.jpg)
When a workplace shifts into a 9-9-6 schedule, it usually does not arrive as an official policy written in a neat HR document. It tends to creep in quietly through phrases like “just for this sprint”, “just for this client”, or “just until the next funding milestone”. What was promised as a short term exception slowly becomes the unspoken norm. If you find yourself inside that environment as an employee, it can feel as if all the real levers sit far above you. Leadership signs the contracts, clients set aggressive timelines, and your role seems to shrink into absorbing the pressure. Yet even if you cannot redesign the company’s entire system, you are not powerless. Your task is to figure out what you can control, what you can realistically influence, and when it becomes wise to walk away altogether.
The first step is to name the actual problem you are facing. Many employees describe 9-9-6 as a simple issue of “too many hours”, but time is often only the symptom. The deeper issue is usually about clarity, ownership, and how the organisation treats human limits. Are you working twelve hour days because the team is genuinely understaffed for the volume of work, or because no one has clearly decided what matters most. Are you staying online late because no one has defined what “done” looks like, so tasks spill endlessly from one day into the next. Or are you pushing yourself because the people who evaluate you equate exhaustion with loyalty and reward the most visibly overworked.
One practical way to uncover the pattern is to track your own behaviour for a short period. For two weeks, you can write down three simple notes each day. What exactly triggered you to stay late today. Whose expectations were you trying to meet. What would have broken if you had left on time. Over time you may see that very little would have collapsed apart from your fear of appearing less committed. Or you might realise that critical responsibilities have clustered around you in a way that leaves no coverage, which is a different sort of risk. Once you see the pattern, you are no longer fighting a vague idea of a “toxic company” but responding to a specific mix of unclear ownership, unrealistic scope, or unhealthy signaling.
From there, it becomes important to shrink your circle of responsibility to what is truly yours. In 9-9-6 cultures, high performing employees quietly adopt tasks that belong to two or three other roles. At first it feels generous and even flattering to be so needed. Over time it becomes unsustainable. You can start by mapping your responsibilities into three rough circles. In the innermost circle sit the tasks clearly written into your role, the ones that genuinely require your involvement. In the second circle lie all the work you have been doing “temporarily” because no one else stepped in, the projects you absorbed without any formal change to your job. In the outer circle sit the expectations that exist only in your mind, such as replying to every message within minutes, joining every optional meeting, or voluntarily covering for poor planning elsewhere.
The aim is not to abandon your colleagues, but to right size your contribution so that it remains sustainable over time. That usually means three moves. You commit to finishing the work that truly belongs to you with real focus, instead of scattering your attention across every problem that appears. You bring the “temporary” responsibilities into the open during your next one on one conversation and ask directly whether they should be reassigned, officially recognised, better resourced, or simply dropped. You also release some of the self imposed rules you have been following out of anxiety rather than necessity. This approach is not about doing as little as you can. It is about refusing to quietly run three invisible jobs while being paid and evaluated as if you only had one.
At the same time, you need a realistic design for recovery rather than vague ideas about self care. In a 9-9-6 week, advice like “just rest more” can feel almost insulting. When your schedule is heavy, you need a small system you can actually protect, even on bad days. It helps to think in terms of three anchors each day: one before work, one during the day, and one after you log off. Before work, you can choose a short, screen free ritual that signals to your brain that your life has a shape beyond your job. It might be ten minutes of quiet, a short walk, or a simple breakfast not eaten in front of your laptop. You are not trying to win some idealised morning routine, only to affirm that your time is not completely owned by work.
In the middle of the day, you can protect at least one short break that you treat as non negotiable. Even five or ten minutes away from your desk where you stop absorbing new demands can reset your nervous system. When you are not stuck in permanent emergency mode, you make better decisions, notice unnecessary work, and feel more confident pushing back on scope that does not make sense. At the end of your day, however late it may be, you can create a closing ritual that marks a clear boundary. A quick walk, a shower, or a brief note to yourself about what you will handle tomorrow tells your brain that the workday is over for now. Without that closure, your mind continues to spin through unfinished tasks at night, and you start the next day already depleted.
