2

Lets say:

  • A company states that it does not require its employees to work overtime.
  • About 90% of its employees work extra hours because they get paid for it, or they even work when they do not get paid extra.
  • There is a worker who sometimes works until 4 AM, not because of some emergency situation such as a server crash, but just to meet a deadline and they do not even ask for extra money.
  • Colleagues who work the most overtime are praised often and encouraged to race against each other in terms of number of hours worked.

You are a person for whom standard hours are more than enough (the money earned is also enough). How can you avoid being undervalued as a 9-to-5 developer and seen as unproductive person while 90% of colleagues put in paid and unpaid overtime?

One more condition:

Robert Harvey
  • 3,078
  • 2
  • 19
  • 30
Will_create_nick_later
  • 719
  • 6
  • 16
  • 3
    Deadlines that require massive amounts of overtime are unrealistic deadlines and show that the company may not have its corporate heads based in reality. – JasonJ Jul 14 '16 at 13:38
  • @will_create_nick_later: I was having a difficult time understanding your question. I've edited it in attempt to make it clearer. If I've changed the meaning or made other changes you don't like, please edit the question to make it more to your liking. Or you view the editing history to rollback my changes. – GreenMatt Jul 14 '16 at 15:02
  • 2
    @Will_create_nick_later The only thing that comes to mind is reddit. In general if you're looking to discuss a situation/ocurrrence or solicit experiences you're looking for a forum. You'd post on a Q&A site like this if you have a practical question which can be practically and reasonably answered. For instance, if you had asked "How can I avoid being undervalued as a 9-to-5 developer while all my colleagues put in unpaid overtime?" that's appropriate and on-topic since you want to solve a practical problem. – Lilienthal Jul 14 '16 at 15:13
  • You can still [edit] your question to ask that instead of course! But keep in mind that the answers could very well be "You can't." If your company has a culture of unpaid overtime and you refuse to play ball then you may well end up being replaced quickly. – Lilienthal Jul 14 '16 at 15:14
  • Possible duplicate of Why is it important to gain "visibility" in the workplace? – gnat Jul 14 '16 at 16:36
  • @Lilienthal - but now maybe its too late to edit, because then they would need to adjust answers? – Will_create_nick_later Jul 14 '16 at 19:02
  • @Will_create_nick_later No it would be fine to make that edit, but I'd recommend leaving a comment on the answer that would be invalidated. If the answers are still good but, like Richard's, answer as a reply to the title question that would be lost ("In short, yes") you can also suggest an edit to that answer to edit in the original title. Keep in mind that the current version of your questions is only one close vote away from being put on hold. That's a sign that your question should be improved as it has scope issues. If it's put on hold you can edit it to nominate for reopening. – Lilienthal Jul 14 '16 at 19:09

3 Answers3

6

In short, yes. There is even a term for it that has been around for decades, it's called "A strict nine-to-fiver". It means you can be counted on to do the bare minimum and nothing else. It also sends the message that you have no ambition.

The old saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" applies here.

Since this is the corporate culture, you are essentially making yourself a "bad fit". If you want to advance in this particular company, you need to fit into the corporate culture, that means taking some overtime. not necessarily working 80 hours a week, but picking up a few hours here and there will get you off the "strict nine-to-five" radar.

Old_Lamplighter
  • 159,693
  • 108
  • 436
  • 585
  • 5
    Or change the company? – Will_create_nick_later Jul 14 '16 at 12:30
  • 8
    @Will_create_nick_later Or start your own, or leave the company. Trying to change a corporate culture is tilting at windmills at best, career suicide at worst. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 14 '16 at 12:33
  • 11
    "It means you can be counted on to do the bare minimum and nothing else. It also sends the message that you have no ambition." Or it just means that is the wrong company for you. There are plenty of offices where working only your 8 hours a day is completely normal and expected and doesn't imply that you have no ambition. Yes, you'll work extra when in a crunch, but this is rare and shouldn't happen if your managers can plan things effectively. – David K Jul 14 '16 at 12:42
  • 2
    @DavidK in the context of the corporate culture, the message you will be sending is that you are not a go-getter. The OP wanted to know if it could restrict him, and at that company, Yes. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 14 '16 at 12:45
  • 1
    go-getter - "someone wants the best in life and they work hard to get to make it happen for themselves nobody stops them." Now not everything best in life is bought with money sadly. I want those things which I cannot buy. But I work hard to get those things which are not bought with money and nobody stops me :) I do not see how working overtime make me closer to those things. – Will_create_nick_later Jul 14 '16 at 13:46
  • 1
    @Will_create_nick_later at your company, it seems to be what is expected and they will hold it against you. I am not saying that you are lazy or unambitious, just at that particular company, it is how your actions will be interpreted. You may just not be a good fit for that company or they are not a good fit for you. But if you wish to advance at that particular company, you must meet their particular expectations. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 14 '16 at 13:50
  • 2
    @JoeStrazzere: First study that I read of was done by Eysenck during WWII in the British arms industry (and you shouldn't find any more motivated group of people anywhere): He found that workers doing 57 hours per week were less productive per week than workers doing 48 hours per week. And a quote from one top Microsoft manager: "You can make people be at work for 80 hours a week. You can't make them work more than 40 hours a week". – gnasher729 Jul 14 '16 at 16:05
  • You maybe will do more work in more hours, but your amount of work done per hour will become smaller if you will count average. So that means you are less productive. – Will_create_nick_later Jul 14 '16 at 18:58
  • @Richard U - updated a quetion based on comments – Will_create_nick_later Jul 14 '16 at 20:24
  • 1
    @Will_create_nick_later: The quoted study by Eysenck said: Less hour per week done when working more hours per week. Not just less work per hour. – gnasher729 Jul 14 '16 at 23:20
  • @gnasher729 I suppose a minor detail like England being bombed constantly didn't have anything to do with morale suffering. Studies are nothing more than observations with often false conclusions drawn. Remember the study that "proved" that oat bran lowered cloistral? Turns out the people were eating oats for breakfast instead of Bacon and Eggs. It wasn't the presence of oat bran, but the absence of all that fat. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 15 '16 at 12:57
4

The situation you describe is one where the culture is to do extra time, and not doing that will likely mark you as slack/uninterested/underachiever etc.

Of course what they don't get is a much more important fact here, they have no idea what their projects ACTUALLY cost, and ultimately this will be their undoing.

Given people are routinely doing overtime (mostly unpaid by the sound of it), means that they will not be factoring this into any budgeting of work. So for example if you work 40 hrs a week, and a project/task takes 2 weeks, they cost you as taking 80 hrs, but of course you are working say 10-15 hrs a week off the clock, which means their metrics are now what, 25-35% out (your 4 am colleague is even worse).

What will happen is that each time these numbers feed back into the system (in estimations), they will drift further (compounding), until you get to the situation we've all seen where a project "mysteriously" takes twice as long.

Ironically this will get worse the more the company/team achieves, my advice is look for somewhere else, you'll be undervalued unless you join, but ultimately it'll be pointless as they are on a collision course with disaster.

The Wandering Dev Manager
  • 33,609
  • 11
  • 71
  • 119
4

"encouraged to race against each other in terms of number of hours worked." - Red flag for me right here. Encouraging a bad work/life balance is bad for everyone.

Working a few extra hours when needed is acceptable. You have been payed to do a job, do the job or agree you need more pay or a new job.

For me a strict 9 to 5 person is someone who does it regardless of anything else. If you can get your job done in the time you have during normal hours that is not a sign of anything but an effective worker.

Nick Young
  • 671
  • 3
  • 10