4 ms·
Shortening the work day by 25% is an interesting idea in theory though unfortunately it is a pretty big leap for most companies to actually implement. A smalle
by stevesearer 8y ago
Shortening the work day by 25% is an interesting idea in theory though unfortunately it is a pretty big leap for most companies to actually implement.
A smaller and more manageable idea which I am trying to instill in my company is to create a culture where it is not necessary to check in while on vacation or once you are off the clock.
- phil248 8y ago"...create a culture where it is not necessary to check in while on vacation or once you are off the clock." In other words, what a job is supposed to be for most people.
- stevesearer 8y agoRight, though unfortunately many companies do not respect these boundaries. Because companies can’t even respect such basic ideas and boundaries with regard to employee wellbeing, it feels like a big leap to all of a sudden care enough to reduce employee hours by 25%.
- pwaivers 8y agoUnfortunately this is not always realistic. In smaller businesses, one person may know a system or process far better than anyone else. So if that person is on vacation, he should be available. You may disagree, but I think this is a good thing that technology enables.
- ghaff 8y agoMaybe not typical, but I take many trips where I am literally not available for at least days or even a week or two at a time. Before ubiquitous Internet, I took a number of trips where I was totally off-the-grid for a month at a time. Didn't work for small companies where I was the only person who knew something (though that seems poor planning in the event that person falls off a mountain someplace) but it's what I did.
- phil248 8y agoI don't disagree at all! But this tendency has crept its way into being the norm, as opposed to circumstantial or role-specific, and I applaud any manager/employer trying to lessen the off-hours workload of the rank and file.
- WhompingWindows 8y agoHow is it a big leap? If an economist says productivity will not take a huge hit, and meanwhile employees' QoL greatly improves, seems like a very small leap.
- stevesearer 8y agoTo be fair, Adam Grant's LinkedIn post is 3 sentences long and hardly offers much thought on the subject. In the CNBC article, they reference a study of staff in a Swedish nursing home where they reduced the work day shifts from 8 hours to 6 hours. While productivity and quality of life may have increased, a quick calculation would show that the nursing home would now have to pay for 4 shifts of staff each day as opposed to only 3 shifts. Without knowing more about that particular nursing home, I'd imagine needing to employ an additional shift of people to be a pretty big hurdle to actually implementing such a program.
- debacle 8y agoMost people are not salaried knowledge workers. A hairdresser's hourly productivity doesn't increase if he works 6 hours instead of 8. A cashier's throughput wont increase notably if she only works 6 hours a day, and there's no effective means for that type of worker to "fit" 8 hours of work into a 6 hour day. What do you do with these people? Do you increase the minimum wage to something more inflation adjusted (upwards of $20/hr). Do you just cut their hours and be done with it? What do you do about the staffing shortages that a 30hr work week would create?
- fjsolwmv 8y agoYou hire more people to cover shifts. Service jobs are largely part-time anyway, sometimes intentionally to avoid paying benefits.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Apocryphon 8y agoSounds like a way to increase labor demand.