk does not equate to working.

   Some of the best problem solving and thinking happens when you are away from work. Seek engagement and results.

2. The best people solve problems faster and get more work done in less hours.

3. The best people also do better work. Period.

4. Staying healthy is a critical "outside of work" job.

5. Think what you can do to make life's errands and such easier so people can spend more time working and enjoying life...

   Laundry service? Car detailing? Daycare? Farm produce subscriptions? Team dinner at the office Monday - Thursday nights? Gym subscriptions/discounts for a gym close to the office? Lunch-time yoga?

I just had to drop a note here to say that you should consider yourself lucky that you've found an employee that values health and balance in life and at that produces good results!

I would say that there is a significant performance drop when you start working that many hours regularly. Add to that the cost when health is giving in.

Find a balance!

I was pretty pleased to see that you got fairly hammered for expecting an employee to work 60 hours a week. Good god, do you really think that is the answer? Work more hours and you'll be more productive?

Good luck, and I'm glad i don't work for you.

Pay more. 50% more hours, on overtime rates, means you'll need to ~ double their salary. You'll also need to increase their holiday time as well to avoid burn-out.

Also, forcing someone to work overtime is illegal in many countries, and immoral everywhere.

And it's quality, not quantity, that counts. You're probably making the false assumption that the amount and quality of work produced in the extra 20 hours will be the same as that in the first 40 hours.

Long-term, you really need another employee to undertake the extra work, if it is indeed really needed.

If you are not deadline-driven (i.e. have a hard launch date for your startup on say Jan 1), then what benefit do you get for having this guy stick around for 20 additional hours? If you do indeed have deadlines and/or milestones, and he is on track to reaching them due to the quality of his work (and not the quantity of the hours), then again, what's the benefit?

I don't know any self-respecting developer who wants to sit around and "look busy" extra hours.

At the Business of Software conference, Ryan Carson was explaining how they worked a 4 day week as they got more done. I believe 37signals do the same. It may sound counter-inituitive but it works in many cases.

Quality not quantity

It should be said that working 60 hours instead of 40 per week doesn't necessarily mean that he will be 50% more productive. But those 20 hours more work time mean 20 hours less recreation time. Some people can tolerate that, some will burnout within a year or two.

Anyone with a "Junior" in their title cannot be expected to put in more than 40 hours. Junior means they don't have enough 0's in their paycheck, or years of experience to warrant that type of crazy performance. My guess: the employee is finishing whatever he can, but is stuck waiting on others, so he figures why stick around an office twiddling his thumbs when he can be out living life.

If you really want face-time, put him on a stock-vesting schedule and bump up his pay by 40-50%. You'll get no sympathy from me, former management/tech consultant who put in 60 hour weeks, without that. I was paid enough to put in those hours; my guess is this guy isn't.

Try offering him a wage for each additional hour worked, say $35 or more. If the new hire is smart they could parlay that into down payment money for a house or pay off student loans.

If you insist on trying to force the person into 60 hours, ask what kind of company are you creating?

If you still want to find a way to get free hours out of him, you will need to find a way to motivate and inspire this person. Otherwise they will slack on the job or quit, and they would probably quit in a very nasty way if they think they are being used.

Regardless of legalities, it's hard to expect anyone (especially someone who is not a stakeholder in the company) to put in these kind of hours on a regular basis. Even if you can force him work 60/hrs per week and he sticks around under these conditions, you will reach a point of diminishing returns for productivity. He will burn out and the quality of your product will suffer greatly.

Can't add much to all the answers above except to give an example. Many years ago I worked for a start up. We had a development team in Shanghai. Almost everyone worked hard and pretty long hours because often we'd have early evening meetings with Shanghai. We were passionate about the company and what we did.

One day we had a company meeting. Our CEO told us we needed to work longer hours. Said maybe some of us should get cots for our offices and periodically spend a night or two using them to work longer. Said we shouldn't expect pats on the back for a job well done, that being in fear of losing our jobs was a better motivator.

That night, EVERYONE in the company left an hour or two earlier than they normally would. And each night past that. He'd had the opposite effect and actually reduced the hours we put in.

I think 1) make a positive work environment getting your team excited about what you're doing 2) focus on what needs to be done and reward him with praise for it, not the number of hours to do it. Make him WANT to work more but be realistic.

'nuf said.

the effort to train a new person from an HR point of view is about 6 months - it would be better off for you to get another person who would put in the same SOLID 40 hours/week that you new hire is doing and then have them compete with one another :)

I'm pretty surprised by a lot of these answers. Simply put, 60 hours a week is not really a lot at a startup, unless it's really a small business, and a fairly mellow one at that. Government agencies work 40-hour weeks, not startups. Almost no one who's a hard-charging professional (consulting, finance, doctors, lawyers, etc.) would be surprised at a 60-hour week. Forty hours is what you put in to collect a paycheck, not to build a company. Now it sounds like this guy is doing a pretty good job otherwise, but consider the impact of his presence on the company culture and the expectations of future hires. Everyone's going to look at him and say, this is a company where I can punch the clock. If a talented, ambitious candidate does want to change the world and really build something new, he's going to take one look at this guy and go somewhere else. The same way we talk about B players hiring C players, an unambitious first employee is going to lead to an increasingly complacent culture.

