17 Jan The Work-Hour Paradox: A Leadership Perspective!
Time management is really a misnomer – the challenge is not to manage time, but to manage ourselves.~ Steven R. Covey
After two decades of placing C-suite executives across industries, I’ve keenly observed how the work-hour debate has evolved, particularly in light of a recent statement from a respected industry leader advocating for a 70-hour workweek. More recently, the head of a leading heavy-engineering and multi-business conglomerate advocated for a 90-hour workweek; after all, how long can one stare at one’s wife?
As someone who regularly interacts with senior C-suite decision-makers and boards seeking transformational leaders on the one hand and executives navigating their career trajectories on the other, I find this discussion particularly nuanced on several counts.
The social media spectacle:
It’s been fascinating to watch social media’s response to this debate. LinkedIn and X erupted with memes about “staring at spouses,” while Instagram was awash with satirical work-life balance stories. While these humorous takes lightened the mood, they also highlighted a serious undertone – the growing disconnect between traditional workplace expectations and modern workforce aspirations.
The Leadership Equation:
What’s fascinating is how this conversation shifts at different organisational levels. While placing CEOs and CXOs, I’ve noticed a consistent pattern – successful leaders don’t merely count hours; they measure impact. Yet, the recent advocacy for extended working hours raises essential questions about sustainability and leadership modelling.
The quality-quantity conundrum:
Here’s what often gets overlooked in this debate: the sharp distinction between time spent and value created. In our executive assessments, we’ve seen leaders who deliver exceptional results in focused 50-hour weeks outperform those who pride themselves on 80-hour workweeks. It’s about cognitive bandwidth – after a certain threshold, decision quality typically deteriorates, regardless of position or experience level.
The startup vs corporate dynamic:
There’s a marked difference in how this plays out across business environments. Startup founders often embrace intense work schedules as part of their growth journey. However, when these same companies mature and seek experienced C-suite executives, the conversation inevitably shifts to sustainable leadership practices.
The health-success paradox:
The most concerning trend I’ve observed is the increasing number of senior executives facing health challenges in their prime. When conducting leadership searches, we’re increasingly hearing boards emphasize the need for leaders who can demonstrate sustainable high performance rather than just intense work patterns.
Finding the balance:
From my vantage point, the most successful placements we’ve made share a common thread – these leaders understand that it’s not about rigid hour counts but about creating efficient, purposeful work cultures. They demonstrate that leadership effectiveness isn’t directly proportional to hours worked.
The way forward:
As people deeply invested in shaping organisational leadership, we believe in the need to evolve this discussion beyond simple hour counts. The questions we should be asking are:
- How do we measure and reward impact over presence?
- What leadership models truly drive sustainable organisational success?
- How can we balance our growth ambitions with leadership longevity?
- How do we create environments that optimise for quality output rather than time input?
I’m particularly interested in hearing perspectives from fellow business leaders and board members. What metrics do you use to evaluate the quality of leadership contribution beyond the traditional measures of time invested?
As an ancient proverb says:
“There’s great progress in many counsellors, so every opinion and perspective counts.”
No Comments