QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaPeople naturally vary in how many hours they can work without affecting their health just as people vary in how far they can run without affecting their health. And people vary in how many hours they prefer to spend on the job just as people vary in how many hours they prefer to spend on any of life's possible activities. Banks would prefer people who can and are willing to spend lots of time at the bank and are effective at those higher work loads.Working for longer hours destroys creativity. Henry Ford knew this. Long hours do not necessarily impair health, but zombie-like behaviour is possible. It's an outdated model.In mathematics, the best ideas come when you are doing other things.Quantity != Quality. I think it is an Anglo/Saxon thing that the more hours the better. BTW if you work for yourself you don't count the hours, right? QuoteResearch discussed in the book Creativity and the Mind showed that regular breaks significantly enhance problem-solving skills, partly by making it easier for you to go through your memories to find clues. Henri Poincare and Jaques Hadamard have documented this process.Those are all valid points. (And we might discuss whether 2008 was due to too much creativity or too much zombie-like behaviour.)Still, if you were a bank, would you prefer someone who has the demonstrated ability to work 80 hr/week or someone who might fall apart if the workload suddenly increases? Making people work long hours might be suboptimal, but having a workforce that is incapable of working long hours could be worse.I am not a bank, so I don't know. I spent 12 months waiting for a new mortgage contract, so I guess the troops are a bit front-weary. Again, Henry Ford had the solution. You can monitor performance.QuoteThose are all valid pointsNice to hear it. Next question
Last edited by Cuchulainn
on January 16th, 2014, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.