Sixty-hour workweeks used to be the norm in the United States; now 80 hours is n

Question

Sixty-hour workweeks used to be the norm in the United States; now 80 hours is not uncommon. But working longer hours does not always increase productivity. One recent study showed that U.S. workers were less productive per hour worked than those from countries with shorter workweeks, including France and Germany. Experts hypothesize that overworked employees become tired, stressed, and less motivated. Lowell Bryan, a McKinsey & Company partner, claims, “We’ve created jobs that are literally impossible. The human cost is profound, and the opportunity cost is also great in terms of organizational effectiveness.” Problems made worse by overwork are costly and can include injuries, mistakes, rework, workplace violence, stress-related diseases, absenteeism, and high turnover. The 2009 recession only made things worse as businesses cut jobs but then expected those who were still employed to pick up the slack.

Some companies are now actively seeking ways to offer a more reasonable work–life balance. Fox News, for example, split the job of one senior executive between two individuals who both work full-time and share responsibilities equally. The editorship of the Los Angeles Times was once held by one person, but now three workers do the job. Part-time work is another increasingly popular option. JetBlue allows key managers to work part-time schedules in exchange for reduced compensation. In many cases, it is not hard to implement these new working arrangements. Law associates can handle fewer cases, and auditors can work with fewer clients by putting in less time and receiving lower compensation.

It is accepted wisdom that willing workers are plentiful, no matter how demanding the schedule, but most companies note that there is often a shortage of qualified managers. Increasingly, people want time off and are willing to give up money and career advancement to get it. Both men and women now talk freely in many companies about wanting to “have it all,” referring to a career and a rewarding life outside of work. As these conversations become more widespread and more intense, perhaps U.S. companies will respond. Alternate, flexible work arrangements are more acceptable to workers, and they can also create a more motivated, productive, and loyal workforce.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Do you think working hours will get longer or shorter in the future? Why?

2. Would you be willing to trade off scheduling flexibility and balance for slightly reduced compensation? What factors would be important to you in such an arrangement?

Explanation / Answer

Ans.1) In my opinion, working hours are going to be longer in future. This is because more and more companies today are working towards cutting down their extra workforce, relying on lesser number of employees with the goal of building lean organisations. As mentioned in the case, during 2009 recession also, when the businesses were facing huge losses, the management were trying to control additional costs by cutting jobs in the organisation. Reduced workforce lead to increased stress and work overload on those who were still employed. In the present competitive business environment, companies cannot afford to lose their competitive edge over the other companies and thus, the employees working in these organisations are always working on the edge to meet their business targets. Tightening performance parameters like high sales, reduced costs, high productivity, etc. are forcing employees to put additional efforts in their jobs resulting in longer working hours.

The case also highlights the fact that most of the organisations like Fox News, Los Angeles Times and JetBlue have started to realise the importance of employees’ personal commitments and life outside work and therefore, are working towards providing a more reasonable work-life balance. But, taking into consideration the increasing job insecurity among people and easy availability of willing workers ready to work in demanding schedules, short working hours is still a distant reality for the majority of the workforce.

Ans.2) As an individual, I have always given equal importance to personal and professional commitments. I believe life in not only about a professional career instead, professional career is just another part of life. In one of my previous assignments, I had to commute 5 hours in a day as my workplace was located approximately 85 kilometres from my place of residence. Although, the compensation package was much higher than what I actually needed or desired but the amount of efforts that I was putting in travel left me with very little time to fulfil my personal commitments. After following this routine for 3 long years, I decided to look for better opportunities, not in terms of compensation but in terms of convenience. The point that I am trying to make is that I am always willing to tradeoff scheduling flexibility and balance for slightly reduced compensation. In such an arrangement, the only factors that are important to me is that the new role should be allied to my present role. It should not be something that is in an entirely different domain from my current profile. The reduced compensation should be backed with appropriate justification and should not be reduced by an unjustifiable percentage.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.