Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, got into some controversy during a recent talk at Stanford. Basically, he said that Google is falling behind AI startups like OpenAI because of work-life balance and working from home policies. The virtual-signaling crowd has come out in criticism, saying work-life balance is super important, and not everyone wants to dedicate a majority of their time energy towards work.
And that’s fine - have your work-life balance! Just don’t expect the same results as a team of workers spending 80 to 100 hours a week slaving away at a problem. As the great Thomas Sowell wrote: “There are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs.” Eric is absolutely correct: a mature company of many thousands can get beaten by a plucky startup dedicated to a eureka moment. For every Adobe, there’s a Figma willing to out-grind its ass.
Work-life balance has many positives, but there are indeed trade-offs. I know this first hand. My career working IT at a university has tremendous work-life balance. However, I know I’m leaving lots of money on the table. In fact, I make the least out of my group of friends. The equation is simple, really: the more time you spend working, the more money you will make. Show me a CEO who goes home right at 5:00 PM, and I will show you a failing company.
I think what people want - and honestly, who wouldn’t if you can get it - is to have work-life balance, but also the high salary. They want the results without the sacrifice. Obviously, that’s not how it works in the real world. If you have aspirations of climbing a company ladder, you put in more work than what is minimally required. You are going to get beaten to the higher seat by the coworker who can come in on a Saturday, while you are home tending to the kids.
Is it fair? Of course it is. The lunch is not free. What do you want to sacrifice?
Nothing doom about this.