Hacker News Reader

I mostly agree with you, but I think there are two orthogonal angles worth considering.

First of all, some startups foster a cult-like, work-together-play-together environment where the pressure to overwork is subtly amped up as well since everyone spends all their time together. This kind of company is arguably exploiting young people's natural disposition and projected fantasies of success, although if they pay well and give above average equity then it could be more of a lifestyle choice than outright exploitation. It's also worth acknowledging that this kind of devotion can be a strong motivator that leads to high productivity. It's not necessarily the case that people have to work more because of mismanagement.

The second angle is that business success has very little correlation to the efficiency of management. Fundamentally if you have a good business then you will make more money for less work than if you have a bad one. Having obsessed workaholic employees is a decent way to improve your chances, but it's no guarantee. Sometimes in a startup you have to do a death march to survive long enough to test a reasonable hypothesis, but if it becomes so ingrained in the culture that you're still doing it at a later stage, then that's a company I won't touch with a ten foot pole.

> ...if they pay well and give above average equity then it could be more of a lifestyle choice than outright exploitation...

It's my experience, and I suspect it's a larger phenomenon, that every company thinks it's giving out above average or at least "competitive" compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Not always so simple though, a lot of places have a pattern of overwork that goes a bit more like this.

Someone somewhere up the chain overpromises on something without consulting the people that will do the work. Then the team is forced to burn the midnight oil to do that, because they are a talented group, who like the work and don't want the company to look bad, they manage to actually hit the date or miss it just by a little bit, by working themselves nearly to death.

Management, who thought the date would never be hit, based on the engineer complaints at the outset, is effusive in their praise for the team, buys them lunch or some other banal expression of thanks/recognition for their sacrifice, and now feeling justified in their estimation "skills" because they were bailed out by the engineers, proceed to do it again, and again ... after behaving for a little bit, or letting the engineers set dates for less important projects.

Yep. I've seen this happen a lot. A company that is serious about fixing it can do it simply: just provide compensation and/or time off to people who have to work overtime to meet company goals.

The usual response is "Well, we couldn't afford to do that!". Which means "our business model depends on our employees shouldering some of our costs" if you think about it.

That would fall under the category of "Management" (in the narrative you've supplied here) being in over their head.

In my opinion, these problems and situations should always be put down to failures of management and leadership. Even if the team is low-performing, why did management give an unrealistic deadline for something to be finished by a low-performing team? Why are they putting together low-performing teams in the first place? Is it because high-performing people take one look at the putzes in charge and get a new job? Going the route of looking into the hearts of team members without looking outside the team is a bad idea.

I agree with the general sentiment here. Every time I've ever had to let anyone go I always preface with something along the lines of, "First of all, this situation started out as a failure of management."

However, if you're not in the management tier, and you don't have reason to believe management will get any better at hiring and aligning people, and you subsequently end up being in way over your head (even though the situation is ultimately someone else's originating problem). You're not helping yourself or anybody else by just sticking with the situation and pointing the finger upward. If you extricate yourself from it, then you get to give a useful signal to the hiring manager that they didn't do a very good job hiring, and you get to find a hiring manager who is good at hiring.

When I was younger I used to work a lot of extra hours because I enjoyed the work.

Now not so much, but still get enthused about things from time to time and find myself still at work at 8:00pm not even aware of what time it is.

Likewise. I still stay up late most nights after my wife and child go to bed so that I can have 2-3 hours of uninterrupted time to work on little projects that are interesting to me or help expand my skill set.

But that kind of work is elective, and is essentially a hybrid of hobby and duty, so I'm not convinced it fits the typical mold of a path to inevitable burnout.

Perhaps most importantly, you're not making commitments based on this extracurricular work. If you're sick or even just disinterested, you can just work less. You don't have to get approval, risk your performance evaluation, or quit your job.

That's fulfilling work to you. I coined a phrase just last night: "If it's not fulfilling, it's draining."

Which is great and awesome. I was the same way. But what unfortunately happens is your output and productivity from this becomes the norm/standard. Everyone above needs to know they can't and shouldn't calculate not expect this amount of output. Consider it a temporary bonus and never rely or make plans assuming it. That's the difficult thing for everyone above to do. They want to appear to be the hero and they don't want to say no. As a manager or leader, make sure your folks never put in more than 45 hours a week for planned out work. 40 or 35 would be better. Once they got 40 hours for the week or 80 for the two week pay period have them learn a new skill, train them on something else, or tell them to stay home.

I just started a new gig at a place that enforces a 35-hour work week. I get just as much done as I did working 40+ hours, but I'm way happier and just generally more relaxed. It's really amazing what walking out of the office at 11:30 every Friday will do for your mental health.

In my experience, 30-35 hours a week of "real" programming (not meetings/ water cooler chat etc.) is about what I can do sustainability without getting squirrely.

I've done a whole lot more for periods of course but pay for it later and can't keep pace week after week without it really taking a toll. My mental state and relationships and personal life suffer. I become generally unhappy. Not to mention my hands and wrists. Burnout is the end and I've discovered in sum it's a loss to push more.

If more is expected over time I see it as a company that has no problem eating it's capital and it isn't for me. Other people might be tougher, IDK. But all I can keep is a solid 30-35 hours over the long haul without burning out.

That was a great comment. It would really help morale, I think, if "we need to crunch hard for x days/weeks" from someone in management also came with "I accept responsibility for this situation. I will make it up to all of you working under me in some concrete way in your compensation or time off, and will also show you the tangible steps I will take subsequently so that I don't put you in this situation again."

Time off. Compensation will lead to a belief we can keep up this pace with this team for $xxxxx. It's not sustainable and it's a lie. Don't allow a lie to perpetuate. Your folks will burnout.