There’s a piece in Forbes called Why A Four-Day Work Week Doesn’t Work that suggests:
But there are serious drawbacks. Packing 40 hours into four days isn’t necessarily an efficient way to work. Many people find that eight hours are tough enough; requiring them to stay for an extra two could cause morale and productivity to decrease. As for saving on the cost of commuting, it likely isn’t true.
The article is right: More hours in fewer days is not an efficient way to work. That’s why this article misses the point.
The point of the 4-day work week is about doing less work. It’s not about 4 10-hour days for the magical 40-hour work week. It’s about 4 normalish 8-hour days for the new and improved 32-hour work week. The numbers are just used to illustrate a point. Results, not hours, are what matter, but working longer hours doesn’t translate to better results. The law of diminishing returns kicks in quick when you’re overworked.
Besides, very few people work even 8 hours a day. You’re lucky if you get a few good hours in between all the meetings, interruptions, web surfing, office politics, and personal business that permeates typical work day.
Fewer official working hours help squeeze the fat out of the typical work week. Once everyone has less time to get their stuff done, they respect that time even more. People become stingy with their time and that’s a good thing. They don’t waste it on things that just don’t matter. When you have fewer hours you usually spend them more wisely.
So don’t think 4 days means cramming the same amount of time a shorter week. Longer days isn’t the goal. Think 4 days means a shorter week with less time to get things done. And that’s actually what you want.
GeeIWonder
on 20 Aug 08I think you forgot to close one of your tags - the bottom two paragraphs are strobing.
Forbes is (whether they know it or not) talking about the 4 day work week as it is likely to be implemented by people who suggest things as meetings based on articles in Forbes.
Rob
on 20 Aug 08I agree with you on this one Jason, that Forbes misses the point on what a 4 day work week is all about. Unfortunately, payroll is based on 40 hour work week at most places, therefore in order to get paid your salary you have to work 40 hours, even if it means working 4, 10 hour days. I understand that it should be based on results and not hours worked, but that’s going to take some drastic change in the ways companies operate. R
Spencer Fry
on 20 Aug 08I’m kind of shocked that Forbes completely missed the point of the 4 day work week. They’re out in left field with this article. However, I’m not entirely surprised considering it’s coming from Forbes—the corporate world’s magazine of choice.
Hans Sjunnesson
on 20 Aug 08Just a quick thought. If you can manage to get the output you want in less than than the standard week that’s great. You won’t need to work the fifth day.
But where it gets iffy is when you try to get a hold of someone and he’s not working that day. Do everyone take fridays off, or mondays, or do some people work have half of monday and half of friday? Then you need to inform everyone who might want to get a hold of you of your schedule.
And I know, I know, constant availability isn’t a part of Being Real but if the guy I need to get a hold of to restart a server isn’t working that day, then I might not get anything done that day either.
Anonymous Coward
on 20 Aug 08I believe the 4 day/32 hours work week are only a good fit for positions in companies that are “desk” jobs.
The author could have been thinking of work in a manufacturing factory on the floor. Because operations are a 24 hours a day, I think the 4 day/40 hours work week fits better. And if the floor employees are working those 40 hours a week, it would be hard pressed for the managers to work 32 hours and get paid for 40 hours.
Justin
on 20 Aug 08The right way to do the 4 day work-week: how 37signals does it (4×8, or less if the extra hours aren’t needed).
The way the rest of the world would do it: 4×10, with extra teleconferences from home for the other day, and work expected from home over the weekend.
Rob Bazinet
on 20 Aug 08I think you are spot-on Jason. Forbes article is a perfect example of an old-school rag trying to remain relevant and not getting-it in the end.
Too many organizations think more is better when it is proven that is not the case. 37Signals and other companies changing the way everyone has worked for so long is great and hopefully will lead to more companies doing the same.
It is important for folks to enjoy their lives and not “live to work” but “work to live”.
Jens Alfke
on 20 Aug 08I think a 32-hour week might work well for bright and shiny tech companies, or other environments where people are motivated enough to get the same work done in fewer hours. But in 90+% of businesses, statements like “once everyone has less time to get their stuff done, they respect that time even more” are naïvely optimistic.
