Do we really need a 4 day workweek or is it all millennial hype?

(I say millennial because usually these criticisms are from people who forget millennials are toeing 40.)

Several companies in the U.S., UK, Belgium, and others have started experimenting with fewer working hours…and it’s paying off!

Initial trials have show that most companies can be equally productive with employees working fewer hours (hurray 3 day weekends!).

However, the debate for the 40 hour workweek rages on. The first result that popped up when I typed in “4 day workweek trials” was an article from the usually respectable BBC “Four-day workweek trial: the firms where it didn’t work.” Now if that doesn’t just give a hint of corporation meddling.

Personally, I’m annoyed that this is a debate at all. It’s frustratingly unproductive and circular:
“5 days versus 4 days”
“40 hours versus 35 hours”
“Peak productivity drops at 50 hours a week”

It makes for good headlines but ignores the fact that most companies are stuck in the 40 Hours Mindset.

Currently two theories dominate our modern work culture:

• The 8-8-8 theory coined by Robert Owen in 1817: “Eight hours labor, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest”
• Henry Ford’s 40 hour work week model

In an exploitative industrial empire, both worked well for their time — so did the Model T. But alas, I don’t see anyone driving those nowadays.

Ever guess how much people worked before the Industrial Revolution? Here are a few insights:

• 13th century – Adult male peasant, U.K.: 1620 hours
• 14th century – Casual laborer, U.K.: 1440 hours
• 1400-1600 – Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours
• 1850 – Average worker, U.S.: 3150-3650 hours
• 1987 – Average worker, U.S.: 1949 hours [1]

Until the 19th century, most workers worked 180 DAYS OR FEWER. That’s a modern 3-4 day workweek or more likely, 1/3 to 1/4 of the year not working at all. (!)

To those only familiar with the old 9-5, there is a resounding question of why.

Firstly, for quite some time, there was no common clock (unless you were wealthy or really into sun dials) – so there was no sense to be on the clock.

Then, the trains came. Suddenly, in order to make sure trains reached the correct junction and people and goods boarded at the right time, the clock was highly necessary. The clock business became less of an upper class whimsy to a standard household necessity. The 1800s moved technology forward in a whirlwind as people started moving in a circle rather than forward.

So how did people decide how long and how much to work before the timepiece? On a project basis.

The Project-Based Mindset
Many (not all!) people worked on a project-by-project basis. Working on the farm? You’re in the fields all summer but during winter, you hibernate. A mason building a new cathedral? You work til it’s done, hunker down and spend the money, then wander the country to find a new monument to build.

Some careers still do this: farming is still quite popular. Doctors and nurses rotate on a 12 hour schedule to accommodate patients with on-demand needs. And freelancers are the pinnacle of working when suits them.

So what lessons can we learn from this as people tackle with new working models, work from home, and the future of the office?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if businesses take a good look at their working models, a better look at their employees, and find out the best way they can create healthy, productive, and profitable environments. Maybe it looks like a 40 hour workweek. Maybe it looks like working from home. Maybe it looks like 12 hours days with summers and winters off.

Or maybe, it looks like 4 day weeks.

[1] Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today’s. from The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor.

Extra Tidbits

For more on how the train made the clock universally relevant, here’s an excellent summary from Quartz: “How train travel put the whole world on the clock.”