If this is the case, then someone working an extra N hours a week won't actually move the needle that much when it comes to performance ranking.
My experience has been that the people who choose to work super long hours do not actually perform much better, if at all, than those who don't.
Caveat is that this could, of course, be selection effects a la Berkson's paradox. Maybe those who work very long hours do so because they must to reach the expected output level for the firm they work at.
I don't see very many senior level folks in FAANG who are "5:01" engineers. There is pressure, but you're compensated quite generously for it.
Example given: When one of your co-workers gets visible praise and maybe a small spot bonus for burning the midnight oil, working a heroic 100 hour week, and saving a production outage, this sends a clear message to everyone else: more working hours will be rewarded and normal working hours is just doing the bare minimum. This message is unwritten but clearly sent/received.
When you are stack ranked against your peers in the company, most are working 80 hour weeks and some are working 40 hour weeks, and the 40 hour guys get PIP'ed, this sends a clear, yet unwritten message, too.
There doesn't have to exist a written policy that says "You must work 80 hour weeks" for it to be an unofficial, coerced part of the culture.
It's as if nobody here saw the "15 pieces of flair" scene in Office Space.
