[codethatwerks]

I disagree with #1. Not entirely but it is about perception. Working an extra 10-20 hrs a week for free in return for a chance but no guarantee of a vouch is in itself a bad deal. So while you may have reasons for working long hours, hoping someone has your back is not a great one. Unless you have known them since you were 8 or something and even then.

[zer00eyz]

If you have a job and they are hiring. Two former colleagues come in.

Bob: he comes in, he does his work, he goes home. He's a good productive developer.

Jane: She comes in, does her work, it's always documented and well tested. She is happy to roll up her sleeves and help the people around her out. She will pause to help you even if it means she gonna finish up at home.

Your boss asks you: Your call who do we hire. You're not fucking picking Bob.

Dont be Bob.

[ptero]

This is not nearly as clear cut. In the real world, Jane has a much higher chance to burn out. Or mess up the team, as everyone now wonders if working long hours is Jane's peculiarity or the new normal. And if this makes people explore other options you always lose the best folks -- those who have opportunities in any market.

While I would agree with a softer form: "don't be a 9 to 5 clerk, do what is needed, including occasional long hours and weekends", if someone needs to regularly stay late it's a problem with the management, not with the Bob. My 2c.

[fileeditview]

And then the company just lays off Bob and Jane and thousands of others. Now Jane is angry because she committed a lot of her personal time for the company but was laid off anyways..

Don't be Jane.

[piva00]

And don't be Jane either, extending your working hours at home just to help someone out of your normal duties is a recipe for an eventual burnout.

The balance is in being both: good, productive, amicable, helpful to others while also knowing that you deserve a life outside of work.

This infatuation with killing yourselves for work (mostly Americans but also in Brazil and some other cultures) have is really not healthy, to yourself and to other workers that you put under pressure because you do more than what you're paid for. You're not being a great employee, you're being an exploited employee, and leaving the door open to normalise this exploitation to others that might have other priorities after working hours.

From my time with leading teams I wouldn't hire Jane, I have done it before and eventually the team falls apart because others feel pressured to work more than they are being paid for/willing simply to keep up with the Janes of the world, it crumbles team morale.

[red-iron-pine]

Or it turns out that Bob went to the same University as half of the team, and they pick him for a culture fit.

Jane works hard but puts in long hours because she's just not very good and has to hustle to keep up even on basic tasks. She's helpful and kind to others because she understands their struggles, but can't hack new tech as well and will ultimately pause to help. Her well documented, working code takes 3+ weeks longer, and no one cares about Documentation.

[drewcoo]

Preferring stabile predictability is not a bad thing.

It's just something we pretend cannot happen in software.

Most industries don't want anything like software's "death march," "sleep under your desks," "eat pizza" cultural ideals. Well, pizza is maybe ok once in a while.

Who's going to burn out, Bob or Jane? Bosses, often completely untrained bosses who just "know" how to boss, say they want Jane, but they're probably better off with Bob. Assuming they want stable long-term businesses, of course.

In your scenario it's likely that Jane becomes a boss soon and hires people with her own "work ethic." That sucks. Don't get Janed!

[mrmuagi]

Where do you draw the line in not being exploitable though? Why wouldn't you hire someone who does all your work for you then it feels like the next question is. When there's a scarcity in job openinings compared to applicants, sure one of those might be chosen, but in a regular job market I feel like both should get hired.

[nunez]

Depends on whether Bob is friends/relatives with someone in the C-suite or board.

[pokstad]

It’s called hustling. Not everyone makes it, but putting in extra effort improves your odds. It’s pretty amazing to me that this is now considered controversial.

[nytesky]

My perception of hustling isn’t about long hours, unless those are hours hanging out after work building relationships. It’s more about making your self visible for the work you do, being memorable in a positive way, maybe helping people who in a way that leaves an impression. Working late to deliver one day early, no one is going to notice.

[codethatwerks]

Given you are happy to work say 60 hours a week, what is the optimal use of the extra 20.

For some it might be free work for their employer in return for something. Example might be in financial trading etc. to get a bonus or raise or promotion in a shop that is killing it.

For some it might be leetcode and reading everything on levels.io and teamblind.

For some it might be active investing for example property renovation.

For some a side business.

For some TOGAF and Scrum qualifications.

But remember 1000hours a year is a lot to bet on your company or colleagues vouching for you and being in a position where that matters.

Etc.

[financypants]

There’s a good paper on how effective networking and “weak ties” is for getting a job. It’s silly that this person is blaming AI resume parsers. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4865899/mod_resou...