History shows that fewer hours worked does not mean lower productivity In 2019 Microsoft Japan reported that cutting the working week to four days improved productivity by 40%.
The gains came partly from cost reductions. Less electricity was used and fewer documents were printed.
The shorter week also demanded other, newer efficiencies. For example, meetings were reduced in length and the maximum number of participants was capped.
I’ve noticed something similar in video conference calls. I find physical meetings often expand to fill the time allotted to them, and beyond, not just because of the agenda but simple chit chat at the end or beginning. This doesn’t seem to occur with video meetings. They stop when what needed to be said has been said. Is this because video has a higher “cognitive load”?
he notion that shorter working hours improve productivity by necessity is not new. In late 1973 and early 1974, the UK worked to a three day week as a response to the oil crisis. Surprisingly productivity did not drop.
The author, Mike Rigby, writes
There was no drop in output. Extra productivity wasn’t achieved by better systems, or smarter management, there wasn’t the time to improve on that, but with a sense of challenge, fun and purpose. Strict deadlines meant time was a priority. We worked a little faster, cut buffer time and socialised a little less.
I would love to find more data on this period. How many companies will now experiment with the inverse of Parkinson’s Law, especially in the UK where some kind of flexible return to work is planned?