It’s clear that the world is going through a period of major change. In particular, working patterns and styles appear to be very much up for debate and negotiation. The obvious “hot topic” here is remote working. Working hours, however, are increasingly coming up for review. In fact, Spain is now officially trialling the four-day week. What could this mean for the future?
The challenge of setting working hours
Working hours have to be set to suit the situation. The UK’s traditional default work-week of 9-5, Monday to Friday is actually a fairly modern concept. What’s more, while it might be the most common working pattern, it’s far from the only one. Even in office environments, formal working hours of 9-6 Monday to Friday are far from unusual.
Then, of course, there are numerous people who work non-standard hours either permanently or at certain times of the year. There are many reasons for this. One of the most important is the need to serve the many people who do work standard “office hours”. Another is the fact that some jobs need to be covered 24/7/365 such as the emergency services.
Even when neither of those applies, employers need to think about practicalities. Specifically, they need to think about what needs to happen to deliver optimum service to their customers. Staff who deal directly with customers obviously need to be available when the customers are working. They are also likely to need to be available when their colleagues are working.
Staff who don’t have direct customer interaction, technically, have more freedom to work when they want. In practice, there are all kinds of real-world considerations which might limit this. For example, if security is an issue, then employers will often prefer to limit the number of people who have access to a site. This may result in a smaller workforce working longer hours.
Theory versus reality
In some environments, working hours are closely monitored. This could be for legal or insurance purposes such as in the haulage industry. In many environments, however, there is much less oversight of where employees are and what they are doing.
In principle, this lack of oversight works both ways. It means that employers cannot see when employees are not working, or at least not working at full capacity. It also means that employers cannot see when employees are over-extending themselves.
In actual fact, an employer can, or at least should, be able to see when work is not being done. In many cases, they will have at least a baseline idea of what an employee can (and can’t) do during standard working hours.
They have obvious motivation to ensure that employees are meeting minimum standards of productivity. In the past, however, they may not, however, have been so motivated to ensure that employees are not spending extra time at work. This, however, is starting to change.
Looking a gift-horse in the mouth
Cynical as this may sound, in the past, employers could afford to let employees work themselves to the point of burnout. They would then simply replace the individual and move one.
Now, however, it is much harder for employers to take this approach even if they want to. It would probably only be a matter of time before they found themselves facing lawsuits and bad PR. In fairness, it’s probably also true to say that companies now have a much greater appreciation of the concept of mental health and an employer’s role in maintaining it.
At the end of the day, however, businesses still exist to make money and that means getting the most out of their employees. This raises the question of how to maximize productivity without exhausting a workforce.
One possible solution is to start treating a workforce like a team of relay sprinters. Each individual would work for a short time at maximum intensity. Then they would hand over the baton and rest. Spain is about to start a trial of this approach. Employers and employees around the world are likely to be very interested in the results.
