3 ms·

FTFA: "The reality is that few organizations have figured out how to innovate, adapt, and create amazing things without burning their people out." This may be

by lwhalen 11y ago

FTFA: "The reality is that few organizations have figured out how to innovate, adapt, and create amazing things without burning their people out." This may be an incredibly naive question, but why not implement a 2-3 day work-week and maintain the legacy full-time salaries? Bust serious hump Monday through Wednesday, but every week has a 4-day weekend.

xixixao 11y ago
Because most would find it an extreme hindrance to their work. It's really difficult to get something done with such long breaks in between. I'd find it more plausible to have a scheme like southern nations do, siesta in the middle of the day. But any break will slow you down significantly (imo).
- collyw 11y ago
  You say that like it has been tried and tested. I am not aware of any company that has.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    He's saying that because when you work in an office, and you have a short week, it derails your output. I hate vacations, they screw up my output for weeks after. Even the weekend takes a day or two to recover from.
- u02sgb 11y ago
  I know some Spanish people who find the long "siesta" a hindrance as it means a relatively early start and a late finish due to the large lunchtime break.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I worked just 4 days a week for almost all of my career, for many companies. It is all what you can negotiate. Long term, I think that I did better work always having 3 day weekends, and opened up time for other activities like writing books and getting more exercise.
norea-armozel 11y ago
I can think up two reasons why it wouldn't work in most situations. 1. Management will demand the same amount of productive gains from the work regardless of how many hours work. So, if your workers work three 10 hour days for the week they'll still expect the equivalent they received from a regular 40 hour work week split up between five 8 hour days. This can cause more stress for everyone involved (management included which has to explain why the numbers don't match expectations). So, I can't see any work force universally signing off for such a deal let alone management buying into it themselves. 2. Such a work week would conflict with external clients/vendors which can/will not adopt the same work week, so there will be problems maintaining productivity for them as such. It may be as simple as staggering the work force's schedule but I can see this leading to hiring more workers for the same task which will increase the cost of doing business. So, it's going to be cost more until other firms adopt the same schedule.

by lwhalen 11y ago

xixixao 11y ago

Because most would find it an extreme hindrance to their work. It's really difficult to get something done with such long breaks in between. I'd find it more plausible to have a scheme like southern nations do, siesta in the middle of the day. But any break will slow you down significantly (imo).

collyw 11y ago
You say that like it has been tried and tested. I am not aware of any company that has.
- hodwik 11y ago
  He's saying that because when you work in an office, and you have a short week, it derails your output. I hate vacations, they screw up my output for weeks after. Even the weekend takes a day or two to recover from.
u02sgb 11y ago
I know some Spanish people who find the long "siesta" a hindrance as it means a relatively early start and a late finish due to the large lunchtime break.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I worked just 4 days a week for almost all of my career, for many companies. It is all what you can negotiate. Long term, I think that I did better work always having 3 day weekends, and opened up time for other activities like writing books and getting more exercise.

norea-armozel 11y ago

I can think up two reasons why it wouldn't work in most situations. 1. Management will demand the same amount of productive gains from the work regardless of how many hours work. So, if your workers work three 10 hour days for the week they'll still expect the equivalent they received from a regular 40 hour work week split up between five 8 hour days. This can cause more stress for everyone involved (management included which has to explain why the numbers don't match expectations). So, I can't see any work force universally signing off for such a deal let alone management buying into it themselves. 2. Such a work week would conflict with external clients/vendors which can/will not adopt the same work week, so there will be problems maintaining productivity for them as such. It may be as simple as staggering the work force's schedule but I can see this leading to hiring more workers for the same task which will increase the cost of doing business. So, it's going to be cost more until other firms adopt the same schedule.