"BUT does not become a clock-puncher"

if my employer is tracking everything i do and asking me to log time against tickets/projects etc etc . . . yet doesn't expect me to be intentional about defending my own time/life outside of work? sorry, but it goes in both directions.

I can't ever see myself requiring time tracking on projects, that's far too scrutinous. Unless we were billing hourly on project.

It's more about finding that balance of what the business needs and what the employee needs. Setting standards and expectations is important so that there's very little left to question or ambiguity if an issue ever comes up. BUT, it's up to the manager to decide if there's other factors outside of hours worked that contribute to productivity. I doubt that I'd ever write up or fire somebody for putting in 35 hours and is meeting project/productivity requirements.

I lean more towards the life side of the work/life balance. The company I currently work for has purchased vacations for employees who took little or no time off. Not out of policy, but out of need.

My ideal candidate works 35 hours in the office, is engaged enough to think about work problems in their "shower time" and has enough energy to be effective whilst they work.

This is where autonomy (ie trust) come in. This type of work ethic should be clearly visible upon hire or review.

>will easily coast out of the office after 40 hours on occasion.

This is sad to read. 40 hours is the max unless you are paying overtime.

So, are you suggesting that the company has an overtime policy (regardless of exemption status) in an effort to reward any extra time put in? I don't disagree in the least. But, that would still need to be reviewed to prevent abuse. Much in the same way a 35 hour employee's work would need to be reviewed to ensure they aren't being unproductive.

35 hours is 5 days 9am-5pm with an hour for lunch.

Reviewing for abuse is of course correct and good behaviour, but your assumption seems to be that people putting in that amount of hours are probably going to be unproductive.

Is that correct, or have I misinterpreted you?

If you don’t want a clock puncher then why qualify in hours at all? Autonomy in work matters so if the end product is good then how long it took shouldn’t matter. What qualifies as working hours is hard to define too. Every night I go home and think about my job for free. That’s a lot of free labour my employer gets from me that’s hard to qualify but has huge impacts on my preparedness for the next day.

This is very true. Work product outside of office hours is a sign of a good candidate. Somebody who's always tinkering, reading or enriching themselves is obviously beneficial to both parties. This is a character trait that should be obvious upon hire or review.

Unfortunately, minimum hours requirements need to exist in some businesses to set the expectations. It's up to the manager on how to enforce that. If I have a employee that is clearly meeting project deadlines and is a positive impact in the company, I'm going to be less scrutinous on their hours. But, that person can't just skate by on 30 hours. I've seen far to many culture/team issues arise from somebody who is productive on paper but doesn't put in a "fair" amount of hours compared to other employees. "They work more than you" doesn't always go over well with other employees.

My point was about finding the balance between what the business needs and what the employee needs. Your point about autonomy (ie trust) is paramount to all of this.

>Work product outside of office hours is a sign of a good candidate.

You mean good candidate for burnout.

There's really no upside to regularly working over 40 unless you have some sort of equity stake or other upside (like a being on a promotion track). The company is not going to pay you extra and you're just decreasing your hourly rate

Do you expect these hours to be as effective as, say, a 40-hour employee?

I think a 30, 40, 50, 60 hour employee can be very different things. A 50 hour employee who isn't productive is clearly an issue. A 60 hour employee who is clearly burned out BUT productive is a problem too.

I don't think that hours are the first or only thing by which an employee can be judged. It's more about setting a standard and allowing the manager to monitor and enforce that based on the individual.

My experience might be a bit jaded. I work for a company that is "small", very close (many 15+ year employees). So, time spent "in the office" doesn't necessarily mean we're locked to our chairs and keyboards.

Of course a 50-hour employee is productive, but would you say consistently over a longer number of weeks he's 12.5% more productive than a 40-hour employee?

To give myself as an example: I work out 3-4 times a week, spend my time effectively reading books, playing the piano regularly and spend some quality time with my wife. These activities I would not be able to do would I work consistently 60+ hours a week. Nonetheless, it has had and continues to have a profound positive impact on my energy levels, motivation, communication and creative reasoning.

Do you know that this is harmful enough to be illegal in some countries?

70 hour work weeks are common in some industries or job roles. Chefs, game-devs and cruise ship staff come to mind straight way...

Most of these people are taking the hit for the extra hours for some kind 'added value', which this company hopes to compete with maybe? They just seem like a shitty marketing company though?

I consider it supply and demand, that there are places out there not demanding more than 40 hours a week for the same job.