This blog has previously addressed the challenges we may face from lack of rest in I'm Tired, You Tired? Fatigue has implications for us, and can raise safety concerns. In Risks for Attorneys, a recent report details various challenges, among them "long and unusual" hours. Now there is empirical data suggesting that longer hours do not necessarily mean more or better production.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently published a fascinating article What Wartime Munitionettes Can Teach Us About Burnout? The author contends that a study of women working in England during World War I can be instructive for today's workers. It is critical of the perception that many of us hold that "we can always push ourselves to do more" in the workplace.
The research focused specifically on women recruited to manufacture munitions, referred to as munitionettes, in factories. A more Americanized reference might be Rosie the Riveter, an iconic poster inspired by a real person. With labor demands high, and labor supply impacted by military needs, women workers entered industrial employment during wartime in significant numbers.
The value of these workers generally can perhaps not be overstated. However, they bring particular value to this analysis because of the circumstances of their work. They were performing repetitive work "and they were paid per task." Because of that, data exists to measure not just presence at work, but actual productivity. Because of the war effort, the study presumes that "their motivations were similar too." Additionally, using utility records, researchers "verified which days and hours they worked by looking at the factory's electricity logs." The result is data that "is unambiguous and measurable" regarding work hours/days and productivity.
So, "what happens when people work long hours?" The study concluded that "output per hour peaked at about 40 hours of work per week and then fell." Economists refer to "marginal" input and return. That is, if one hour of work produces 60 units of output, then an additional hour of input might be expected to produce another 60. The marginal input of a second hour produces a related marginal output. The research demonstrates that expectation holds true up to the 40-hour point. Then, the forty-first hour does not produce that same expected output.
The conclusion is that marginal inputs increase overall production to a point. Then, there is a point of "diminishing returns" where a marginal unit of input has less impact. Thus, the lower output in that forty-first hour will mathematically mean that the average output overall 41 hours is less than the average over 40 hours. It is possible that at some point the diminution in return could become noticeable even without data such as was examined here.
The conclusion is that marginal inputs increase overall production to a point. Then, there is a point of "diminishing returns" where a marginal unit of input has less impact. Thus, the lower output in that forty-first hour will mathematically mean that the average output overall 41 hours is less than the average over 40 hours. It is possible that at some point the diminution in return could become noticeable even without data such as was examined here.
The analysis of the Munitionette workers in Britain revealed that "the weeks when output was highest were not the same weeks when the hours were longest." It may seem counterintuitive, but the weeks with the highest volume of input did not produce the highest production volume. From that, the study concluded that "a certain point, throwing more hours at the problem doesn't help." Those additional (marginal) hours "only run up the operational costs."
The research concluded that "there's a sweet spot in the number of hours people work per week." Up to a point, we are productive, and additional (marginal) inputs deliver "more output (or better performance)," but at some point, those additional inputs do not yield the same productivity gains. The research is detailed, according to the BBC, in a book Diminishing Returns at Work: The Consequences of Long Working Hours.
The conclusion is essentially that there is value in finding that "sweet spot," recognizing that it may be different depending upon the job task and even the individual. Despite those potentials for distinction, each of us in any particular endeavor likely has such a sweet spot, that may be personal to us alone. In other words, forty hours per week might be yours, but forty-two or thirty-eight may be a coworker's.
The study supports that there is also a productivity benefit in taking days off work. The researchers were able to identify weeks when the war-time norm of seven-day factory operation was interrupted with a day off. The ultimate conclusion was that "a work week without a day of rest doesn’t benefit anyone." The extra (marginal, seventh) day of work did not produce a greater volume of output. The data suggests that worker output was better in both the week before and after a scheduled day off. There is apparently a demonstrable benefit both from the day off itself and the anticipation of an upcoming day off.
The study supports that there is also a productivity benefit in taking days off work. The researchers were able to identify weeks when the war-time norm of seven-day factory operation was interrupted with a day off. The ultimate conclusion was that "a work week without a day of rest doesn’t benefit anyone." The extra (marginal, seventh) day of work did not produce a greater volume of output. The data suggests that worker output was better in both the week before and after a scheduled day off. There is apparently a demonstrable benefit both from the day off itself and the anticipation of an upcoming day off.
The author warns that the failure to find that sweet spot and to take that day off can equally impact those engaged in producing goods and today's "knowledge workers." The article contends that a seven-day workweek results in detriment to "both employers and employees," and can be "measured by decreased outputs, lack of creativity, a drop in quality, or poorer interpersonal skills." In other words, perhaps, we are both less productive and harder to get along with? Simply stated, the conclusion is "working wears people down. Time off enables them to recover."
The author concedes that there are exceptions. It is possible "that a short sprint of long hours to finish a project or meet a deadline" may be worthwhile. Furthermore, some people may be "outliers," with different performance characteristics. The fact is that we all have our distinctions and motivations, and our job functions are sometimes similarly dissimilar and perhaps even unique.
The recommendations also include limitations on work by "setting boundaries." With the benefits (or burdens) of the digital age in which we live, and with our tethering to work through texts and emails, the author concludes it may now be difficult "to figure out what constitutes ‘work’ at all." When off-work time is intermingled with work interruptions, determining precisely how much we work may itself be a challenge. Scheduled, purposeful, and dedicated time away from those electronic devices may therefore be of value.
It is up to individuals to ensure that they are afforded time away to rest and recharge. It is similarly up to employers to gauge the value of marginal inputs and appreciate that in some instances those increased work hours may not be expected to produce greater output. They may instead degrade the quality of all of the output. There remains, it seems, value in the dynamic and human skills of management. There is perhaps support for the fact that we are each unique in our abilities, motivations, and therefore performance.
With all that said, find some time to untether periodically. Take a day off each week, without exception. Detach from the challenges and immerse yourself in a hobby, trip, or binge-watch Game of Thrones. In other words, schedule breaks and detachment with the knowledge that a break is good and will likely make you even better.
With all that said, find some time to untether periodically. Take a day off each week, without exception. Detach from the challenges and immerse yourself in a hobby, trip, or binge-watch Game of Thrones. In other words, schedule breaks and detachment with the knowledge that a break is good and will likely make you even better.
