It is common for professionals, particularly in Software Development, to work extended hours to close pending tasks and meet delivery commitments. That is one dimension of the issue. However, for distributed teams operating across multiple geographies and time zones, there is an additional and often more complex challenge: time alignment. The constraint is not merely workload; it is synchronization.

In cross-time-zone engagements, meeting times are frequently determined by the customer or the most senior stakeholder. Others are expected to accommodate. While this may appear operationally efficient, it often transfers the burden disproportionately to certain team members.

Early in my career, I experienced this firsthand. During my tenure with one employer, I had daily discussions with the CEO. He was located five hours behind my time zone, and his preferred meeting time was at the end of his business day, effectively late at night for me. It became routine for me to leave the office as the last person, only to continue working from home to attend these calls.

Each session typically lasted over an hour and required full cognitive engagement. By the time the meeting began, I was already mentally exhausted from a full day of work. Inevitably, fatigue affected my clarity of thought, responsiveness, and overall quality of contribution.

In retrospect, the mistake was mine. Professionally, I should have established boundaries and learned to say “no” to arrangements that were unsustainable. Professional preferences and constraints should be applied equitably across participants. These meetings were effectively an additional workload, yet there was no reduction in my regular responsibilities to offset the late hours.

This is a common pattern among junior professionals. They tend to accept all requests from senior stakeholders without expressing scheduling constraints or competing priorities. Many assume that declining or negotiating a proposed meeting time may be perceived as unprofessional or may negatively impact their reputation. There is often an underlying fear of consequences.

In reality, that assumption is usually incorrect. Most senior leaders and customers are receptive when concerns are communicated respectfully and professionally. In many cases, they appreciate individuals who manage their commitments transparently and propose workable alternatives.

From an organizational perspective, I have consistently recommended implementing a “Core Hours” policy, defined overlapping hours during which cross-time-zone meetings must be scheduled. This governance mechanism promotes fairness, protects employee well-being, and reinforces mutual respect within distributed teams.

“Sustainable performance requires structural discipline, not silent endurance”.