Thank you for bringing some sense to the debate. It's typical that threads on this topic result in a pointless debate about <40 and >40 work weeks (I'm in the >

Thank you for bringing some sense to the debate. It's typical that threads on this topic result in a pointless debate about <40 and >40 work weeks (I'm in the > 40, but am a founder) in which neither side understands each other, and this thread has not disappointed. I work like a madman, but unless you asked me about my hours, you'd never know. I work for a result, and if I ever do brag, it's about the result of the work. The hours worked are the natural side effect of achieving said result. I would never take a job in which I was required to work 60 hours per week (unless I believed the pay made that sacrifice worthwhile), nor would I expect 60 hours per week from employees on a regular basis. You'll find me breaking from this sentiment near the 40 hour point (I've been vilified for this on this very site), but I'd rather hire more people than burn them out, which is inefficient and leads to resentment. People are self-renewing resources, and a manager can either choose to cultivate them as assets, or treat them as a battery, throwing them out when they've run out of juice. I'd prefer the former.