France mandated a 35-hour work week a few years ago, and it doesn’t work well at all; it’s hurt productivity and caused countless employees to sneak back into work after hours to get their stuff done.
Don Schenck
on 20 Aug 08My daughter had a child a year ago, and recently she (my daughter) went to a three-days-a-week schedule. Three eight-hour days.
Her first comment?
“I get as much done in 24 hours as I did in 40 hours!”
There’s a line, to be sure. But if we are to believe the studies about how much time gets wasted … I bet the 40 hour week yields about 20 hours of actual work.
Put another way: I can work at my office at home and, in four hours, get two days’-worth of software development done versus at the client site. There’s something about blaring Rolling Stones that makes me productive.
Tom
on 20 Aug 08I’m going to have to disagree with the statement hardly anyone actually works 8 hours in a day. Like someone mentioned, if you’re in a factory, you work every minute you’re not on break or in the bathroom. I’ve done it for 8 hours, with one 10 minute break, and one 15 minute break. Trust me, a four hour work week would be the best thing that ever happened.
I came away believing anyone who works in an office doesn’t know how good they have it. Factory workers have to work 8 hours because they don’t have meetings, email, web surfing, office politics or personal business they’re allowed to attend to.
Tom
on 20 Aug 08I meant a four day work week, not four hour. :)
JF
on 20 Aug 08Tom: Fair enough. I’m mostly talking about office workers. There are certainly exceptions.
Mike
on 20 Aug 08I think there are two dynamics at play here. First, the Forbes perspective is that things are hourly – like a manufacturing job, or professional services that are billed by the hour. In those situations, the 40-hour week (regardless of the # of days) is the model around which their businesses and staffing plans are built. However, S&N nails the concept that sticking to a 40-hour/week construct in a business that is not built on an hourly labor model is short-sighted. Labor models should reflect the desired outcomes of the business; if it is to maximize billing, then 40 hours is the standard. If it is to produce a deliverable of some sort, then doing it most efficiently should be the standard.
wheat
on 20 Aug 08“but if the guy I need to get a hold of to restart a server isn’t working that day”
That would be a prime example of bad management. Coverage is key. If there’s only one guy in your org who knows how to restart a server, there’s a lack of cross-training going on. In short, you’d do the same thing in a 4×8 or 4×10 work scenario that you do know: you’d send an email/text/voice mail and wait for a reply. It’s no different than when people are our sick or out on leave.
JF
on 20 Aug 08France mandated a 35-hour work week a few years ago, and it doesn’t work well at all; it’s hurt productivity and caused countless employees to sneak back into work after hours to get their stuff done.
I don’t know the details so I can’t speak directly to this experiment, but if the way they are working didn’t change then this doesn’t surprise me.
If they are still having the same number of meetings and still encouraging the same number of interruptions, then working less isn’t going to help. You have to work less and work differently.
Since you have less time, you should reconsider the things you spend time on. Is that extra meeting really necessary? Do we really need to take up another hour today talking about this thing we talked about last week? Etc.
The shorter work week should encourage reevaluating how you work, not just the number of hours you are expected to put in.
GeeIWonder
on 20 Aug 08I came away believing anyone who works in an office doesn’t know how good they have it. Factory workers have to work 8 hours because they don’t have meetings, email, web surfing, office politics or personal business they’re allowed to attend to.
Most of us had first jobs. We know we have it good. A bad day at the office beats a lot of those days. It’s not all cut and dry though.
You wouldn’t think people who analyze business or production for a living would have such a hard time with the concept of diminishing returns.
I can see how 40hr scheme would pose real challenges in say, a union shop. Benefits etc are based on your hours. There would also have to be a culture change. But then again, you’re also talking about a 33% raise in terms of $/hr (or 52 more days paid vacation). Tell me that wouldn’t garner some goodwill at the table with the union and others.
Companies (even factories) might save on health care, accidents, day care programs and other costs. Production per $ might actually go up. It’s not unlike the difference between preventive care and treatment of a disease when it emerges vs. palliative care.
