Two reasons for reducing the length of the traditional work week
An article by business media brand Fast Company ponders the traditional work week. The article begins with an interesting history of the 40 hours, which sets the foundation for why this length may no longer be relevant.
The dynamics of our society have shifted since the Great Depression when we normalised the 40-hour work week. For example, today “most households have dual income earners,” with both typically being out of the home for most of the day. But COVID challenged traditional workplace practices. Working from home encouraged us to rethink whether we want a 40-hour week.
The article proposes two main reasons for reducing the 40-hour week. The first is to reduce burnout and to give people an opportunity to rest and recharge. Apparently, we have only just realised that too much thinking is bad for our health. The second is to attract top talent. Potential employees are not necessarily prepared to work the full 40 hours each week, and organisations may need to rethink their requirements.
Form is an issue to address before introducing a shorter week. Is it just another name for a four-day week? Or is it less hours each day? Or is it nine-day fortnights? And is it a one rule across the organisation or can employees choose from a range of options?
As noted in the article, perhaps it is less about hours and more about outputs, where employees have key performance indicators to deliver but can deliver them in a timeframe of their choosing. This takes a lot of trust, and perhaps we’re not yet equipped or ready for that. The authors propose it may yet take three to five years and a lot of experimentation (and courage) to find the right balance. But if other countries adopt the 40-hour week sooner, organisations may find themselves losing competitiveness on the global stage. It may yet be something that takes place whether we’re ready or not.
Photograph: www.freepik.com.