4 ms·

> What we do know here at least is that a four day work week implemented as it was in the experiment did not result in negative or neutral effects. We don't kn

> What we do know here at least is that a four day work week implemented as it was in the experiment did not result in negative or neutral effects. We don't know that, though. Maybe sales would've increase 10x with a 5-day work week and the 4-day week hurt significantly.

didibus 6y ago
I'm saying negative or neutral to absolute growth, not to opportunity. Basically, what would you have said prior to knowing about this experiment if I asked you: "What do you think will happen if we do this experiment to productivity?" I think a lot of people would have said probably you'll see a decrease. But instead we saw a 40% increase. Now I'm assuming Microsoft has YoY data, so I don't know if 40% yearly increase is the norm, above the norm or below and that be interesting to know. But still, this 40% increase is surprising to what I think I would have guessed and assume a lot others would have too, that you'd see a decrease or maybe neutral. So I'm not saying it tells us 4 day work week is better then 5 or 6 or 7. But it seems like a viable model that still allows for quite a bit of productive growth. And that's already a good start for it, one I'm a little surprised about. Cause it means that possibly time worked has minimal impact on productivity, at least within a 1 day margin. It seems other factors might be more important, maybe simply strategic decisions, cutting out of time wastes like useless meetings or discussions, etc.
Dylan16807 6y ago
A 40% improvement doesn't become negative just because you compare it to something else!
- beforeolives 6y ago
  The contribution of the 4-day week on its own could be negative for productivity. It’s possible that without it you would have higher improvement to productivity than 40% due to the other changes in the experiment. You don’t know whether you got that extra 40% by getting 20% from the change to a 4-day week and 20% from the other changes. Or -20% from the 4-day week and +60% from other changes. Or any other combination.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > on its own Which is why the parent comment explicitly said "implemented as it was in the experiment". We don't know what it does on its own, but we know that this combo can be applied to similar jobs. (Well not 'know' for sure after a single experiment but it's useful evidence.)

didibus 6y ago

I'm saying negative or neutral to absolute growth, not to opportunity. Basically, what would you have said prior to knowing about this experiment if I asked you: "What do you think will happen if we do this experiment to productivity?" I think a lot of people would have said probably you'll see a decrease. But instead we saw a 40% increase. Now I'm assuming Microsoft has YoY data, so I don't know if 40% yearly increase is the norm, above the norm or below and that be interesting to know. But still, this 40% increase is surprising to what I think I would have guessed and assume a lot others would have too, that you'd see a decrease or maybe neutral. So I'm not saying it tells us 4 day work week is better then 5 or 6 or 7. But it seems like a viable model that still allows for quite a bit of productive growth. And that's already a good start for it, one I'm a little surprised about. Cause it means that possibly time worked has minimal impact on productivity, at least within a 1 day margin. It seems other factors might be more important, maybe simply strategic decisions, cutting out of time wastes like useless meetings or discussions, etc.

Dylan16807 6y ago

A 40% improvement doesn't become negative just because you compare it to something else!

beforeolives 6y ago
The contribution of the 4-day week on its own could be negative for productivity. It’s possible that without it you would have higher improvement to productivity than 40% due to the other changes in the experiment. You don’t know whether you got that extra 40% by getting 20% from the change to a 4-day week and 20% from the other changes. Or -20% from the 4-day week and +60% from other changes. Or any other combination.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > on its own Which is why the parent comment explicitly said "implemented as it was in the experiment". We don't know what it does on its own, but we know that this combo can be applied to similar jobs. (Well not 'know' for sure after a single experiment but it's useful evidence.)