Work from…? And the dreaded P word
If you’re confused about the future of work - as in where it will happen and what’s expected then read on.
Up until the time I retired I’d worked remotely for 28 years. I didn’t meet anyone for whom I undertook freelance work in the first three years. For the 10 years prior I didn’t have any staff and spent as much time in the field with clients as I possibly could. For me, remote working was the norm.
That was largely made possible by the fact that I didn’t punch a clock but undertook what you’d call ‘piece work’ where the time it took me to do something mattered far less than the quality of what was produced. Provided I hit imposed deadlines. It was, and remains, a great way to measure productivity and revenue as a yardstick for both figuring worth and working on improvement.
Time on the other hand is an appalling way to measure productivity and offers no incentive to improve. That’s because time is fixed, cannot be reclaimed, cannot be stretched, and provides a false standard by which output is measured.
From a management perspective, time appears eminently suitable as a way of standardising output expectations. It’s also a great way to beat people over the head who don’t get stuff done in the allotted time.
As an aside, the only change the COVID-19 pandemic brought to me was a degree of stir craziness arising out of being unable to venture out where and when I wanted.
I do however get the concerns of those who have found remote working difficult. Especially those people, mostly women, who are expected to act as stand in teachers for their children while also doing the same stuff they would have done in an office environment.
So it was with some surprise that I learned about a long running trial/experiment in Iceland among public sector groups where some 2,500 workers were put on a 35-36 hour working week for the same pay as they earn in a 40 hour week. The study ran from 2015-19. This was the outcome:
Productivity remained the same or improved in the majority of workplaces, researchers said.
Eh? Who would have thought? What’s more:
The trials led unions to renegotiate working patterns, and now 86% of Iceland's workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to, the researchers said.
Workers reported feeling less stressed and at risk of burnout, and said their health and work-life balance had improved. They also reported having more time to spend with their families, do hobbies and complete household chores.
Let’s be clear, this is public sector and not the far more aggressively minded private sector where the average working week is 47 hours per week. This is because while Iceland enjoys a relatively high standard of living, it is an expensive country in which to live. If you want a night out on the beer then think in terms of acquiring a second mortgage!
Perhaps more importantly, researchers found that:
This study shows that the world’s largest ever trial of a shorter working week in the public sector was by all measures an overwhelming success. It shows that the public sector is ripe for being a pioneer of shorter working weeks – and lessons can be learned for other governments.
What of the private sector? We see far fewer such experiments. However, given the very public way that government operations are scrutinised, I can see how success might encourage the private sector, or at least embarrass leaders into rethinking work practices.
How does this fit into the narrative of the pandemic and questions about where people will get work done in the future?
Time and again we hear reports of people experiencing burnout as a result of two colliding forces: the pandemic and the technology induced acceleration in expected work output. Is it any surprise then that some long for a return to the office in an effort to remove at least one of those stressors?
Perhaps we should explore in more detail how an overall reduction in time spent working, regardless of location has a positive impact on the work done. There are plenty of ongoing experiments from which business leaders can draw conclusions or at least take lessons.
In that regard I recommend reading this long analysis from Prospect about the history of the working week and how it has evolved since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution. This passage caught my eye as it has direct parallels to what we see today:
In the early 19th century working life in Britain was being upended by technology, and at first bosses were so determined to sweat their newly mechanised factories that working hours crept up. Time off was seen as time lost, and some European countries actively reduced leisure time with mandated 12-hour days and efforts to cut back traditional holidays.
By the 1830s, it was clear this approach was failing. Workers were exhausted and struggling to be productive. Soon, people started to protest in a very British way, taking off so-called “Saint Mondays” to finish up the drinking binge they had started on Sunday. The revelry spread, so that expensive factory machinery often sat idle at the start of the week. In 1845, describing the plight of the English working class in his novel Sybil, Disraeli wrote that “on Monday and Tuesday the whole population is drunk.”
The pandemic has allowed us an opportunity to fundamentally rethink work. The idea that work/life balance is something to avoid is abhorrent, even while it is a reality for some. I know from personal experience. The idea that work and life are inextricably intertwined is equally insane. Ask any spouse who has to tolerate his/her partner taking calls at dinner or when putting the children to bed. The scale of reported burnout among some people should be a scandal that deserves urgent attention. Did you know for instance that work stress is the single most repeated reason for absence?
We all deserve better. And while I give kudos to the very few leaders who put action into their pious words of appreciation for their workers I wonder how many are truly serious about those same workers’ wellbeing. It’s arguably easier for leaders to keep one eye permanently fixed on the financial reporting cycle and stock price.
What do you think? LMK in comments.