The right hours, not long hours

I felt rather depressed when I read this article about Spain being urged to give up the siesta: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/spain-working-hours-ending-siesta Any holiday-maker, once they’ve got used to everything apart from bars and restaurants closing from 2-4pm, will tell you it’s rather special. For one, it kind of forces you to spend two hours in a bar or restaurant. For another, you’ll see the Spanish on holiday together as extended families, in a way that I don’t think you see in the UK.

What depresses me is the orthodoxy of the solution. At the risk of understatement, there’s some economic problems in Spain. Working hours are too long, but there’s really good evidence for shorter hours being better for health and prosperity: http://www.alternet.org/story/154518/why_we_have_to_go_back_to_a_40-hour_work_week_to_keep_our_sanity

So why do Spain have to conform to everybody else’s idea of what a working day looks like? They can do as they choose with the timezones (and if Franco changed them, that seems like a sound rationale for changing them back). Why not simply start the working day later?

If the siesta can be preserved in some form in the working week, it will surely thrive outside of work. But if you take it away five days a week, will you change your body clock for the other two days? The siesta, and the late-night lifestyle is a key part of the Spanish cultural identity, and that’s very important to people’s feeling of worth and happiness. I think Spain would be poorer, in all senses, without it.

And if the knock-on effects mean that the odd footballer can’t adjust to Spanish life, then sorry Michael, but that’s a price worth paying: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/michael-owen/10263747/Michael-Owen-Real-Madrid-was-a-horror-story-for-me-off-the-pitch-but-Gareth-Bale-will-flourish-if-he-feels-at-home.html

Work hard? No thanks.

On a very long drive to a client, I was, as ever, sustained by Radio 4. Especially a documentary on Internships. Following the death of Moritz Erhardt at Merrill Lynch, they explored the long-working hours for juniors in the City. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039rqqh/The_Report_Sleepless_in_the_City/

There’s the headlines. “If you’re not working 16 hours a day, and at least 16 hours at weekends, you have capacity”. The “Magic Roundabout” where interns cab home in the early hours, shower, change and get back to work. A one-upmanship culture develops; interns feel they are judged by their hours. Because, if they prove themselves, there’s the big cash prize of a permanent job.

A lot else stood out. Interns don’t do much 9-5, all their work arrives after that, so they just look busy. Pitches involve dozens of conflicting amends. Prescription drugs are abused. Physical and mental health suffers. Creativity, judgement and ethical thinking are soon worn out of people. And, above all, project management might prevent it all. But no, it’s all working hard, never working smart.

Is it worth it? It depends on what motivates this group. I do know that, in part, I stepped out on my own to have greater control over how I work. For me it’s a simple equation: smart work is rewarding, long work is draining. So working smarter produces better thinking, service, products.

And is there a parallel with the economic crisis too? We assumed credit could sustain us forever. It couldn’t. Aren’t many businesses assuming that they can draw forever on the reserves of their employees’ stamina? Isn’t that a recipe for inferior, errored work that requires re-work, that requires yet longer hours? Won’t that bubble burst too?

A lot of the political rhetoric now is about competing with China, India, Brazil, Russia where – we’re lectured - millions willingly toil long and hard. The inherent assumption is that we must match their dedication, hour for hour. I don’t think we can compete like that. I don’t want to. I believe we have to work smarter, not harder.

If we do, wouldn’t we all be happier at work too?