In 1817 Robert Owen declared that we should have “eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest”, a functional theory that rightly suited the industrial era where by most of the working class were factory-base jobs.
This seemed fair and practical, at least at the time of the industrial revolution.
This way of thinking was later re-established by Henry Ford in 1926 the founder of Ford Motor Company, who presented a new working week: the five-day, 4-hour workweek. Or, as we know it, the 9-5 grind. At the time, with no change to wages, the five-day workweek was a ground-breaking proposition. In a statement, Ford wrote, “It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either lost time or a class privilege.”
Fast forward almost 100 years, and we have entered a new age. No longer are we coveting the factory floors of Ford, workers are now working at lightning speed in rooms lit up with computer screens; an image that likely would have shocked Robert Owens.
And even still, our ways of working are evolving. With the challenge of the pandemic, workers are no longer in the typical office. Much of the workforce is now working at least some of their time from home. This has created a chasm in the way we work and has also meant leadership styles have had to evolve.
Leaders previously had the luxury of observing their staff deliver 40-hours of work when we were all office-based. But, this luxury is no longer. With teams now working from home, leaders are unable to eyeball their staff to ensure the full completion of a 40-hour working week. And, as a result, a new set of questions has arisen:
- If I can't see my team working, how do I know they were working?
- Do I have trust in my team to know they are working when they are at home?
- How do I measure productivity if they are working from home?
- Do I believe in the 40-hour work week anymore?
A shift to an outcome-based work week.
As with the previous changes, often the wheel of motion has pushed a need to rethink how we work. Typically, this is purely out of necessity and due to the situation on-hand at the time. In this case, our push into the modern-day workplace has stemmed from a pandemic. Without the observable 40-hour workweek, leaders have had to adjust to a new way of thinking about productivity and staff engagement to understand whether a team is working at the same level as they did before working from home. Now, leaders are looking for ways to create tangible evidence of employee work. This has led to a shift in mindset.
Some leaders are moving to a new workplace model, being outcome-based.
No longer are they worried about whether their teams are completing a 40-hour week, instead they are asking the right question: Is my team member delivering quality outcomes and good productivity?
If team members are completing their fair share of workload, and all required outcomes are being met, then perhaps this indicates a high level of productivity and engagement. For this reason, the archaic ways of the 40-hour workweek are being diminished.
Bring on the benefits.
More than ever, lifestyle and work-balance have become a prominent part of decision-making when accepting a new role. People want to spend more time with their families and doing the things they love, outside of work. An outcome-based approach allows for this lifestyle balance, with research also showing great organisational benefits, suggesting that working less makes us more effective and less fatigued.
There is a growing body of evidence that also supports this claim. Previous studies have shown that commonly the average worker only completes approximately 3 hours of productive work each day. With this in mind, the 40-hour workweek might not be the best way to monitor and gauge team members productivity. Instead, shorter workdays might be the answer. Research surrounding shorter workdays has been the basis of much discussion, most significantly was the findings of an Australian based company and a New Zealand based company.
The COE and co-founder of Collective Campus, Steve Glaveski introduced a 2-week trial of a 6-hour workday for employees of his company. The findings showed a higher production and quality of work.
“The shorter workday forced the team to prioritise effectively, limit interruptions, and operate at a much more deliberate level for the first few hours of the day. The team maintained, and in some cases increased, its quantity and quality of work, with people reporting an improved mental state…”
Steve Glaveski (Source: Harvard Business Review)
Similarly, in 2019, Director of Complectus Limited, Andrew Barnes, presented the findings of the introduction of a four day work week. The results were remarkable. Barnes highlighted in a TED Talk on the matter that the four-day workweek increased productivity, engagement, job satisfaction, and work-life balance. The improvement was so apparent that this four-day workweek is now the model the company uses.
For the most part, freedom in work is a good thing. The absence of boundaries between work and life can have long-term detrimental effects on employee productivity and performance. This is a common problem expressed by employees working the typical 40-hour workweek. For this reason, an outcome-based working model might assist in creating flexibility, trust and increasing productivity.
Ultimately, this highlights a new question for leaders to think about.
Are the hours in a workweek essential when productivity and quality of work are at an all-time high?
We think not.
At Kingston Human Capital, it is our mission to partner with you to position your organisation for success. We help you find the right talent to grow your organisation. Discover how our personalised touch can make a difference in your recruiting strategies, and meet our team of experts.
