Discussion (3)
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
From Groundbeat
Help us build thisWe're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.
More in Business & Money
- Are the latest tech-industry layoffs driven more by AI or by ordinary cost-cutting? · 2 votes
- Are theme parks like Six Flags doing enough to keep their rides safe? · 2 votes
- Should most companies switch to a four-day workweek? · 31 votes
- Millions of U.S. seniors lost coverage after their Medicare Advantage plans shut down — who is most responsible? · 2 votes
The primary advantage is to enable more 'weekend' activities, which can also help boost the economy. Also it discourages the excessive mandatory and unpaid overtime too many companies pressure their workers to provide. Studies have shown that work over 40 hours per week results in actually less overall productivity (due no doubt to increased mistakes, burnout, lower motivation...).
At some point it'd be great if we could get to four 8-hour days. Those same studies suggest that a modest reduction in work hours don't proportionately decrease total productivity. There's a tendency, I think, to fill the time we're provided, and with less time, we're often more focused and productive.
I do agree. the study I heard about found that 36 hours per week was the optimal number for maximum results. Unfortunately management is usually too stupid to grasp these concepts. First, they are selected either from people who never worked the level of job where hard work, intelligence and attention to detail mattered, or they did do that job, but were not very good at it, which is why they were removed from that position, because a truly competent person is generally too valuable to be wasted. Read "The Peter Principle".