4 ms·
They raise a good point. I would expect a huge boost in productivity during a trial period as workers are hyped about the change and want to prove it works. But
by SilverRed 5y ago
They raise a good point. I would expect a huge boost in productivity during a trial period as workers are hyped about the change and want to prove it works. But that they may eventually wear out and return to normal but with less hours now.
I don't think OP is suggesting that the findings are outright wrong, but that long term studies are required to know exactly how things play out. We have so many short term trial results but none that I have seen which show the effects after multiple years.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y agoI can attest to a pattern of management introducing a change and realizing substantial benefits that don’t hold up over time. For whatever reason, the initial boost isn’t sustained and some other change is introduced in order to boost numbers and the process repeats. Now I personally would love a shorter work week. I actually think much of the 8-hour workday is chock full of non productive time that can be cut safely. But I see what the other user is getting at. Just because this study produced great results it doesn’t mean that this change produces sustainable effects.
- ashtonkem 5y agoThe trial ran for years. That’s well outside the range of “finicky management trialed something and we got a short term boost” effects.
- ashtonkem 5y agoWhy would you expect a huge productivity boost when reducing working hours? Isn’t this setting the bar unreasonably high? Heck, isn’t cutting hours and maintaining output actually a net increase in per hour productivity? Also, why is productivity even the golden standard here? Why can’t we consider the well being of actual people in this discussion?