I've been waiting for an article like this. There really is an ethos of working yourself to death, and on surface it can make sense. If you put in 80 hours per week and your competition puts in 60, you'll win because you'll learn more quickly than your competition. But I don't think that accounts for efficiency. If you work 80 hours per week, is every hour equally productive? And if so, are you working on the most valuable things? (Eg can you delegate, outsource, etc?). People like to think so but it's far from a universally held belief. On the flip side, if you work 32 hrs per week, you're pretty much forced to be focused and productive. You'll still have same goals, how do you achieve them in half the time each week? You cut out things. I just graduated from one of the many bootcamps, and about half of students "worked" about 45 hrs per week, vs other half who worked 60+ hrs. And there's been zero difference thus far on who has gotten jobs more quickly. Ok I'm done with my soapbox but I wish more people in valley would consider worldview espoused in this article. Also with the Michael Arrington comment, I don't think most investors give two shits how long you work as long as you are delivering that up and to the right growth.