While you are stabilising yourself, you also need to learn how to talk about workload in terms of tradeoffs rather than personal stamina. Many employees avoid conversations about workload because they fear being labelled weak, negative, or ungrateful. The result is a build up of resentment that either explodes in burnout or quietly ends in resignation. A more effective strategy is to describe your reality in operational language. Instead of saying “I cannot handle this”, you can say “If we proceed with all three projects on this timeline, here is what will slip in quality or delivery”. You might highlight overlaps in tasks and suggest combining them into a single deliverable to save time and reduce confusion. Or you might point out that if all requested features are required in the current release, you will either need another teammate for a defined period or extra time to deliver.
When you frame the situation as a set of tradeoffs, you place the problem where it belongs, in system design rather than in your personal toughness. A manager who is willing but overwhelmed may finally see where to intervene or what to renegotiate. A manager who dismisses tradeoffs altogether is giving you useful information about the culture. That knowledge may not feel comforting, but it helps you make decisions with clearer eyes rather than clinging to vague hope.
Alongside these individual actions, it is wise to build quiet alliances rather than secret complaint circles. Under intense pressure, it can be tempting to bond with colleagues purely through shared frustration. While this may bring temporary relief, it rarely changes anything and can sometimes deepen your sense of helplessness. Instead, look for colleagues who also care about sustainable performance and who are willing to discuss solutions. A small group of two or three people can support each other in having more honest conversations with managers, in setting boundaries, and in experimenting with healthier ways of working inside your team.
Together, you can align the language you use when you talk about scope creep, capacity, and priorities so that your messages are consistent and easier for leadership to understand. You can also support each other in actually using rest entitlements that already exist on paper, which begins to normalise recovery rather than treating it as a guilty luxury. Your team might test small changes such as a regular block of no meeting time, clearer documentation, or shared handover templates that reduce the need to stay late. If these experiments work, you can share them with other teams. The point is not to form an underground opposition group, but to gradually increase psychological safety and operational clarity.
At some point, you may need to confront the possibility that 9-9-6 is not a temporary rough patch but a deliberate, enduring choice by leadership. When you see that the schedule is not up for real discussion and that efforts to raise concerns are brushed off, the next responsible step may be to plan your exit. This does not have to be dramatic. It can begin with a private, written risk assessment of what staying will cost you. You can ask what this schedule is doing to your health, your relationships, and your ability to think clearly. You can consider what the next one to three years might look like if nothing changes. You can also define what signs would convince you that the culture is genuinely shifting for the better, and whether any of those signs are visible at all.
In parallel, you can examine your own leverage. Do your skills have value in other companies or sectors. Do you have enough savings or family support to give yourself a small buffer if you decide to leave. Are there teams within the same organisation that operate more sustainably where you could transfer instead of exiting completely. When you treat these questions as design constraints rather than as moral judgments, you free yourself from the idea that leaving equals failure. It becomes clear that your wellbeing is an input the company is consuming. If the system refuses to recognise or respect that input, you are allowed to stop providing it at your own expense.
Finally, it is important to rebuild your sense of self outside your job. One of the quiet harms of 9-9-6 work culture is how it shrinks your identity until you feel like nothing more than your title and your performance ratings. Protecting time for non work roles is not a selfish indulgence. It is a structural safeguard for your mental health. You may be a parent, a partner, a friend, a neighbour, a volunteer, a hobbyist, a learner in fields that have nothing to do with your industry. These roles provide context and stability. They remind you that your career is one part of a larger life, not the entire definition of who you are.
A useful question to ask is what parts of your life would still feel solid if you left this company tomorrow. If that list is short, treat it not as a reason for shame but as a starting point. You can slowly reinvest in relationships, interests, and communities even with limited time. As those parts of your life grow stronger, your decisions at work will come from a more grounded place. You will feel less trapped, more able to say no when necessary, and more willing to pursue environments that respect your limits.
A 9-9-6 environment is not only a test of endurance. It reveals what a company truly believes about people, time, and value. As an employee, you cannot carry the weight of a flawed system on your own. You can, however, choose how you respond. You can clarify what is happening, reclaim realistic boundaries, speak in the language of tradeoffs, build thoughtful alliances, and evaluate honestly whether staying serves your long term wellbeing. When you do that, whatever you decide next becomes a conscious choice instead of a desperate reaction, and that alone is a form of agency that 9-9-6 culture often tries to erase.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
