Statistics tell a different story. There were numerous studies on productivity relative to many measures.
Then again, you know, you might be a actual snowflake...
Then again, you know, you might be a actual snowflake...
I've gotten the following list of citations in the past, which suggest that the 40-60 hour regime is (aggregated over many workers) optimal for construction:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7089557
But I've never seen anything even remotely suggesting that an individual needs to be an "actual snowflake" in order to productively work more than 40 hours. Since you claim there are "numerous studies", please cite a few.
The key thing you've just conveniently left out is this:
overtime is only effective over very short sprints
Operative words. VERY. SHORT.
And overtime, in the context of the article and all the supporting literature, is working more than 40 hours.
Worst still, you or your employees then become stupid. Unimaginative. Burnt out. They make silly mistakes.
Does that sound like a place that will foster innovation and greatness? Is that the kind of company you want to lead?
Kid yourself all you want with your 40-60 'optimal'. But don't cite actual research that says quite the opposite of what you claim.
Whenever this topic comes up, people constantly claim tons of research showing 40 hours is some magic right number for everyone everywhere in every industry, yet that research is rarely cited. The best I've seen so far is the post I linked to, which is population means in construction.