True time

Why we should disconnect time from productivity and wages.

In my very first blog I introduced the concept of ‘opportunity cost’. The true cost of choosing to complete one activity is the loss in ability to complete the alternative, competing activity. What we choose to do with our time and how we decide to complete activities is important. This does not mean we need to be busy all the time. We all know ‘busy’ is the new buzz word answer-to-everything. We wear it as a badge of honour. I wrote about working smarter, not harder in order to free up time. Time that could be spent on creating other opportunities or perhaps (more importantly) simply living more and working less.

We have significant amounts of evidence which suggests productivity diminishes when we work long hours. Rutger Bregman in his acclaimed book ‘Utopia for Realists’ notes that Henry Ford (yes, the car manufacturer) conducted a series of experiments and demonstrated the decline in productivity in the long-run if his employees worked longer than 40 hours per week. During the Great Depression, Bregman notes W.K. Kellogg (yes, the cereal company) introduced a 6-hour workday at his Michigan factory. The resulting success meant he was able to hire an additional 300 employees and slash the accident rate by 41%. In addition, wages didn’t decrease, in fact he was virtually paying his employees the same for fewer hours. Science even dictates the ability for knowledge workers to produce efficiently climbs to a peak at around the 5 to 6 hour mark and declines thereafter. You will probably spend more time the next day fixing the mistakes made in the last 3 hours of your prior work day!

My most recent blog discussed how the future is leaning towards knowledge jobs and that a quarter of the workforce will be professionals by 2030. Why then are we still working 8 hour days, 5 days a week (not even taking unpaid overtime into account)? The 40-hour work week began in 1948, awarded by the Arbitration Court on September 8. Back then, the Union leaders reflected on the ‘great advances made in the mechanisation of industry to overtake any loss in output which might be caused by shorter hours.’ (The Age Jan 1, 1948: ‘Employers Fear New Burdens’). Employers back then called it ‘an unnecessary and dangerous experiment’. 70 years later and not much has changed except of course for major innovation along with associated productivity gains through the technology revolution.

Rutger Bregman (2014: 141) summarises the experiences of Kellogg and Ford: ‘Productivity and long work hours do not go hand in hand.' He notes that in the 1980s Apple employees used to wear shirts that proclaimed ‘working 90 hours a week and loving it.’ Later, productivity experts estimated the Macintosh computer would have been delivered a year earlier if they had halved their work hours. If we now know all of this, why aren’t there more firms publicly slashing the work hours of their workforce? It’s because there is still an incorrect association people make with time and productivity, while there is no data that confirms this. There have been studies confirming the bias. New Scientist (2019: Winning at work…) pointed to one such study: People were told to compare fictional individuals from short descriptions. This concluded ‘anything indicating the person was extremely busy resulted in higher estimations of the person’s importance and achievements.’

While the experience for many is still the 70-year-old 40 hour/5 day work week, some companies have challenged this notion. In November 2018 New Zealand Financial Services company Perpetual Guardian implemented a 4-day work week for employees and maintained their pay rates to previous levels. The 37.5 hour week went to 30 hours overnight. The findings since? People have been less stressed, had better job satisfaction and commitment levels and there was no drop in total work being completed (ABC, 2019: 21/02 – Switching to a four-day working week…)

Business leaders need to take the leap and disconnect ‘time’ from ‘productivity’ and ‘wages.’ We have had over 70 years with a 40-hour 5 day work week. Currently, in Australia at least, the idea of ‘flexible work’ just means working less, for less. We now have the knowledge to work less, for more. In fact, science demands it. More output, better happiness levels, less fatigue, less lost time in the way of sick leave, better relationships.

In an era of demoting this mode of work to ‘part time’ and ‘casual time’, we need a new category:

True time.

Thanks for reading

References:

Opening graph (Extract taken from ‘New Scientist’ Magazine issue 3212 , published 12 January 2019)

• New Scientist: 9 January 2019: Here's how we can make work work for all of us https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132123-600-heres-how-we-can-make-work-work-for-all-of-us/

• Whatever Happened to the 40-hour week – Sydney Morning Herald. May 7: 2018 Extract from The Age, January 1 1948. https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/whatever-happened-to-the-40-hour-week-20180507-p4zduy.html

• Bregman, Rutger – Utopia for Realists, 2014

• New Scientist: 8 January 2019: Winning at work: Why chilling out is the route to job success https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132120-700-winning-at-work-why-chilling-out-is-the-route-to-job-success/

• ABC – Switching to a four-day working week could make us happier and more productive https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/four-day-working-week-could-make-us-happier-and-more-productive/10833924