40 Hours or Bust?!?

I created a poll already knowing I'd see a new trend in employment culture, I just didn't know how starkly it would show up in the responses. The overwhelming majority of respondents, a whopping 87% want a 20-30 hour a week work schedule! I was actually a little surprised that 23% (or more than 2 out of every 10 people) wanted only 20 hours per week. These aren't burger flippers...they are CEO's, Engineers, scientists, upper management and corporate level professionals.

Why did I ask the question? I think it's time for the lid to be blown off of the 40 hour/week thing, and I'm here for it. It's an arbitrary number created by the Dept of Labor to create a 'cap' on how much employers can work their employees...it wasn't meant to say 'teeter at this number, and only this number, lest the world come to a screeching halt'. Oh shoot...the world did kinda sorta come to a screeching halt, and that's how people started realizing they were overdoing it...when they finally had a chance to breathe. Because 40 hours a week is not really only 40 hours a week. It's the hour you spend getting ready, then it's the commute, then your lunch break doesn't count, it's also the gas and mileage costs, the 'business casual' clothes you pay for that are not comfortable so you only wear it one place, the daycare you require because your kid has 7 hours of school but you're gone 10. But here's the real kicker - it's also the emails and texts that don't stop on evenings and weekends - a tether that didn't use to exist.

The truth is, and I think SO many would agree with this, most of us can do our jobs, the exact same quality and quantity in 20-30 hours a week. My peak performance of work requires rest in between or I go downhill, I can't run at that pace 40 hours a week. Also, it isn't always happening exactly when a 9-5 schedule dictates it (I'm writing this at 12:53 in the morning because that is the quietest time for me to really produce good, uninterrupted work). If given the chance to prove that the same productivity could be achieved in less time therefore it was worth the same earnings, would companies go for that and pay up? Or would they then say, "ah but you could do more with all that spare time," and continue to try to squeeze every last drop out of us?

I haven't commuted for work since 2005. Sure, I've had the occasional office visit, but my primary workplace was home...so I've known this secret for 17 years that life can be easier. I think the term is 'rat race' and I avoid it at all costs. I left employment in 2019 when it suddenly changed to full-time in-office work - I didn't sign up for a commute and had gone through tremendous lengths and made many sacrifices in my career to avoid it, because I'd done it and knew it was not the life I wanted to live. I've also known that there were many people like me who wanted to create a life where we could prioritize family while still gaining the intangible success of a professional career - and so I built my business on the concept that there are people like me who want this different kind of life balance that let them get their kids on and off the bus, or travel in a camper and work while gazing at the cliffs in Arizona. I rely on them to do their part, and they call the shots on what they want to commit to, and within that commitment they own it completely. Now, the rest of the population is getting tipped off to this possibility and the corporate/government world hasn't caught up to it.

Let's talk about the 13% who said 40-50 hours per week. I only created the option of 50 hours to see who is the jerk that wants to ruin it for the rest of us - you know, the self-important overachiever who is making us 20-30 hour people look downright lazy!?! Luckily it was only a few party poopers (hey, you do you). But to be honest, I was FAR more surprised to discover how FEW people responded wanting 40 hours per week, a mere 6%! That really got me thinking that employers really need to be thinking this through differently. Many employers work on the Government schedule, and the whole 'FTE' thing is a known 40 hr/week gig...could, and should, that be up for debate? Does the budget HAVE to be broken down by a factor of 40 for each person? Nope, it sure doesn't, except that is exactly what is happening and change is slow to come about. If this article gets one person to think outside of the box and look at how to maximize productivity and consider what actual human beings want, maybe we will see a shift someday. I firmly believe that the companies who figure this out in a way that maximizes productivity within fewer hours has the potential to realize greater success.

We built this ride, we can fix it too. The scenery is much more enjoyable at the right pace. I can't help but imagine the harm it's doing to people when we have to put our family needs so far behind our work needs, and get dinner at fast food restaurants because there's no time to cook, and sit in front of computers and then in our cars for 10 hours a day. Here we are just sitting and sitting and staring at screens day in and day out, We made all of this up, it's merely a social construct, and now we are ready to deconstruct it, but will companies acknowledge this and change for it? Can we, the people, force them to?

It's definitely time to admit we're doing it wrong!