Impact investors push back on AI's '996' hustle culture: 'It’s much more about purpose and leadership”

The '996 model' – working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week – has become a hot topic in European tech circles during the latest week.

In a viral Linkedin post, Martin Mignot, partner at U.S.-based Index Ventures, declared that the 996 schedule is now the startup norm. "This feels like a once-in-a-generation (or once-in-humanity) moment," he wrote. "The size of the opportunity and the pace of change means any minute not working on your product is costly."

Jacob Key, founder of Swedish VC firm Luminar Ventures, echoed that sentiment. Sharing Mignot’s post, he wrote:

"Yes full commitment is most often needed to succeed in business (startups as well as VC) and sports on the highest global level. Especially now in an AI agentic world when you can create 10..100x experiences it is often worth it. As in sports you also have to eat, sleep, practise, focus on the right things and have fun, while working. This lifestyle is not for everyone…."

Impact Loop contacted Key for further comment, but he declined due to time constraints.

"No one wants to work for a self-obsessed AI Bro"

But not everyone agrees that long hours are the key to winning the AI race. A number of influential impact investors are now pushing back on the "996" work culture.

Anna Haupt, Investment Director at Swedish stately-founded VC firm Industrifonden as well as inventor of the "air bag helmet" Hövding wrote in a comment on Linkedin:

"Nobody wants to work for a self-obsessed AI bro who thinks they’ll conquer the world by working around the clock. Do what you believe in – and do it with finesse, intuition, precision, and care."

When Impact Loop contacts her by phone, Haupt has just returned from a major technology conference in Detroit.

"I spent the weekend reflecting on this. On the event, we discussed, amongst other things, how incredibly long hours many people in the US work. My impression from those discussions is that most people – at least at that event – are searching. They're trying to find meaning in life and attempting to free up time to ask the big questions. Several people I met had taken a sabbatical from Wall Street to work out their place in life," she says.

To Haupt, the timing of the work-hours debate – in the middle of the AI boom – is no coincidence.

"Technology has always been about reducing monotonous, strenuous work. So instead of asking how we can work more, we should be asking: how can AI help us work less? And how do we, as a society, redistribute the value AI creates to actually improve our quality of life?"

What about the argument that this moment is too important to miss?

"We’re in an AI hype cycle right now. When something feels new and uncontrollable, people tend to panic and all run in the same direction. But we still get to choose how we use AI. Machines can process enormous amounts of data – but they can’t determine what’s meaningful. That’s still up to us."

A broader backlash is brewing

The pushback isn’t limited to Haupt. After Impact Loop’s editor-in-chief Camilla Bergman posted a critical Linkedin post on the 996 trend, the comment section filled with voices of dissent.

Fredrik Hånell, tech CEO and impact investor, pointed out that true leadership isn’t about enforcing long hours.

"The most important job of a founder is to create a sense of urgency within the team. That comes from purpose and leadership – not from forcing yourself and others to clock a certain number of hours," he wrote.

Samira Aissi, investor in green tech at Swedish SEB Greentech VC, echoed that sentiment – and sees AI as a potential liberator, not a taskmaster.

"Hopefully it’s the robots who’ll be doing 996 in the future," she said, "while we humans focus on both fast and slow thinking – the latter being the hardest kind."