I also find it funny that France apparently passed a 35hr law. When I was there (not that long ago, honest) 16yr-olds were in school 44hrs/week—it was only about 40 for the 11yr-olds though.
Walker Hamilton
on 20 Aug 08Tell this to the Obama for America campaign staff….
Daniel Tenner
on 20 Aug 08Well, this is not really a fair criticism of Forbes, in this case.
Yes, Forbes “misses the point” of the “4-day workweek” as preached by 37-signals… but there’s a good reason for that: they weren’t talking about that version of the 4-day workweek.
The Forbes article clearly refers to a 4-day-workweek scheme instituted by Chrysler, not 37-signals – and their analysis of why it’s a load of bollocks is pretty much spot on. Forbes hasn’t missed the point – Chrysler has.. assuming they were even aware of the existence of that point in the first place, which I doubt.
Here we have a case of two things called by the same terms but referring to very different initiatives.
Ironically, I think 37-signals missed the point that the article wasn’t about them!
Geoff
on 20 Aug 08France reduced the work week in an effort to reduce unemployment. Their reasoning: if the working people worked less, more people would need to be hired to get the same amount of work done. This is/was a silly strategy and completely at odds with JF’s point: production vs hours. France actually wants people to produce less in less hours, so that more people can contribute to production.
J
on 20 Aug 08Daniel: The title of the Forbes piece wasn’t “Why a 4-day work week doesn’t work at Chrysler” it was “Why A Four-Day Work Week Doesn’t Work.” That’s a categorical denial.
Daniel Tenner
on 20 Aug 08@J:
Forgivable, considering that Forbes belong to the 99.99% of the corporate world who have never heard of 37Signals and are completely unaware that there is more than one meaning for “4-day work-week”.
As much as you may wish to think otherwise, the accepted definition of terms is not made up by 37Signals.
endekks
on 20 Aug 08@Tom: I am pretty sure that Jason may have been applying the logic to office workers – and not factory workers. Doing routine work day in and out results in a process which gets streamlined to a pretty efficient level after some time. So more time would likely offer more final product. But seeing as how 37S moved to the 4 day work-week and they are an office, not a factory, which requires meetings, client interaction and certain types of problem solving which many factory workers never encounter, it seems abundantly clear that they are applying this model to other workers in a similar environment.
Also, having worked in both a production (i.e. physical routine) job and in an office environment, I can say without a doubt that while the routine work made me more physically tired, I never encountered a serious mental drain that wasn’t cured by engaging in a hobby when I got home. In addition, I could count on a schedule that meant I would make plans with friends for an hour after work – and almost never have to cancel because of something at work getting in the way. I knew when I could expect to be at work, when I could expect to be free, and how to re-energise myself.
Unfortunately, this is most certainly not the case for my office work. I work at least 10-12 hours a day – plus have an hour long commute both to and from the office on a ridiculously packed Tokyo train system. While my job entitles me the luxuries of surfing the net from time to time, sitting in a chair most of the day and occasional flexibility to move some things around to tend to personal matters, it also is far removed from any sort of regular schedule, the ability to get over-time the instant I work more than my scheduled hours because of union protection and clear easily-projected goals in the production arena. The time it takes to get 100 engines dropped in a chassis can be much more easily determined than how many hours it will take to get a back-end system deployed for a client’s web-site or come up with a design direction for an ad campaign that a client will like.
Accordingly, the work in some offices has a much higher mental toll on people. And i don’t know about you, but often a hot bath, a good meal and a good night’s sleep is often the only thing I need to take away the physical effects of a manual-labour heavy day. Unfortunately, those treatments are not always effective for mental exhaustion – especially sleep, because unlike factory jobs, office work can follow you home.
I am not saying office work is harder than factory work. I am saying – as you pointed out – that they are different types of work. However, you seemed to only highlight what you consider to be the advantages of office work that factory work does not have. Seems to be a case of “grass is greener”.
