We Glorify Overwork and Refuse to Rest
hbr.org
hbr.org
The article linked to one of the author’s other articles which talked about how even if you love it, you start to be fueled by different energy.
> After working at high intensity for more than 90 minutes, we begin to draw on these emergency reserves to keep us going. In the process, we move from parasympathetic to a sympathetic arousal — a physiological state more commonly known as “fight or flight.”
> One consequence of relying on stress hormones for energy is that the prefrontal cortex begins to shut down. We become more reactive and less capable of thinking clearly and reflectively, or seeing the big picture.
I recognize that. Ive also noticed those stress hormones coming more often outside of work and affecting the rest of my life.
The article isn't saying that you shouldn't, or can't, work as you prefer. It's pointing out that work culture, particularly in the US, strongly pressures people to give up as much as possible for the workplace, and that's not a good thing.
Twiddling your thumbs may be the most important task in the universe, we simply do not know.
This kind of pure meritocracy is dystopic without functional social safety nets in place.
Ralph's kid dies and he falls behind for a few months, so he gets the axe.
Rhonda has a baby, goes on FMLA, and gets the boot once legal decides she no longer has grounds to file suit.
So on and so forth.
If I finish work in 2 hours and go do personal stuff for the rest of the day I don’t feel relaxed, I feel anxious like I’m in a gray zone in the employment contract and I’m going to be sniffed out and given more work to do.
Not in a meaningful amount to non-executives.
> Everywhere I worked these were there in one way or another, exactly to motivate people to do more than their allotted stuff.
I don't think anyone believes "more tickets" = "more revenue". Most employees work doesn't materially impact the bottom line and definitely doesn't have a linear relationship to revenue (other than maybe sales who are paid on commission).
Not when done right. I run my remote teams async and definitely don't expect them to get back to me instantly at any point other than the very few prearranged meetings we have. I also want them to take time throughout their day to do what makes them content/relaxed/happy. Coding is a creative profession and getting people into a relaxed state creates far better software than deathmarching a scrum team.
> If I finish work in 2 hours and go do personal stuff for the rest of the day I don’t feel relaxed, I feel anxious like I’m in a gray zone in the employment contract and I’m going to be sniffed out and given more work to do.
This is due to poor management. Strong management makes employees feel secure and not-surveillanced.
> find the best possible match and skip all of the technical interviewing theatrics
I assume that you mean best person within your network... wouldn't that be limiting for a remote company?
> I usually offer the job on the first call with a potential hire.
Do you pay well? What is your conversion here?
Nope, we don't need the person to be in our network. Open source devs are really each to just reach out to.
> Do you pay well? What is your conversion here?
We do (market rate at least).
Maybe that’s true, but having trustworthy async workloads is dependent on having really good planning methodology (eg sizing tickets fairly accurately with 2 week sprint planning)
In my experience this is very difficult. The moment you start working on a more novel feature/project, ticket sizing gets wacky. When ticket sizing is wacky, you get the dreaded gray area: we planned this thing to take 3 days. It took me 1 day because the team didn’t understand how small the ticket was during ticket grooming. Do I take days off or create new work for myself? Am I responsible for post hoc fixing planning failures? If so, am I not just emulating the “spend 40 hours working” mindset via points? If not, am I not taking advantage of the teams planning mistake?
It's a common excuse : "I cannot do <insert fun thing>, or have to do <insert undesirable thing> for my career."
The word is now untethered from all responsibilities and benefits that came from being a career professional, and instead just signifies the constant urge to be working in pursuit of some arbitrary career.
Your career used to be a lifetime job. Your coworkers were your neighbors. Your boss was your mentor. Your company men send their children to the same school and you retired with a hefty pension. Your wife's friends were your coworkers' wives. Work was real work. You made physical products or you worked at your own little shop.
It's all gone now.
Now, 'Career' throws you around the world, destroying your communities. Dual-income households have to choose between career and children. Pensions are dead (For good imo). Most people work on things without clear positive real-life impacts and you own none of it. Your boss is incentivized to abuse you in a capitalistic rat race until you burn out, and your kids get thrown in the same blender at school at an even earlier age.
So I ask, what even is a career ?
From the article: Over time, it leads to diminishing productivity, higher rates of burnout, and even to increased likelihood of mortality. A 2021 World Health Organization study found that working 55 or more hours per week — compared to 35-40 hours — is associated with a 35% higher risk of a stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease. What sets workaholism apart from other forms of addiction — especially in a capitalist economy that reveres money above all else — is that it’s not only socially acceptable, but also materially and socially rewarded.