Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 236 posts

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#171

Post by dvdkon »

nilkn wrote: post #167
znq wrote: post #4

At Mobile Jazz (7 years old now) and Bugfender (4-5 years old now) we always had the rule, that people could choose to work as much as they want and when they went. As long as the output and quality was there. Obviously to achieve high quality output you need to be there at certain times (overlap with other team members) and you need to do a certain amount of hours. The problems we had because of this are almost no-e…

This is very interesting, but I'm curious how it scales to higher levels of management. Of course, if the whole company is only 20-30 people, those higher levels don't exist. In a large company, a single low- or mid-level manager may have more direct and indirect reports than an entire small 20 person company, and a high-level executive may have hundreds or thousands of indirect reports. At this level, it seems to me…

Of course, people whose workload consists of talking to or otherwise dealing with other people can't have flexible schedules like this. A cashier can't walk off, because there's a line of customers waiting to be served.

However, it can still in my opinion work for a large amount of people. Anyone whose job has parts that can be done alone (programming, compiling reports, writing articles...) can benefit from a more relaxed schedule.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#172

Post by ghaff »

barry-cotter wrote: post #47
naasking wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40h was first most widely implemented by Henry Ford, because of equal productivity with fewer mistakes than the 10-16 hour days that were then the norm. So there is some empirical evidence that it's better than more hours, and some empirical evidence that it's better than fewer hours in some cases, and plenty showing no change with fewer hours. The fairest characterisation is that there was considerable back and fort…

Please provide a citation to some scholarly or historical work to that effect. The last time I looked into this any way seriously there was nothing suggesting 40 hours was chosen for reasons of productivity. One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks.

It may be worth pointing out as well that the stereotypical 40 hour/5 day week applies primarily for people commuting from their homes to a factory/office. There are lots of situations where people commute to a remote location and work ~12 hour days in a week/2 week/month on-off schedule.

Probably not based on scientific study but just a practical response to crews that need to be transported to a remote location and operate 24 hours a day collectively.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#173

Post by kokokokoko »

CalRobert wrote: post #165
wodenokoto wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do employees know when good is good enough? When things get stressful and overwhelming at work, I look to my contractual hours per week and remind myself not to overdo it.

They don't, and there's a massive cultural imbalance. Buddy of mine works for a upto company in Portland but his colleague got a talking to for gasp taking 2.5 weeks off in a year. I too work for a up to company but I ALSO have a legally guaranteed minimum 21 days off a year. There's ALWAYS a limit. Try taking a year long holiday and see how that goes. With UPTO the limit is up to your manager.

In an employment "at will" state(Oregon is one), there really is no such thing as a set amount of days. You could get 15 days off and be fired for taking 4 days off in the year.

So even if you have a set number of days, your manager can still fire you for taking them. Your manager can fire you or not fire you for any reason. So you could take 30 days off and not get fired if your manager doesn't want to.

With "at will" employment there really aren't any concrete rules in play. Everything is just at the discretion of the employer. Regardless of the employee handbook, PTO or really anything. You could be fired for coming in too early. Coming in too late. Not working on the weekends. Working on the weekends. Probably even something as silly as gaining too much weight. Really anything unless it is within a few specific protected classes such as race or sex.

The only variable that exists is whether or not the terminated employee would qualify for unemployment benefits.

Edit: I should mention this is US specific as most US states have "at will" employment laws.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#174

Post by Izkata »

Bartweiss wrote: post #132
dalbasal wrote: post #60

"... a New Zealand financial services company, switched its 240 staff from a five-day week to a four-day week last November and maintained their pay. Productivity increased in the four days they worked so there was no drop in the total amount of work done." The result/claim makes intuitive sense to me but..... The problem trying to study this is that "productivity" of many/most white collar workers is basically impos…

It seems... rather too convenient that a 20% work reduction would produce a 25% increase in productivity for a nice neutral result. I don't doubt that working fewer hours improves productivity, but do we really expect the two to line up so neatly? I've seen two explanations for this, but neither really satisfies. Claim one is that time off recharges and focuses us. We get more sleep, are less distracted by outside ta…

> Or perhaps employees were output-limited not by mental fatigue but by, essentially, giving-a-shit. One of the big insights of productivity studies is that "can't do more" and "won't do more" aren't clearly distinct when you're relying on internal motivation; there's no clear way to say that "won't" is happening on a different, volitional layer. If people were working 40 hours a week with 25 hours of 'drive', constant productivity makes more sense.

I think this makes the most sense. Assuming I understand right what you mean, it could be described more simply as "work expands to fill the available time", a common enough criticism of sprints in agile (cases lasting longer than they normally would because there's still days left in the spring).

