[timblair]

I don't agree with working like this, but I'd expect that you're generally going to get marginal gains from each extra hour worked (up to a point of exhaustion or burnout), especially in the short term, so it might make sense to have people work in this way _occasionally_. I know I've been on "work all the hours available" projects in the past, and I definitely got a lot more done than I would have just working a 40hr week, even if I did feel like cr*p at the end of it.

[lmm]

Interesting. My experience is that when I limited myself strictly to 6 hour days I got a lot more done than I get done in 8-hour days.

[PhasmaFelis]

Yeah, short-term crunch can sometimes make sense, as long as it's actually short-term and doesn't repeat on a monthly basis.

[microtonal]

short-term crunch can sometimes make sense

It makes sense when all your employees are singles without a family or any other obligations outside work. You might want to take into account that your employees who are not, may have to pick up their kids from kindergarten/school, etc. They may not be able to work long hours without letting down their children or damaging their marriage.

You could make crunch optional, but there is some peer pressure ('Look, Johnny is not committed to our project').

These are waters to thread carefully if you want to have healthy/happy employees. Make clear rules ahead of times of what is expected, pay extra compensation for overtime.

(Sorry if I set up a straw man.)

[aminorex]

I have often seen people putting in extra hours with negative productivity. One small error can result in days of lost time.