Having said that, other commenters are right that emphasizing the number of hours worked itself is a losing proposition. It'll just lead to resentment and a culture of face time. But this guy seems like he needs either more demanding milestones or some coaching on how he should be shooting to destroy his goals, not just meet them. If he's the mythical 10X developer who's already crushing it in 40 hours, that's a rare exception - just let him do his thing. Otherwise, the expectation should be that he should be gunning to be a senior developer in a year or two. Make the upside of hard work crystal clear for him. Some employees need a little more help visualizing it than others.

Compensation could also be an issue. If this first employee is expected to go above and beyond, he needs upside, most likely equity upside. Given the "consultant" comment, I'm not sure whether that's the case here.

Also, the congeniality of the culture needs to be balanced with accountability. I'm surprised that a junior first hire has slipped into working less than the owners so quickly and easily. It suggests that accountability is missing. As the owner, you can be nice, but you have to be the boss. Get into the habit of having those difficult conversations early and as often as necessary. Give him his chance to give you feedback as well and focus the discussion on growth, not just on criticism, but have the conversation. You need to take a more active hand in defining the culture.

I do work for 16 hours per day.i.e around 100 hrs per week. But i have much more experience though ! what makes me to work for long hours ...just interest...you need to bring him interst.... believe me, in this world, nothing can be achieved by force except selfinterest...

Why don't you point out that there is a reason you are paying him 1.5 times as much as he could get working 40 hours someplace else. [You are compensating him for working an extra 20 hours a week right?] If his natural tempo is 40 hours, offer to adjust his pay to match a 40 hour week. (If you're paying him 120K for 60hrs, pay him 80K for 40hrs.)

These days, I think most experienced developers have learned to discount the value of benefits in the form of stock or equity because they realize there is a only a tiny chance of there ever being a liquidity event and if there was, their stock would [after the inevitable dilution] be worth less per hour than if they'd just been paid for the overtime in the first place.

I used to work over 60 hours per week, I burned out. After that I started balancing my life and work by only working 40 hours per week. Last year I spent a few months working as a developer for a small company. They were very happy with my performance and were very impressed with my work. However, they wanted me to work more and more hours. Some weeks, I'd put in 50 hours, and they were still not happy.

In the end, this was one of the main reasons I quit. I still speak to some of the employees at the company and I know that after 6 months, they still have not found a replacement for me.

Usually you might find that there are personal or external factors that are affecting him. Which was the case for me. You should either just accept it and be thankful that you have a great employee or you should sit down with him, find out his personal reasons why he does not do over 40 hours per week and ask him if there is anything you can offer for him to do more hours.

He will either say yes or no. In my situation, if I was offered extra pay on top of my standard rate for any hours over 40, then I probably might have taken up the offer. Unfortunately I was also being underpaid, which is another of the reasons why I did not do more than 40 hours a week.

These days I work for myself, and it is no surprise that I am currently averaging over 60 hours per week. :)

How are you judging that he is only working 40 hours a week? Because he spends 40 hours a week in the office? Is he working from home (check your repository - do you get a bunch of updates from him first thing in the morning or outside of work hours if you allow remote access?).

How flexible is he? Does he only work 9 to 5 or does he spend the extra time to get things done in time for a deadline (demo or product release) when required and start late for a couple of days after that? If you need him to come in at odd hours to fix an emergency is he available?

These are far better indicators of his dedication to his job than what time he enters and leaves the office.

Why are you complaining in this relationship? Your developer seems unchallenged and insufficiently motivated to put in the extra time. It is your job to discover which is it. Can you give him or her more work? responsibility? More unrealistic deadlines on your task expectations? Ratchet it up and see if he or she rises to the challenge. Greyhounds only run as fast as they are whipped. Give your EE the opportunity to show that he or she values the opportunity and appreciates you and what you have to offer. Remember to sprinkle lots of attaboys/girls for positive outcomes. A card will do most of the time. Pair of tickets to the movies, game, paintball whatever from time to time.

Your company is designed to get a response from customers. You go to great lengths to make sure is is memorable. Your EE is an internal customer. It is he our she that should respond either positively or negatively to your input/expectations. Not you. Never you. When you respond that is your signal to jack it up a notch. It may seem unintuitive to you but it will payoff down the road as you retain the greyhounds and weed out the losers, this is how you build a productive culture bro.

Worst thing that could happen is the EE complains and you discover this person is just not the right fit for your org. Time to start shopping discretely for his or her replacement.