Forbes misses the point of the 4-day work week
37signals.com
37signals.com
Yes, Forbes "misses the point" of the "4-day workweek" as preached by 37-signals... but there's a good reason for that: they weren't talking about that version of the 4-day workweek.
The Forbes article clearly refers to a 4-day-workweek scheme instituted by Chrysler, not 37-signals - and their analysis of why it's a load of bollocks is pretty much spot on. Forbes hasn't missed the point - Chrysler has.. assuming they were even aware of the existence of that point in the first place, which I doubt.
Here we have a case of two things called by the same terms but referring to very different initiatives.
Ironically, I think 37-signals missed the point that the article wasn't about them!
Who wouldn't want a four-day work week?
You.
It would appear the author is sort of addressing everyone.
A magazine like Forbes should be writing about newer ideas, something along the lines of a 32-hour workweek (37S was not the first to have this idea, as I'm sure many of you must know).
It's time, dammit!
Not only that, but a little bird inside 37s told me that the true 4-day work week works for only a few people at 37s while a few other people put in long, hard hours getting a lot of the tedious work of maintaining a body of software done.
If they keep playing at this, DHH is going to exemplify a new icon of the Pointy Haired Boss. The thing that's most frustrating about that is that DHH is actually pretty good at what he does (meaning framework capture), and if he focused more he'd be a lot better and we'd see a lot more good features out of products of 37s.
There's sorta this downward spiral that a lot of software projects get into. Because the project is difficult, the engineers start working long hours and pushing through to get it done. Because they're working long hours, they get tunnel vision and make mistakes. Because they make mistakes, the codebase sucks. Because the codebase sucks, the project gets more difficult. Etc.
The solution is really just to not do hard problems - which is basically what DHH and 37s advocate. But there are a limited supply of easy problems to go around, so you get things like the Web2.0 gold rush where thousands of people are chasing the easy problems.
If that's true, it's significant. It would mean that what they're saying is bullshit, no?
What it means is that its not axiomatic. Sometimes you need to roll the hard 8 (or more appropriately work the hard 80) to get things done. Other times when there isn't quite so much on the line it makes sense to keep your workload lower.
Our profession is very subject to burnout and requires a lot of education to keep up. Taking time off is valuable for peak cognitive function.
That said, DHH may take it too far. And I know it would frustrate the hell out of me if I heard DHH talking about the 4-day work week while I was working on the things he is almost unconsciously refusing to do.
But that's not at all what they're saying.
What I've done in the past is have a 6-day workweek, with Friday and Saturday being 1/2 days. I really liked it, but most people don't have a pleasant walk to work like I do, so the commute is a net loss.
read the book "The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich"