996 by Vibes: The Return of Hustle Culture (and Why Canada Should Pay Attention)

On a Saturday night in San Francisco, the city looks like it is powering down.

Restaurants are winding down. Streets are quiet. But in a few tech offices, the lights still look like it is Tuesday afternoon.

This is not always a heroic “we’re shipping a deadline” moment. More and more, it is something else. A cultural expectation that the workday never really ends.

And it is starting to resemble a model that became infamous in China: 996. That is 9am to 9pm, six days a week.

To be clear, Silicon Valley is not posting a “996 policy” on the wall. It is subtler than that. It shows up as:

• Calendars stacked back to back

• Late night Slack messages that get rewarded by leadership

• Weekend work framed as “ownership”

• A quiet performance bar that keeps rising without being named

That is why this matters. 996 is not just a schedule. It is a set of norms.

China did not “pass a new 996 ban,” but it did declare 996 style overtime illegal

In China’s tech boom, 996 became shorthand for extreme overtime expectations. It triggered significant backlash, including the 996.ICU movement. In 2021, China’s top court and authorities publicly clarified that certain 996 style overtime practices violate labour law.

That is not the same as “China passed a brand-new 996 ban.” It is more accurate to say this: 996 was declared illegal under existing labour standards, after years of public pressure and high-profile overwork controversies.

Which makes the North American fascination with it bleakly ironic.

This is not “everyone in Silicon Valley,” but it is a visible pattern in parts of tech

Let’s tighten the claim. 996 is not universal across Silicon Valley. Plenty of teams still operate within normal ranges.

But in certain pockets, especially AI, venture-backed startups and winner-take-all categories, the norms are hardening. We are seeing:

• Job postings explicitly referencing 70 hour weeks

• Work models built around heavy in-office presence

• Acquisitions where employees are pressured to commit to extreme schedules or take a buyout

• Executives openly praising 60 hour weeks as the productivity “sweet spot”

None of this proves the whole Valley has gone 996. It proves something more precise and more important. A subset of influential companies are normalizing extreme work as a virtue. Those norms spread.

Why now?

Three forces are converging:

1) The AI arms race

Teams genuinely believe they are in a narrow window where shipping first creates permanent advantage. That logic produces urgency. Urgency often becomes justification for chronic overload.

2) Capital got tighter

When funding was easy, companies could buy time. When capital tightens, many founders try to buy time the only other way: through people.

3) Overwork is being glamorized again

When high-profile leaders treat exhaustion as proof of seriousness, it filters down quickly. It turns rest into weakness and boundaries into a lack of commitment.

It creates a workplace where the real KPI becomes availability.

The Canadian context: Are we next?

If you are reading this from Toronto, Waterloo, Vancouver or Montreal, it is tempting to treat this as a Bay Area problem.

But Canadian tech companies compete in the same markets, the same talent pool and the same investor narratives. The pressure to match intensity is real.

Here is the part most leaders get wrong:

Canadian law does not automatically protect your team from extreme hours, but it does not give you a free pass either.

Take Ontario as a common example.

• Yes, the ESA includes a 48 hour weekly maximum framework.

• Yes, employees can agree in writing to exceed certain limits, with conditions.

• Yes, certain roles, including some “information technology professionals” as legally defined, and managers or supervisors, may be exempt from some hours-of-work and overtime provisions.

But that does not mean anyone in tech is exempt and it definitely does not mean there is no risk.

Because even when ESA hours rules do not apply cleanly, other risks do:

• Constructive dismissal if expectations fundamentally change

• Human rights exposure, including family status and disability

• Accommodation complexity when burnout becomes a medical issue

• Psychological injury angles

• Reputational damage that kills recruiting

The compliance question is not “Can we?”

The real question is “Can we defend what we are building ethically, legally and operationally?”

The talent strategy problem nobody wants to say out loud

Let’s talk about who can actually survive an implicit 996 culture.

Not most parents. Not caregivers. Not many senior leaders. Not people managing chronic conditions. Not people who want a life that includes anything beyond work.

So who is left? Mostly young, single, able-bodied people who can absorb the hit for a couple of years.

That does not create meritocracy. It creates a filter for privilege, disguised as excellence.

It recreates the worst version of the tech monoculture while pretending it is just “high standards.”

The productivity myth: longer hours do not equal more output

Research on sustained long hours consistently shows diminishing returns and increased error rates once you push past reasonable weekly totals, especially over time.

Even if people are at their desks for 70 hours, the organization pays for it in:

• Rework

• Defects

• Shallow decisions

• Brittle systems

• Churn, which is one of the most expensive hidden costs

The smarter question is not “How do we get more hours?”

It is “How do we get more high-quality output per hour, sustainably?”

Getting This Right: How The Orion Group Can Help

If your organization is navigating these pressures (balancing ambition with sustainability, competing for talent without breaking your people or rebuilding your approach to work intensity), we can help.

At The Orion Group, we specialize in helping organizations build high-performance cultures that don't require human sacrifice:

• Strategic HR Advisory: Culture audits that identify unsustainable patterns before they break. Employment compliance reviews for exempt classifications and hours expectations. Competitive positioning strategies that attract top talent without 996.

• Leadership Development: Training managers to distinguish between intensity and overwork. Building skills for productivity, prioritization and focus. Creating accountability systems based on outcomes, not hours.

• Talent Strategy: Redesigning roles for sustainable high performance. Developing retention strategies that compete against 996 employers. Building talent pipelines that don't rely on exploiting desperation.

The 996 trend is a warning sign, not a blueprint. Let's build something better. 

Contact us to discuss how your organization can build competitive advantage through sustainable high-performance culture.