End overtime exemption. If an org can push workers for more work without paying them more, why wouldn't they? Solving this problem requires systems-level thinking. Understanding the incentives that result in burnout-creating interactions is key to creating new incentives that don't induce burnout.
The quickest way to not fixing burnout is assuming that it is a natural part of software development, that it's up to individuals to manage their own boundaries, or that the industry is impossible to change. None of these are entirely false nor entirely true, but they do nothing to affect change.
Is the end of overtime exemption a silver bullet? No, but it is a critical step toward creating incentives that do address worker burnout. It shifts a manager's choice from "push the team harder to get out a feature and deal with the consequences later" to "push the team harder and it costs $X."
There is a key piece of perspective that helps to understand this - management rarely has clarity in their business decisions. What drives management toward pushing workers to work more and ignoring burnout is that building product has a more tangible result than burnout. You may ask, "no, management weighs the costs and benefits!" Maybe yours does, but when the benefits are easier to quantify than the costs, the decision is clear.
This is why putting a dollar amount on the decision is so important. It shifts the decision to "possibly build it faster for $X" where the dollar cost amount has more clarity than the benefits. It doesn't mean management chooses not to build faster every time, but the decision framing does change the response. Anyone in management knows what clarity in business decisions means and how it affects outcomes.
> I've worked under 40 hours a week and rarely worked overtime
That is exactly the slack in the system that makes the endeavor sustainable. There's no way to get quality software out of consistently drained engineers.
Trying to find some "balance" without hedging for the asymmetry inherent in the problem will lead you to burn out roughly half of the workforce, which has nonlinear (very superlinear) knock-on effects for the success of the remaining half.
If you burn out the top half of your workforce, the bottom half will suddenly bear twice the load and burn out that much faster.
> This is why putting a dollar amount on the decision is so important.
I always admired the approach of one department manager.
His philosophy was: Never say "no" to what your department is being asked to do, but tell them how much it is going to cost (including paid overtime, contractors, etc).
The quickest way to not fixing burnout is assuming that it is a natural part of software development, that it's up to individuals to manage their own boundaries, or that the industry is impossible to change. None of these are entirely false nor entirely true, but they do nothing to affect change.
Is the end of overtime exemption a silver bullet? No, but it is a critical step toward creating incentives that do address worker burnout. It shifts a manager's choice from "push the team harder to get out a feature and deal with the consequences later" to "push the team harder and it costs $X."
There is a key piece of perspective that helps to understand this - management rarely has clarity in their business decisions. What drives management toward pushing workers to work more and ignoring burnout is that building product has a more tangible result than burnout. You may ask, "no, management weighs the costs and benefits!" Maybe yours does, but when the benefits are easier to quantify than the costs, the decision is clear.
This is why putting a dollar amount on the decision is so important. It shifts the decision to "possibly build it faster for $X" where the dollar cost amount has more clarity than the benefits. It doesn't mean management chooses not to build faster every time, but the decision framing does change the response. Anyone in management knows what clarity in business decisions means and how it affects outcomes.