Philip Su argues that work-life balance slows careers. I agree with his thesis, but only when applied to highly competitive organizations. Luck, talent, and grit are the three ingredients of fast career growth according to Su. People cannot influence luck. Talent is largely given, so the only variable you can work with is grit. In other words, work longer than your colleagues.
Su writes from the perspective of a Facebook engineer during Facebook's peak as one of the most desirable companies to work for. Facebook was staffed with the best and the brightest. This represents a unique context. The average organization struggles to find qualified employees, let alone exceptional graduates from top engineering schools.
In my experience, there is very little correlation between hours spent on the job and actual performance. I have worked reviewing engineering documents. The number of documents reviewed serves as a good performance indicator. Some engineers, even senior ones, work overtime, yet review far fewer documents than colleagues who work regular hours. The difference can be an order of magnitude. This disparity has nothing to do with document complexity (documents are assigned randomly) nor quality of work (since the same person performs quality control on all reviews).
I don't think that any of the more productive engineers are ten times more talented than the less productive ones. I suspect that the difference stems from better time management and the ability to focus on the most relevant aspects of their work. There is room for working smarter in many organizations. The Pareto principle applies at work too.
Su overlooks education. If your plan for career advancement involves entering management, pursuing an MBA is clearly a better path than working harder. Having the right degree or certification can serve as a shortcut to career advancement. Where a degree is required by law, lacking the right degree will stall career advancement. Sometimes, there are provisions where long apprenticeships or other experience can compensate for the lack of a degree. This may require 5 to 10 extra years.
I completed an MBA for experienced managers. Many participants were already quite high in their organization's hierarchy. I noticed that many of them worked long hours, as Su suggests, but not all. What I observed was that all were good at networking and highly attuned to office politics. Being socially adept and navigating office politics effectively does wonders for career advancement.
There are many ways to leverage office politics to your advantage without being Machiavellian. You need to understand how power works in your organization. Working on a project that management deems important will give you more visibility and advancement opportunities. Doing a good job and demonstrating your contribution to management is better than toiling in obscurity and hoping to be noticed.
My advice applies to the average organization that is neither growing extremely fast nor in a dying industry. If you work in an industry that is struggling, with constant threats of downsizing, not even working harder may save your career. Conversely, if you work in an organization that is growing fast, you may be promoted and gain more responsibility just by sticking around.
I wouldn't despair. Unless you work in an ultra-competitive organization, you can do much better than average while sticking to regular working hours.
Last updated: 2025-08-01