4 ms·

Completely agree. And the fact that the breaking point is a nice round 40, which just happens to correspond with our culture's 5-day work week and typical 8 ho

by DougN7 10y ago

Completely agree. And the fact that the breaking point is a nice round 40, which just happens to correspond with our culture's 5-day work week and typical 8 hour day is a little too convenient to believe.

creatine_lizard 10y ago
The standard argument is that it is the other way around -- we've settled on a 8x5 scheme _because_ our breaking point is around 40 hours. However, like others in this thread, I'm not sure I agree.
- orangutango 10y ago
  Whose standard argument? I always thought: we work 40 hours a week because we work 8 hours a day; and we work 8 hours a day because Robert Owen's mantra "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' rest" caught on.
lazerwalker 10y ago
The apocryphal story I've heard is that the 5-day / 8-hour workweek came from Henry Ford doing rigorous research on productivity in his factories (and that 40 hours/week was less than the norm at the time). I'd believe that's true, but I'd also believe there's reason to suggest that what holds for factory workers doesn't hold for information economy workers. (Although anecdotally, I find that I'm WAY more productive when working closer to 6-hour work days than 8-hour days.)
- Declanomous 10y ago
  >I find that I'm WAY more productive when working closer to 6-hour work days than 8-hour days. I'm glad someone else has noticed this. The fact that I still end up feeling burned out if I constantly work 8 hour days has made me feel very lazy. It's weird, I feel like I can work at top speed all the time if I work 6 hour days, but if I try to maintain that same pace with longer days then I hit a wall. In effect, I need to pace myself to work 8 hour days. The only time I feel like I need a day longer than 6 hours is when I'm in meetings all day. Meetings and working seem to use two different kinds of energy. So I could meet for 3 hours about something and work for 6 hours just fine, but I'd be wasting my time if I was attending 3 hours of meetings each day. The thought above pretty much reinforces my belief that the hours we work have nothing to do with productivity, and everything to do with an illusion of fairness. My boss spends more than half his day in meetings. It probably wouldn't look good if I was working 3 hours less than him each day just because I don't have as many meetings to attend. The issue is even trickier when I consider the fact that many of my coworkers need less concentration to perform their roles, and would be perfectly fine working 5x10s by their own admission.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
I believe it. The breaking point is at 40 because the breakdown is in part a sub-conscious negotiation strategy. Like, some folks will get angered by being pressured into washing the dishes, and things magically break and they no longer get pressured into washing the dishes. Similarly, getting pressured into sacrificing your work-life balance can cause the sorts of emotions that are way better for winning those social conflicts than writing good code.
dahart 10y ago
Were you joking or serious? Cause seriously- this is a good joke, if it's a joke! Otherwise, yeah, it's not a coincidence. ;)
tikhonj 10y ago
I doubt the breaking point is 40, but 40 seems close. I remember looking through studies on the matter[1] and seeing numbers floating around between 35–45 hours/week. It's hard to generalize because productivity is hard to measure and behaves differently in different cultures and professions, but I am willing to believe that the breaking point for most people is within 10—15% of 40 hours/week. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit lower... [1]: Unfortunately I don't have them handy, and they had some clear limitations. If I'm remembering correctly, some were about relatively unskilled work and none were about programming, where measuring productivity is an open problem.

by DougN7 10y ago

creatine_lizard 10y ago

The standard argument is that it is the other way around -- we've settled on a 8x5 scheme _because_ our breaking point is around 40 hours. However, like others in this thread, I'm not sure I agree.

orangutango 10y ago
Whose standard argument? I always thought: we work 40 hours a week because we work 8 hours a day; and we work 8 hours a day because Robert Owen's mantra "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' rest" caught on.

lazerwalker 10y ago

The apocryphal story I've heard is that the 5-day / 8-hour workweek came from Henry Ford doing rigorous research on productivity in his factories (and that 40 hours/week was less than the norm at the time). I'd believe that's true, but I'd also believe there's reason to suggest that what holds for factory workers doesn't hold for information economy workers. (Although anecdotally, I find that I'm WAY more productive when working closer to 6-hour work days than 8-hour days.)

Declanomous 10y ago
>I find that I'm WAY more productive when working closer to 6-hour work days than 8-hour days. I'm glad someone else has noticed this. The fact that I still end up feeling burned out if I constantly work 8 hour days has made me feel very lazy. It's weird, I feel like I can work at top speed all the time if I work 6 hour days, but if I try to maintain that same pace with longer days then I hit a wall. In effect, I need to pace myself to work 8 hour days. The only time I feel like I need a day longer than 6 hours is when I'm in meetings all day. Meetings and working seem to use two different kinds of energy. So I could meet for 3 hours about something and work for 6 hours just fine, but I'd be wasting my time if I was attending 3 hours of meetings each day. The thought above pretty much reinforces my belief that the hours we work have nothing to do with productivity, and everything to do with an illusion of fairness. My boss spends more than half his day in meetings. It probably wouldn't look good if I was working 3 hours less than him each day just because I don't have as many meetings to attend. The issue is even trickier when I consider the fact that many of my coworkers need less concentration to perform their roles, and would be perfectly fine working 5x10s by their own admission.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

I believe it. The breaking point is at 40 because the breakdown is in part a sub-conscious negotiation strategy. Like, some folks will get angered by being pressured into washing the dishes, and things magically break and they no longer get pressured into washing the dishes. Similarly, getting pressured into sacrificing your work-life balance can cause the sorts of emotions that are way better for winning those social conflicts than writing good code.

dahart 10y ago

Were you joking or serious? Cause seriously- this is a good joke, if it's a joke! Otherwise, yeah, it's not a coincidence. ;)

tikhonj 10y ago

I doubt the breaking point is 40, but 40 seems close. I remember looking through studies on the matter[1] and seeing numbers floating around between 35–45 hours/week. It's hard to generalize because productivity is hard to measure and behaves differently in different cultures and professions, but I am willing to believe that the breaking point for most people is within 10—15% of 40 hours/week. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit lower... [1]: Unfortunately I don't have them handy, and they had some clear limitations. If I'm remembering correctly, some were about relatively unskilled work and none were about programming, where measuring productivity is an open problem.