What if you're convinced your lack of work-life balance is the only thing setting you apart?
My phone just went ping. Sender: Katy, 29 years old. Message: "I miss my life. Not sure how much longer I can do this". Attachment: Harvard Business Review, "If you're so successful, why are you still working 70 hours a week".
What do I say to her? I'm older, but not wiser. Shall I tell the truth? You're in the trap. I never found a way out. It's all or nothing, you decide.
She's working 70 hours a week. So what, everyone's doing it.
Important deals will be lost if the team doesn't trash a weekend or pull an all-nighter. A 9pm finish is a calm day and most co-workers will make an appearance on a Sunday in jeans. Get on with it. You're highly capable, ambitious and well-paid.
But Katy has discovered the truth in the trap. Have you heard of an insecure over-achiever?
It's a bit of an ego-crushing question. When I read the words, a foreboding feeling came over me and a barrier went up. Chances are if you're not an insecure over-achiever yourself, they surround you. The trait stretches right up to the head honcho.
What are the signs?
The study by Laura Empson for the Harvard Review points out the following:
Someone who under-estimates their skills
Is driven to succeed by the fear of inadequacy
Has a feeling success might not be deserved or they got lucky
Worries they might not be as smart or capable as people think and that could get discovered
What behaviour does it lead to?
Limited work-life balance, but a high sense of commitment
You're always willing to shift your social commitments to accommodate work demands
You defend your employer because you have autonomy and are choosing to do the long hours
Your hours feel normal and justified, because chronic over-work is the culture
You accepted the pressure early in your career and now you're in a leadership role, you continue to expect the same
Acceptance that other people's burn out, is part of the weeding out process
When you put a bunch of over-achievers together, no one feels any smarter than the next person. The long hours become a way we can compete with each other. Higher output decides who gets more money, promotion and positive recognition.
The areas of law, finance and consultancy are hotbeds for insecure over-achievers and they're also highly paid.
I was once told when you leave an investment bank it's like pulling your hand out of a bucket of water; that's how fast the hole closes over. Never a truer word, but it feeds the fear.
There wouldn't be many of us who haven't stood back at some point and realised you don't need to be exceptionally clever to do these jobs. That breeds more insecurity as the barriers aren't high. In a knowledge-based profession, the greatest differentiator is often the emotional intelligence that clients connect with and the hours of effort we put into them.
The insecure over-achiever is now a trait big firms look for. Katy is hot property. Yes it's that cynical. HR professionals are screening for it. The most well-known admission of this was McKinsey & Co, the global consultancy firm.
Empson explains the insecure overachiever is an attractive hire because their fears create self-motivation and self-discipline. Firms operate a policy where you need to continue to be promoted (up-or-out). This increases the fear of becoming exposed or inadequate. The short-term response is to deliver exceptional performance. Long-term it's much harder to do that consistently. Stress and burnout levels rise.
Why can't we stop chronic over-work?
It would be cost neutral to employ twice the numbers on half the money. Again that feeds our insecurity. When we all show allegiance to the 70-hour week, it creates a barrier to entry. It justifies the money. We deserve this because other people wouldn't give up their life in the same way.
Every firm is stuck in a fixed behavioural loop with the rest of the industry. We tell mums returning to work they can't get four-fifths of their old salary for a four-day week, as that wouldn't be fair on their 70-hour colleagues. The commitment levels aren't the same.
The life-cycle of the insecure over-achiever is nearly impossible to disrupt, because they exist in volume at every level within a firm. They're the fuel in their own trap. My own experience is there's no solution. You know it's unhealthy, but you still believe you're different and can handle it. Leap away and you realise you're a recovering addict.
How could we change?
Empson's advice is thoughtful and well intended.
Acknowledge you've made it and start enjoying the experience more. Only work long hours when you need to or want to. If your boss is an insecure overachiever, be aware of how they project that on to you. The list goes on.
Do I think any of that will help someone currently caught in the trap? No, I don't. Psychologists have analysed the traits that feed the trap with disarming clarity, but their analysis falls short for me.
Money is involved and chronic persistent over-work is largely about greed economics - limiting the finite pot to as few people as possible. Will we ever achieve a more sustainable balance between human greed, family time and mental health?
Janine Starks is a financial commentator with expertise in banking, personal finance and funds management. Opinions in this column represent her personal views. They are general in nature and are not a recommendation, opinion or guidance to any individuals in relation to acquiring or disposing of a financial product. Readers should not rely on these opinions and should always seek specific independent financial advice appropriate to their own individual circumstances.