The 6-hour workday

http://blog.ezlearnz.com/post/40316576/the-6-hour-workday

by wumi • 18 years ago

20 24 18 years ago

blog.ezlearnz.com

I was with the author up until I saw the "..for a 25% lower salary" part.

At my startup, I'm paying people a regular (8-hour) salary for working a 6-hour day. The company gets value out of mental focus, not in having an ass in a chair-- so, if people are more focused and motivated with an extra two hours available for other activities (family, friends, what have you) then it is a net gain for the company.

dcurtis• 18 years ago

Do you have any data to back this up? I know 37signals yells about their workday all the time, but I haven't seen any real analysis of productivity between 8 and 6 hour days.

The problem I've seen is that most of the 2 hours of wasted time happen randomly throughout the day; it's not concentrated at the end. So when you simply cut the day off 2 hours earlier, how much real work are you cutting out?

Also, if it's a startup, don't you expect people to work until things are finished? Why create a specific time range per day?

michael_dorfman3• 18 years ago

No data, just anecdotes and my own sense of experience.

Note that I'm not arguing that there is 2 hours wasted in an average day-- rather, I'm arguing that a) mental clarity trumps hours on the job, and b) more time for personal pursuits will lead to more mental clarity at work.

As for the latter question, I expect people to get things done-- but in terms of deciding which things we expect to get done by which date, we need to take some "expected hours per day" into account.

ph0rque4• 18 years ago

The 25% lower salary would be a weed-out factor for those who value a large paycheck over more free time. Also, for the career-minded, the projects would make up that 25% (or more, if a successful startup grows out of a given project).

sofal• 18 years ago

You'd have to provide some great incentives to balance the 25% lower salary. Free time is nice, but it's also free. If I value free time over a large paycheck to the extent that I'd be willing to give up that much salary, I'm basically just looking for a part time job. It sounds like the only difference is that you're allowed to use company resources for a side project. Is that enough?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that not paying employees what they're worth will have a net benefit. You should pay your employees well in whatever ways you can reasonably do it (money, benefits, stake in the company, perks, even softer things like respect, trust, etc.) Compensating them with free time doesn't make any sense. They have just as much time as you do, and it's theirs to spend.

Tamerlin• 18 years ago

Wow, someone who actually wants to succeed with a startup, eh?

The startup = sweatshop mentality really needs to end if we're to see a higher success rate among startups.

In every case that I've seen people working insanely long hours trying to get some piece of code working, it's turned out to be bad code.

Sweatshops provide the illusion of increasing the development pace, but the reality is the opposite. What you're doing in those situations isn't rushing to market, it's repeating the mistakes that lead to the term Microserf.

Most projects fail miserably. Microsoft's software succeed in spite of it's quality (that is, the lack thereof), not because of it.

Personally, if I were running company, I'd end up firing the people working the insane hours; I wouldn't want to be paying their technical debt down the road.

And incidentally, Joel Spolsky has mentioned this as well. People working insane hours do bad work. They rack up technical debt that the company will end up paying, usually indefinitely.

swombat6• 18 years ago

What is this, some theoretical guessing at some sort of work system that may or may not work and that has no bearing with a real workplace?

ph0rque4• 18 years ago

> What is this, some theoretical guessing at some sort of work system that may or may not work...

Yes, that is exactly what this is, until I am able to put it into practice and see if it works. I say this as the author of the blog post.

>... and that has no bearing with a real workplace?

Well, in my experience (at least at the place where I work), everyone could be just as productive in 6 hours as 8 (or 9, or 10), if they knew they could go home afterwards.

axod• 18 years ago

... until they adjusted to that, then you'd need to switch to a 4 hour workday. I think it's a slippery slope.

swombat6• 18 years ago

Ok.

Well, I'm not trying to put you down, but your thoughts on this subject are pretty worthless until you can put them in practice. "How to structure a workplace" is one of those extremely complex topics that require many years of practical experience to get right, and that present countless options that look alright at first glance but turn out to be disastrous.

This is very similar to the problem of scaling applications to millions of users. Would you take advice about that from someone who hasn't actually gone and scaled at least one, but ideally several applications to that kind of scale? No, because even though their theoretical solution might sound alright, it has no substantiation to confirm that it actually has a snowflake's chance in hell to work out in real life.

The problem with your article is that it is just day-dreaming, but you present it as if it was some sort of tested solution. In fact, it is just day-dreaming, applied to a subject that many extremely bright people have been studying and working in for about a hundred years. That subject is called "Management", for your information. Certainly there is room for improvement, but until you actually have experience of the subject and have proven that your ideas actually work, they are effectively worthless.

dimitry• 18 years ago

How about a workspace without set hours. You have a task to complete by a certain deadline. Do it or risk being fired.

This will add overhead by always keeping everyone on track with specific tasks, but it's definitely worth it (think Scrum/Agile).

Doesn't Best Buy do this?

ph0rque4• 18 years ago

While I think what you're proposing is the ideal, the question becomes, what are the tasks that can be reasonably done in e.g. a week? Would the average "good" employee finish them in 20 hours? 30? 40? That's why I think there should be a guideline in the number of hours.

sethg• 18 years ago

For some jobs (e.g., assembly-line work, or being a receptionist), every hour that the employee is on the clock adds value to the company. For all other jobs, I don't think any rule of "you are expected to work X hours per day", whether X is 8 or 6, is really useful.

At the end of the day, er, performance-review period, either you've created value for your employer that justifies the salary they paid you, or you haven't. If you did, why should the employer care whether you did the job in 6, 8, or 10 hours per day? If you didn't, then some kind of remedial action needs to be taken, and the action is not necessarily "do what you were doing before, but for more hours". And if the employer can't gauge the value of an employee's contribution without referring to how many hours per week the employee showed up, then the employer has bigger problems.

nazgulnarsil• 18 years ago

humans value the power to control what other people do. few businesses will give up the power to tell you that you have to be at your desk from xAM to xPM.

The 6-hour workday

Related Stories