The fact remains that unlike factory work, hours are not always the deciding factor in how long it takes to produce results. When I worked in a shop and did physical work, being in a bad mood because of a fight with my girlfriend had little effect on my performance for the day. The same does not hold true for my current office work now when something goes wrong at home. So a good deal of how you get “mental” work done (as opposed to “physical”) lies in your mental approach.
Studies have shown continuously that in creative environments people being in the office for less time, but staying committed to work for the hours they are there, not only boosts productivity, but morale and employee / employer relationships. I am absolutely convinced that spending less time in a factory would have the opposite effect. Sure, morale may be higher for employees, but that will go away when everyone is laid off for not getting more product on the floor. _
In regards to the hours in the office, I wish someone would tell Japan. If there was ever a country that follows the policy of “asses in seats is of paramount importance”, it’s Japan. I cannot tell you how often trains are overstuffed from 23:00 until 24:30 on weeknights from salarymen finally making their way home after a day that began at 8:00 or earlier. And there is pretty much no such thing as over-time here. With a suicide rate incredibly high (some times at work, or – more popular – on the way to work), you tell me if more hours working in an office surfing the net, checking email and sitting around all day have no mental toll. ____
Personally, I always work on a performance level. I put in more hours than I would like, but I do get some satisfaction out of what I do, and I also have a sizeable staff of Japanese people under me who are very slow to adopting controversial work policies such as the 4 day work-week idea. Fortunately, however, I have managed to take a firm stance on not going to meetings unless they are really necessary for me to attend.
I am just hoping my next step will be milestone based and not hour based.
Frank
on 20 Aug 08I’m sorry, Jason, but I just don’t see how dropping the work week by 8 hours is going to encourage some dramatic change in work format. I would venture to guess that most managers don’t hold meetings because they need to fill the hours, but because they think they need them. That’s not going to change if they have less time.
If time wasted by management is the real concern, then companies need to recognize the wasted productivity and make changes in their management styles and, in the worst cases, staff.
Stephen Jenkins
on 20 Aug 08Part of this also speaks to the question:
“What I am being hired for?”
A. Are you hired for 40 hours a week of your time, to be used by project managers at their discretion on various tasks? B .Are you hired to build n widgets per period? C. Are you hired to maintain a level of quality in a process? D. Are you hired to serve cappuccinos from 7-close? E. Are you hired to innovate, visualize, explain, and co-ordinate projects or instances of creativity?
My father in-law is a B/C person. His world at work is very physical, and there are operational aspects of his production environment that necessitate the schedule they employee, and that he oversees.
I think most of the people here are A. or E. people.
To echo what most people here have been saying, if I have been hired to “Get Things Done” then let me get them done in my own timeframe, at my own pace – provided I meet agreed upon deadlines.
For the D’s of the world, sorry but you are stuck at the coffeeshop until you can turn yourself into an E. Unless of course, you love what you are doing, in which case – keep doing it!
Bryan Sebastian
on 20 Aug 08I agree with what Jason says. The Forbes article is obviously stuck in the traditional way of working… as are most companies. I hate the “hours” based model. It amazes me how so very few companies think out of the box. I have actually taken getting away the traditional 40 hour week a step further (i believe) by paying people hourly. It is a great way to compensate highly motivated people. Our concept is if you want to work and produce… then work. This also eliminates the phantom sick days. If someone does not want to come in… don’t come in. (obviously you have to manage this approach not affecting project deadlines, etc.) I am wondering if anyone else trying hourly pay?
Dustin
on 20 Aug 08If 8 hours are tough enough then it is quite possible you’re not enjoying your job and should start dusting off the resume. I love what I do, but hours of unnecessary busy work keep me in the office well over 40 hours a week. In fact, I would say about 10-12 hours of my week are spent doing work that really isn’t necessary, but the archaic processes and expectations of click-n-mortar need to be appeased.
Matt’s post of the Sivers/Ferriss interview was a great Thursday afternoon read… very interesting stuff. Ferriss mentions Parkinson’s Law, and how “a task will swell in complexity and perceived difficulty depending upon the amount of time that you allocate to it.” I understand the risks and uncertainties of knocking an entire day off the work week, but that doesn’t necessarily knock off an entire day of expected output. It really says “You had 40 hours to do x units of work – now you have 32, so get creative and make it happen. To reward your efforts, you now have Friday off, so grab your river shoes, a case of beer and head up to New Braunfels.” That may not be the exact verbiage your employer chooses to use, but the idea is there. Essentially, this will force everyone involved to examine how they spend their time and start cutting the crap.
Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide)
on 20 Aug 08I used to work back to back 40s, we’d work 8 days in a row, 10 hour days and then get 6 days off. It was construction, and at the time my body wasn’t fit enough to hack it. However had it been, I think this would have been better, you can take a vacation every other week.
When coding longer days but less of them is probably better too, as every programmer who can get in the zone could hack for 10-12 hours, but you can’t always get in the zone, and sometimes you just need a few days away.
Don McArthur
on 20 Aug 08Forbes is guilty of the same illogic that annually proclaims that America will lose 63.74 gazillion man hours during the basketball playoffs. We lose nothing. The basketball silliness merely takes the place of other silliness that crowds the ‘work day.’
Matthew Scott
on 20 Aug 08I think for the most part the reaction over 4-hour work week is so many people are skeptical because they are afraid to try to develop a new strategic life + work design.
It is easier to be a skeptic than have the vision of a Tim Ferriss or Ricardo Semler. Thank goodness for the visionaries and those of us not afraid to try.
Chris
on 20 Aug 08Hear, hear—well said.
Now, back to my surfing.
Seth
on 20 Aug 08Looks like my day job messed this up too! We are going to be moving to 4 – 10 hours days soon!!! Which is great because we have all of 5 hours worth of work as it is.
Robert Stinnett
on 21 Aug 08There are two key things here:
Trust your employees (I argue most companies wouldn’t trust their employees to take out the garbage) Stop measuring by the clock; and measure by the results.This nonsense, utter nonsense, that work happens between 8 and 5 is rubbish. This is a GLOBAL ECONOMY. It may be 5PM where you are, but guess what, its high noon somewhere else.
Gen Y and part of Gen X are leading the change—but, honestly, there are way too many Baby Boomers who want to hold onto this 8 to 5 garbage because “they had to suffer, so you have to suffer too”. And they are dragging entire companies down because of their inflexibility. Companies, especially those at the top, need to take a good, long, hard look at their organizations and start taking corrective action before it is too late.
There is an excellent book out about how Best Buy did just this called “Work Sucks!”—I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to start transforming their company.
Douglas
on 21 Aug 08Isn’t the Forbes article actually criticising Chrysler for approaching the 4 day week in the wrong manner? Jason, I agree with most of what you’ve said but that’s a misleading headline for sure.
Ryan
on 21 Aug 08And you missed the point of the Forbes article. It’s specifically about companies that do four longer days instead of five. Not everything is about you.
Matthew Lang
on 21 Aug 08Having a young family, I have arranged with my boss to work the 40 hours in 4 days at work. It now means that I can do a couple of errands on the extra I have off and also spend more time with my family.
The company owner also has decided that in time we will reduce our work week to four 8 hour days. It’s great to work for people who aren’t afraid to try new things and go against the typical work routine.
Matt
on 21 Aug 08Personally, I would rather work 6 or 7 days a week but only work 5-6 hours per day. After 5 or 6 hours I notice my energy starting to drain off. If I had a 6 hour work day and started at 8:30, that means I am finished by 3pm! I can go enjoy the sunshine in the summer and have the whole evening to hang out with friends or enjoy my hobbies.
I don’t have a family so this might be made more difficult on the weekend for people with children but on the other hand, you will be off early enough to meet them after school.
Cody
on 21 Aug 08It may be a combination of 37s and the 4HWW, but I can’t work for anyone who insists on a strict 40 hour workweek. It tells me they are focused more on rules and policy than results.
Marti
on 21 Aug 08Not commenting on the Forbes article but on the 4 days a week thing.
I would love it but to me is obvious: 5 days brings more output; 4 days a week could bring better output per unit of time but I get more work done in 5 days than in 4.
And about all these considerations that having less time should make you more efficient. Don’t mix, we should be efficient always. There is always more work that you can actually do, you should do always your best.
