What an article about napping tells us about the state of work

I write Future Work/Life to help you build great teams and careers. If you find it interesting, please share it!

And if you'd prefer to receive this newsletter in your email inbox first every Thursday, join 5000+ subscribers on Substack (check out the details in my profile).

"Nearly one in ten Britons confess to taking naps on company time, costing firms up to half a billion pounds each week..."

At least, that's what The Times claimed two weeks ago.

My post about it went viral, with hundreds of comments revealing what people REALLY think about modern work

.First, let's follow the money trail because this one's a beauty.

Usually, in these work-from-home/return-to-office debates, the money leads back to property. Whether that's real estate businesses themselves or companies trying to justify expensive, long-term office leases.

But this time? Well, you couldn't make it up. The research was commissioned by an energy drinks company no one’s ever heard of. "Why nap when you can drink our incredibly unhealthy, sugar-packed drink instead?" it screamed. Without actually using those words.

In any case, read the comments and the general vibe is reflected very well by one CEO who said:

"I don't care if you sleep for 50% of your work day. If I hire you to do a job and by the time I need it done, you've done it, congrats to you for being more efficient than the average person."

Let’s get the napping bit out of the way

Now, let's be honest. Napping makes for a nice headline, but these debates are going on every day on LinkedIn. But since I happen to be a napper, let’s not waste this opportunity to make the point that napping can be a good thing. Which is why so many commenters cited scientific research, including:

• A NASA study showing 26-minute naps improve performance by 33%
• A Harvard School of Public Health study that found regular nappers were 37% less likely to die of heart disease
• Research on biphasic sleep patterns - our natural tendency to need rest in the afternoon

Then there's the cultural perspective.

While we're debating whether people should nap at home, Japan has "inemuri" - where sleeping at work is seen as a sign of dedication. One leader shared how their Korean workplace actually scheduled company-wide 30-minute rest periods. And let's not forget the tech giants - Google, Apple, Microsoft - all providing sleep pods in their offices.

Although, it should be said that these cultural practices and tech perks aren't necessarily altruistic. Free breakfast, lunch and dinner inevitably means people spend more time in the office. Sleep pods? Well, why go home at all?

But here's where it gets really interesting.

The biggest takeaway of all

Looking at the comment patterns, about 40% focused not on napping but on how we measure work itself.

The most common theme?

The disconnect between measuring time versus measuring output. Consider the opportunity cost of commuting, for example. One commenter calculated that their WFH arrangement saves them hundreds of pounds in weekly commuting costs, while multiple others reported working 2-3 extra hours daily due to no commute.

One particularly astute comment reframed the headline entirely:

"Less than 1 in 10 takes productivity supercharging power nap as British workers struggle in vacuum of leadership."

It cuts to the heart of what this debate is really about - three interconnected problems I keep seeing in my research:

1. The Trust Problem: Some leaders only feel in control when they can see their teams. A deep-seated insecurity that's becoming harder to justify when the data doesn’t back up their assertion that simply coming to the office is ‘better’.
2. The Measurement Problem: We still use industrial-age metrics (time) for knowledge-age work (outcomes). Multiple commenters shared that they're working longer hours from home but getting pushback because it's not "visible time".
3. The Management Problem: For years, managers have been telling us they need more training. Now add the complexity of different people in different places at different times. No wonder many are struggling. And it starts at the top.

Why This Matters

Work has changed fundamentally, but our frameworks haven't kept pace.

Yes, we're seeing lots of talk about return-to-office policies. But aside from a few headline-grabbing exceptions, this rarely means five days back in the office. That ship has sailed (in the minds of ‘workers’, at least, if not all bosses). The resistance to change isn't coming from the people doing the work. It's coming from those invested - sometimes literally - in maintaining old ways of thinking about work.

Which brings me back to the original point of my post:

“Work has changed. Like it or not, it's not going back. The real question is how we respond and make it better.”

That's the conversation we should be having. And which, based on the comments of this post, the workers are crying out for.

Leaders, listen and learn.