undefined | Better HN

0 pointslelanthran3y ago0 comments

> Many office workers spent some 50-80% of their work hours on overhead (meetings, email), leaving very little time for actual focused tasks, things that actually need to get done. When you work one day less, you just optimize the overhead part whilst still outputting the same net productivity.

If it were that easy to cull out the overhead it'd be done by now in the existing 5-day week.

I can see no reason (and none is presented in any of the comments) why moving to a 4-day week will suddenly reduce pointless meetings. It's asserted as fact multiple times, but it isn't.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

fleddr3y ago· 1 in thread

"If it were that easy to cull out the overhead it'd be done by now in the existing 5-day week."

This is a misunderstanding of the dynamic. Collaboration and overhead inflates to whatever the capacity is. There's no strong force to stop it, bizarre as that is.

When you reduce capacity, the counter force is there. I normally do 10 meetings but can now only afford 8.

lelanthranOP3y ago

> When you reduce capacity, the counter force is there. I normally do 10 meetings but can now only afford 8.

If you're doing 10 meetings in 5 days and can only afford 8 meetings in 4 days, the number of meetings haven't gone down!

The ratio is still the same - every 5 working days you have 10 meetings, even in a 4 day week.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse