I am radically against the four-day workweek
The 4-day week models aim to change the modus operandi there's nothing so urgent that it can't wait one more day. That's beautiful in theory, but the practice is different
Anyone reading this newsletter knows that I wholeheartedly advocate for remote work and flexibility in the workplace. However, I am against the four-day workweek, anĀ initiative being tested worldwide. Here are the reasons.
Bad news: the amount of work won't decrease. Trying to fit what's done in five days into four makes those four days much more exhausting. In journalism, my field, whether working extra hours or over the weekend, we're entitled to a day off. I love taking time off. But the previous week becomes complete chaos. You need to work much more to get everything in order. Imagine doing that weekly? I prefer working five calmer days over four like that.
Monday and Friday aren't the most productive workdays. Monday, we're tired, still feeling the weekend's hangover. By Friday, we're already thinking about the weekend. In a four-day week, Monday would still feel like Monday, and Thursday would become the new Friday. We'd only have two "useful" workdays. Productivity would drop, and the chaos from point 1 would be even worse.
Yes, some four-day models rotate days off among teams or departments. Let's assume I always have Wednesday off. That would double the Mondays and Fridays: Tuesday would feel like a Friday, the day before the break, and Thursday would feel like a Monday, the day after the rest. We're human: we'd be anxious on the eve and tired/unwilling to work on Thursday.
If the day off rotates inside the team, pity those who aren't off. Tasks performed by the absent person will inevitably fall on those present āeven if we try to get everything in order, believe me, demands from the missing person will emerge. Or urgencies will happen, which will have to be fixed by fewer people on that day. Everyone will go through the week feeling more overwhelmed. I still prefer the five calmer days.
Taking a break midweek also creates another problem. Some projects have tight deadlines. Stopping something important on a Wednesday (or any other day) could compromise the delivery for various other areas and, ultimately, the productivity and outcome of the department or even the company. Yes, it would be perfect if things didn't have tight deadlines. But everyone knows that's not how things work. Whatever your company's product or the solution your department offers, it needs to be ready as soon as possible to generate profit, remain viable, attract new investments, etc.
These 4-day week models aim to change this modus operandi. The needs listed in the above points would be excessive, and there's nothing so urgent that it can't wait one more day. That's beautiful in theory, but the practice is different. Companies need to operate for profit. It's an illusion to think, "Oh, but then they should hire people to maintain productivity on days when teams are off, in a 4x7 or 3x7 scheme." If this happens, there's a greater chance your salary will be lower, or it becomes harder to get a raise.
One of the goals of the 4-day week is to have three days off to pursue our hobbies, launch that long-held project, travel more, enjoy family and friends, and organize the house. It's amazing. However, many people use their extra day off to... increase their income by freelancing or having another job! I prefer one job for five days a week.
My main point is we don't need to work four days a week, overwhelmed, pushing companies to the brink of profitability, to have a good quality of life. What remote work provides is the opportunity for us to find other forms of flexibility. A few more days working from home. A day off per month. Starting work from home and finishing in person, or vice versa. In my case, I have a fully remote job, and I choose to spend a month in a different city. I'm in Rome now. I work at an average pace, which is always intense but not wild, and when I stop working, I'm in Rome. It's incredible. I wouldn't trade a Friday off for the chaos from Monday to Thursday.
Many will argue that with good planning a four-day workweek is possible. I don't know anyone, from any profession, who says that works at a super relaxed pace, with nothing to do, and the company structure isn't on the verge of collapse. The reports always indicate a frenetic pace, disorganized bosses, and departments not communicating with each other. How do we make this chaotic structure work in a more limited timeframe? Changing by reducing unnecessary tasks might be possible. But the time freed by unnecessary tasks will then be filled with other necessary tasks (or other unnecessary ones). Urgency will always take priority; requests from those at the top will come āand that person usually doesn't know the processes well enough to understand how a decision to "do something" impacts all flows, among overburdened teams.
In an ideal work model, we work somewhere with some purpose, do our tasks well, and are rewarded and promoted based on the outcome. Finding fulfillment at work is entirely subjective, and one often needs to adopt an Elon Musk way of work to achieve the goals mentioned above. I don't endorse that at all. But speaking for myself, I won't lie that I want to do good things at work. I'm a social media editor, and I feel immense pleasure when a post I came up with reaches many people. Besides the joy, it's a way to grow professionally and financially. I've done that wherever I've been and have that goal in my current job. And that's also why I'm writing this newsletter during what should be my rest time. I want No Direction Home to be a reference for those seeking flexible life and work models. All of this requires dedication. And for all the reasons mentioned, the four-day workweek somewhat restricts this pursuit.
It may be that we're still not ready for the four-day workweek and that it will be a reality in 5, 10, or 50 years. And that without these tests, it would never happen. However, I don't see a substantial change in the medium term, mainly because the tested models have a tiny sample size (dozens or hundreds of companies per country) and are possibly biased (these are already companies inclined towards remote work or flexibility).
Do you agree with these points or have a different opinion?