Tag: job design

OM in the News: The AI’s Industry 100-Hour Workweeks

The explosive growth of artificial intelligence has forced leading tech companies to rethink their human resource strategies and job design, reports The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 23, 2025). As the demand for rapid innovation intensifies, organizations like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Anthropic are relying on small, highly skilled teams to push the boundaries of AI development. These teams often work 80 to 100 hours per week, far exceeding the traditional schedules we discuss in Chapter 10, as they race to keep up with the pace of technological change.

Several researchers compared the circumstances to war. “We’re basically trying to speedrun 20 years of scientific progress in two years,” said one Anthropic scientist. “Extraordinary advances in AI systems are happening every few months. It’s the most interesting scientific question in the world right now.”

This environment has led to a redefinition of job roles and expectations. Rather than adhering to standard 9-to-5 or even the demanding “9-9-6” (9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week) schedules, some AI workers describe “0-0-2” routines—working around the clock with minimal breaks. The pressure is especially acute for those directly involved in developing new AI models, where the unpredictability of research outcomes and the speed of breakthroughs require constant adaptability.

To support these extreme demands, companies are adapting their HR strategies. Some provide weekend meals and ensure continuous staffing, while others appoint rotating “captains” to monitor model outputs and oversee product development. These measures aim to sustain productivity and manage burnout, acknowledging that the traditional boundaries between work and personal life have blurred for many in the field.

Job design in this context emphasizes autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and a sense of mission. Many top AI researchers are driven not just by compensation but by the excitement of discovery and the belief that their work is shaping a pivotal moment in history. This self-motivation reduces the need for formalized overtime requirements, as employees willingly invest extra hours to stay ahead in the competitive landscape.

But this also raises concerns about sustainability and well-being. While some workers have become wealthy from their efforts, most have little time to enjoy their success or maintain relationships outside of work. The model raises questions about long-term retention and the potential need for more balanced, human-centered HR strategies as AI becomes further integrated into mainstream business operations.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. Your comments on the 100 hour workweek?
  2. Is this a valid human resource strategy?

OM in the News: GE’s New Management Strategy Goes Deep, Not Wide

In Chapter 10, we bring up the subjects of job design and job expansion. The theory is that variety makes a job “better”, yields a higher quality of life for the employee, and provides better flexibility that benefits both worker and company. Job rotation occurs when the employee is allowed to move from one specialized job to another.

I mention this because The Wall Street Journal (March 7, 2012) writes that General Electric is breaking up its old paradigm that for decades groomed jack-of-all-trades generalists as managers. GE’s commitment to “professional managers”, serving short stints in multiple business units, traces back to the firm’s 5th president, Ralph Cordiner, in 1956. The model moved promising managers every 2 years “to test their executive mettle.”

 As a young computer analyst, designing jet engines at GE’s aerospace division in Cincinnati back in the 1970s, I often doubted this concept. My boss was a bright fellow who had worked in GE facilities all over the map–but didn’t know a thing about jet engines–and this often caused real problems in our staff meetings. Does a good manager at the locomotive factory, in the nuclear power division, in health care, finance, or in the light bulb plant, automatically succeed in the aerospace arena?

The answer might be “no”, as GE now leaves managers in business units longer–perhaps their whole career. The idea is that their understanding of products and customers will help in our complex world. “We need people who are pretty deep”, says GE’s exec development director. My old Cincinnati operation is now led by a manager who spent his whole career in GE Aviation, working on jet engines.

Discussion questions:

1. How does rotating managers compare to rotating blue-collar factory workers?

2. What are the advantages of moving managers every 2 years to a new business unit in a giant firm like GE?