When Cerebras CEO Andrew Feldman recently argued that it was “mind-boggling” to think anyone could build something extraordinary on a 38-hour workweek, the remark set off a wave of discussion.
To some, it sounded like another tech executive glorifying burnout. To others, it reflected a truth that’s often uncomfortable to acknowledge. Remarkable achievements usually require remarkable effort.
Success Without Sacrificing Work-Life Balance?
There is a strong cultural counterargument. Research consistently shows that productivity diminishes beyond 50 hours per week, and creativity suffers when exhaustion sets in.
Generational surveys underline this shift. Deloitte’s 2025 Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that younger professionals remain ambitious but define success differently.
For them, flexibility, efficiency, and meaningful work matter more than sitting in an office until midnight. Gen Z in particular has been vocal about protecting time outside of work, framing boundaries not as laziness but as a way to sustain long-term performance.
These arguments can’t be dismissed. History is filled with examples of people who contributed extraordinary work while also maintaining balance, from scientists who scheduled long walks to writers who kept steady, yet modest, daily routines.
Extraordinary outcomes can, in some cases, grow from ordinary rhythms.
Extraordinary Success Typically Takes Extra Effort
Still, Feldman’s stance deserves serious consideration.
Building something extraordinary tyically involves more than steady effort. It demands sacrifice, intensity, and hours that far exceed what most would consider “balanced.”
Scaling a startup, for example, is rarely a 9-to-5 endeavor because the stakes are high, the competition fierce, and the window of opportunity is narrow. In some contexts, intensity isn’t optional. It’s survival.
Feldman’s argument echoes this reality. If you want to create something that changes industries or endures for generations, 38 hours a week is unlikely to get you there.
At the Intersection of a Generational Divide
Much of the tension comes down to different definitions of ambition. Older leaders, many of whom built careers on long hours, see shorter workweeks as a lack of drive.
Younger workers see them as sensible boundaries. Both perspectives carry truth, but Feldman’s comments highlight a gap between expectations and aspirations. Extraordinary goals come with extraordinary demands, and not everyone wants (or needs) to make those sacrifices.
It’s also worth noting that Feldman wasn’t calling for endless grind without purpose. His argument is centered on building something extraordinary, not simply being productive.
There’s a big difference between chasing status or hitting targets and dedicating yourself to a mission that requires relentless effort and focus.
Reconciling Effort and Sustainability
The fairest reading of this debate acknowledges both sides. For many people, balance is essential, and not every career goal requires all-consuming effort.
But for those aiming to disrupt industries or leave a generational mark, the reality Feldman describes is hard to escape. Extraordinary achievements rarely come without extraordinary work.
The path forward may lie in better leadership making sure that when intensity is demanded, it is tied to meaningful missions, not wasted on performative busyness.
If leaders can channel long hours into purposeful progress rather than empty overwork, then the sacrifices required feel more justified.
What Kind of Extraordinary Do You Want to Build?
Andrew Feldman’s blunt statement struck a nerve because it forces a choice. What kind of extraordinary do you want to build?
For those content with stability, balance makes sense. But if the goal is to create something truly transformative, Feldman’s point is difficult to deny.
Photo Credit: Business Woman (insta_photos/shutterstock)
