[Snowflame]

Xoogler here. Back at Google, there was an explicit policy that "heroic" efforts result in at most a bump of one level on the internal assessment scale - there was an idea that you should be doing productive work without having to overwork yourself, and too much "willing to work constantly" from reports was a danger sign for the manager's performance review. (Granted, this also could be super stressful for borderline employees, who are essentially told that even if they work hard, we'll still fire you.)

[908B64B197]

It make sense for a startup to heavily reward employees capable of "heroic" efforts because the company might not be there next week if the MVP doesn't ship.

But for a company like Google, nowhere near an existential threat, it makes sense to prioritize long term players capable of delivering for years.

[rhizome]

Can you name some companies that have died from a week's worth of developer shortfalls?

Should probably restrict this to companies that had revenue and paid its employees.

[watwut]

If the sleep actually really matters and if long hours do damage long term productivity the way studies suggest, then the frequent heroic effort is irrational and detrimental to productivity. There is no way around it.

There is no way around it for borderline employees too. Assuming these studies are correct, what the heroic effort for borderline employee do is signaling desperation and emotional investment.

[ownagefool]

Depends on your view on cycling through resources. Who cares if someone who no longer works here is burnt out? Ergo, you have to tie that into the understanding that good employees are hard to find, and rotating them comes at a cost that's greater than not burning them out.

Even then you'll still get "just this once" people who understrand the problem but can't help themselves.