And about the benefits on level of energy. Yes, I agree. But be careful with this, we all get used to things. With the time 4 days a week could take us to the same routine that now you get with 5 (just one of generation ago people work 6 days a week). Maybe keeping the flexibility to break the routine and the peace working at different intensity can help.
To finish, to defend the 4 days week we need to move away of the output and go to other things. Depending your work and personality 4 days a week will make you happy. That’s then a reason.
MattW
on 21 Aug 08One compelling reason for 4-day work weeks has nothing to do with productivity at all. If you mandate that the office, or a good portion of the office (minus manufacturing or something) is off on one day of the week…everyone on that day…and you shut the place down, the resulting savings in energy costs is significant enough that a lot of universities and corporations are moving in that direction. I sounds incorrect, but, when you consider the current economy and the cost of 8 hours of full operation in energy used, shutting down on, say, a friday, when most people are only working at 40% capacity anyway, you may actually save enough to positively offset the amount lost from not running during that time. Now, this concept is only really feasible when energy costs are through the roof. On the other hand, match what i just said with the old adage that “a happy employee is a productive employee,” and you gain more than you lose with a 4-day work week. If the employee’s life satisfaction and happiness rises from three day weekends and/or 4-day work weeks, they will be more productive in those 4 days than they would be with a traditional 5-day work week. Now, when you add that to the energy savings, you may see a very nice positive upward curve in company profits thanks to the savings and productivity. Just a thought.
MattW
on 21 Aug 08One more thing i forgot to mention: My neighbor and his wife work for Fluor. Employees get every other friday off. They have found that this is actually good for reducing missed work during regular work hours because people tend to schedule doctor appointments and other absences for their day off. So, rather than missing 2 hours + per appointment, 4-5 times/month or so, they were seeing a drastic reduction in these numbers. So, there’s another point about why the 4-day work week is so economical for companies.
keeks
on 21 Aug 08Generally speaking, rules for the sake of making rules is stupid. More specifically, working from 8am to 5pm M-F is stupid UNLESS there is a damn good reason for it!
William
on 22 Aug 08I think the big problem with most of the negative comments on this article is that almost no one has experience a 4-day work week permanently and have never seen it well-implemented. All clinical results point to its advantages. Period.
I say companies should try it and if it doesn’t work out return the to the old system. I seriously doubt they’ll return. America is burning itself out.
halfaglass
on 22 Aug 08so 37signals has a 4 day week? I’ve always assumed (with the amount of time you spend not just blogging, but reading and responding to blogging as an indication) that you do far more than 4 days a week. Is it possible that 37signals staff are spending 4 days a week in the office then going home and putting in another 20 hours a week blogging, training, coding etc – after all, if you love it as much as you say you do, that’s what i’d expect you to be doing in your free-time. If this is the case, the company is doubtless the winner because the staff are working for free.
Ken
on 22 Aug 08If it’s really true that everyone is working 20 hours a week, then everyone who says that is ripping their employers off. I don’t really believe that they should be coerced into giving us that time off because a lot of people are screwing them out of it. There is always time spent not working directly on software projects (or whatever project oriented business you’re in), but most of that time is necessary; including the time you’re not working.
It’s like a person who’s a beginning a running program. You run two minutes and walk four so that you’re ready to run for the two minutes again. You don’t add up the total distance from that and just try to sprint that so that you can get done faster. Why? Because you’ll wear out right away, start losing form (read ‘making mistakes’) and that will greatly increase the potential for injury (‘read hurting your organization’).
Additionally, nobody has talked about the economic impact to the small business like resturaunts, coffee shops and news stands if their business was cut by 20%. Washington DC business lose tens of millions of dollars a day just from the government shutting down. Think of what would be lost if everyone was off.
Finally, I read a question about what someone is hired for. It’s to make your company money and as much of it as you can. That all. The ones who do a better job of that rise to the top of the pay scale. It’s that simple. If you want to work less, then be ready to accept less money and don’t cry when someone who works harder than you ends up making more money.
This discussion is closed.