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#175

Post by mrath »

maxxxxx wrote: post #125
dalbasal wrote: post #60

"... a New Zealand financial services company, switched its 240 staff from a five-day week to a four-day week last November and maintained their pay. Productivity increased in the four days they worked so there was no drop in the total amount of work done." The result/claim makes intuitive sense to me but..... The problem trying to study this is that "productivity" of many/most white collar workers is basically impos…

"a New Zealand financial services company, switched its 240 staff from a five-day week to a four-day week last November and maintained their pay. Productivity increased in the four days they worked so there was no drop in the total amount of work done" And soon some genius will come in and think "How about we worked a few hours more? This would give us even more output" and soon we are back to normal.

This is so true. Over years I have realised that my productivity is pretty much similar if I worked 7/8/9 hours. Over time the longer I work the less productive I am. There was a nice quote I once read on HN - everyone have fixed budget for quality thinking. working longer does not increase that.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#176

Post by jriot »

ryandvm wrote: post #17
wodenokoto wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do employees know when good is good enough? When things get stressful and overwhelming at work, I look to my contractual hours per week and remind myself not to overdo it.

This is actually the downside of these "you decide" plans and why I absolutely hate "unlimited PTO" policies. Whenever it's up to me I end up taking less vacation than if I just had an allotted amount. People shortchange themselves because they don't want to inconvenience their team. And as an added insult, the company gets out of paying you for unused vacation when you finally burn out.

With unlimited PTO and flexible schedule, I take way more time-off. Never will I give up my health, time-off for co-workers, they aren't family or friends, they are co-workers, who will replace you if you die tomorrow.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#177

Post by Bartweiss »

Izkata wrote: post #174
Bartweiss wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems... rather too convenient that a 20% work reduction would produce a 25% increase in productivity for a nice neutral result. I don't doubt that working fewer hours improves productivity, but do we really expect the two to line up so neatly? I've seen two explanations for this, but neither really satisfies. Claim one is that time off recharges and focuses us. We get more sleep, are less distracted by outside ta…

> Or perhaps employees were output-limited not by mental fatigue but by, essentially, giving-a-shit. One of the big insights of productivity studies is that "can't do more" and "won't do more" aren't clearly distinct when you're relying on internal motivation; there's no clear way to say that "won't" is happening on a different, volitional layer. If people were working 40 hours a week with 25 hours of 'drive', consta…

Yep, I was almost exactly thinking of "work expands to fill the time", plus maybe a bit of "people take more and longer breaks when they work more hours". It's not a huge distinction, but I think "increased productivity" makes less sense as more output for an hour's work, and more sense as shaving off unproductive time.

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#178

Post by rhizome »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69
jlarocco wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're generalizing based on your own behavior, but not everybody behaves that way. I'm exactly opposite, and had no problem taking PTO when I worked at a company with an unlimited plan. Now that I have limited PTO again I hoard it and take less time off. I don't feel inconvenienced when others take PTO, and I don't expect my taking PTO to inconvenience them.

The problem is, if it's not codified in law, there is no consistency. One person's gloriously well managed Unlimited PTO policy (congrats!) is another person's peer pressured non-usage. "Unlimited PTO" is a marketing farce, no more, no less. If you want people to take 25 days a year off, give them 25 days of PTO and be on the hook for the liability if they leave. If you want to give them more time than that through a…

Unlimited PTO is not so much a marketing farce, though the ways it's promoted are. However, since it doesn't involve accrual and payout it's more of a tax scam on the back of employees (natch).

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#179

Post by [deleted] »

corobo wrote: post #139
jlarocco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is, if it's not codified in law, there is no consistency. A poorly codified policy is an implementation problem, and will be a problem for both limited and unlimited PTO policies. > "Unlimited PTO" is a marketing farce, no more, no less. If you want people to take 25 days a year off, give them 25 days of PTO and be on the hook for the liability if they leave. If you want to give them more time than that…

There has to be a limit somewhere though. Say I booked the entirety of June off this year. Are they still cool with that? How about if I also decide I'd like July off too. That's an extreme I know but there's a limit somewhere.

[deleted]

Re: Four-day week trial: study finds lower stress but no cut in output

#180

Post by rhizome »

wutbrodo wrote: post #135
ryandvm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the downside of these "you decide" plans and why I absolutely hate "unlimited PTO" policies. Whenever it's up to me I end up taking less vacation than if I just had an allotted amount. People shortchange themselves because they don't want to inconvenience their team. And as an added insult, the company gets out of paying you for unused vacation when you finally burn out.

I've just started my first job with unlimited PTO, and I've never understood complaints like these. I can see how it isn't as amazing as a naive what's-on-the-tin reading would imply, but it seems to me that you can just set your bar at what a normal amount of vacation would be, plus a little bit if you feel like, since they're marketing it as "unlimited PTO". Eg, decide that three weeks is an appropriate, comparable…

Come back in a year and tell us how this went.
Post reply on HN