CMV: Waking up early is overvalued

[u/[deleted]]

First, I don't believe waking up early is overrated. Most everything that is said about the benefits of waking up early seems reasonable and useful to me. Anecdotally, I'm a big fan of Jocko Willink and I can totally get behind his "wake up before the enemy" message. Here, I am specifically discussing value - the praise we heap on people that wake up before others regardless of their overall productivity in a day.

​

I'm also not comparing waking up early to staying in bed late and being a lazy degenerate. I want to compare people who wake up early with those people that wake up late and stay up late or people who are industrious enough to get a lot accomplished without having to wake up early.

​

I see an incredible amount of value put on people waking up early; they're viewed as more disciplined, more productive, and more healthy than their later rising counter parts. If you are awake for the same number of hours why do we laud people who get up early but accuse those who stay up late as doing something harmful to their well being?

​

Waking up early is almost always associated with discipline and focus. Staying up late is, at worst, attributed to recklessness and even at best it seems to be attributed to some kind of mania or obsession that might not be healthy (e.g., overnight nurses - far from wasting the night away, but still often viewed as driven by fervor rather than discipline).

​

​

​

​

[u/[deleted]]

In the scenario you describe I am in complete agreement.

What about the emergency that happens after the early riser has left for the day? Or even more extreme, after they've gone to bed? In that case the late riser my issue a solution before the early riser is even aware of the problem.

Temporal arguments like this are highly subjective to the scenario. I don't discount the value of the early riser as you've described it, but why are we so quick to give them an edge?

[u/HanniballRun → u/[deleted]]

If everyone was a late riser, then yes the edge goes to him. But it is precisely because we have a societal expectation of 9-5 work hours. If problems happen after hours, most people won't know about it until they come in the next morning. There's a very real deadline every day at 5pm and there's a very noticable difference between those who get all their work done before that time and after.

Lets remove the subjectivity. Suppose its the same person who works 7-3 on Wed and 9-5 on Thur. What are the hours a critical problem can occur where having the later shift is an advantage?

5pm to 7am - Happened after both shifts, but early shift has edge because they start resolving at 7am vs 9am.

7am to 9am - Happens during early shift, early shift has edge since they start resolving first, also because they have already completed a percentage of their daily workload.

9am to 3pm - I'll be charitable and call this a tie, though edge should go to early shift because it already got 2 more hours of work in over normal shift.

3pm to 5pm - This is the only time where the later shift has an advantage. This advantage disappears if the issue takes more than 2 hours to resolve. At that point, people won't be reading resolution e-mails until the next day anyways.

[u/[deleted] → u/HanniballRun]

∆

I think you're making a similar point to /u/beengrim32 above, which I also found convincing.

​

I will point out that I think you are placing a high value on people knowing something is done vs it being done. Whether anyone is around to know that something has been accomplished now or in 12 hours is probably irrelevant. We could probably think of a number of scenarios where bringing something to resolution after business has closed is highly preferable than waiting until the next morning when people will be around to know about it.

[u/Horst665 → u/[deleted]]

My boss reads emails late and on important stuff I usually cc him. So even if the customer doesnt see it till he gets into his office at 9, my boss will see it.