[tedthayer]

I've observed the same thing and completely agree. Fun activities that are not work-related are meant to make employees happier, assuming they are not intrinsically happy at work. Thus, I think they actually have a net negative impact on human progress because they distract and mask issues like if the co is keeping to its mission. I was at GoogleX recently and totally surprised to see that many people there were treating life like normal day-to-day work, taking pleasure in the laid-back fun activities that don't seem to have any importance to humanity. While I think most people agree they want to contribute to a greater cause, low pain tolerance or no clear means to have impact probably cause many to seek their jolly's through normal activities. If I was a company where my employees were eager to leave after 5 pm, I'd do everything in my power to make them happier too. So it's sad that they impose anything on employees versus allow them to work on something so intrinsically rewarding that people don't need such shallow motivations. Then again, even SpaceX does Volley Ball games!

[quickthrower2]

You seem to me to be implying that truly happy employees want to crank out long hours at work because the work makes them happy. But I find after a certain number of hours without a break you work can be a net negative. Mistakes, bad decisions etc. Also big missions are like multi marathons and you definitely don’t want to keep sprinting them. And not to mention people with outside work commitments such as children, sick relatives, community commitments, or just plain hobbies and travel etc. Do you want non rounded burned out staff on an important mission? I get it for startup founders you need to put in lots of hours. But hiring a big team of long hours workers seems counter productive.

[tedthayer]

Yeah, that is what I'm implying. Definitely, too much work and not enough time away can limit creativity, big-picture strategy etc. But with proper motivation, I've pushed myself up to 125hrs/wk and been happier than ever (though slightly brain dead as well). When not in single-minded pursuit of something like founding a company or an exciting mission I totally agree with you. With all the other commitments and desires, their job will necessarily be a lower priority. But when it comes to something important (or debatably in all cases of companies with high aspirations), I think the company should be focused primarily on effectiveness and efficiency ie max output for the unit cost from each staff. I just don't see why it would ever be in a company's best interest to not get max output, as long as there are new hires to fill the shoes of the people who burn out.

[croo]

A company is just a bunch of people therefore a company's interest can be whatever a bunch of people interest is. And it's not necessarily max output.