Although I strongly believe in the potential of the four-day week, I continue to view the subject with caution. Can it be applied to all sectors, all professions, and all sizes of business? Nothing is less certain. Feedback has been encouraging, but the conditions for implementation remain highly variable. Where possible, I am in favor of it in principle, but that is not the heart of the matter.
In reality, the benefit of this approach lies not only in reducing working hours. I already see an advantage in terms of personal organization, regardless of any reduction in working hours (Why you should organize your week into 4 days even if you work 5 days), but its main benefit lies in what it tells us about how we continue to confuse productivity with performance.
This is precisely what is highlighted in this article published by McKinsey in April 2024 (In pursuit of value—not work), which tells us that a majority of executives recognize that their teams could achieve the same results by working less, provided that low-value-added activities are eliminated.
In other words, if we focused more on what is accomplished rather than what is done, we could improve performance while reducing working hours or even do more in the same amount of time, although I am much less convinced about this.
In short:
- Confusion between productivity and performance leads to valuing visible activity over real impact, to the detriment of efficiency.
- Low-value-added tasks persist out of habit, when regular analysis would enable them to be eliminated and work simplified.
- Collective functioning takes precedence over individual performance: the quality of interactions in a workflow is more decisive than the intensity of each individual’s effort.
- Focusing on quantitative indicators can divert attention from real objectives, as Goodhart’s law shows.
- Improving efficiency means clarifying expectations, simplifying processes, and questioning the usefulness of actions taken, rather than intensifying work.
The reassuring illusion of productivity
We have been collectively conditioned to believe that working hard means working well. The level of activity has become a reassuring indicator, an easy substitute for measuring impact.
In practice, this translates into an accumulation of efforts that are more important for being visible than useful: answering emails at all hours, attending back-to-back meetings, filling out dashboards, duplicating information from one tool to another. At one point, Microsoft had the idea of measuring users of its tools based on their activity in those tools, before backtracking (How to motivate your employees to blow hot air instead of being productive (thank you Microsoft)).
Work is individual, success is collective
I would add another topic to this, which is collaboration and, more broadly, collective work in flux.
We observe and measure a person’s activity, and they know this and do everything they can to show that they are giving their all. You know the famous “business vs. busyness” saying, which tells us that being busy does not necessarily lead to success.
But the truth is that we work in groups: we collaborate, cooperate, or even if several people work alone at different stages of a process before passing the baton to another, what matters is the quality of the system and the interactions, rather than the quantified activity of each individual. We are more concerned with quality than quantity (Productivity: what if quality was the new quantity?).
To understand this better, I refer you to this video by Yves Morieux, the author of one of my bedside books (How to Manage Complexity without Getting Complicated). He shows us that in a relay race, the winners are not those who run the fastest, but those who pass the baton most efficiently.
When indicators turn against us
This mechanism is well known in the world of behavioral economics. It is stated in Goodhart’s law (Do you know Goodhart’s law on KPIs and measurement?):
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure“.
This is exactly what happens when productivity is made a goal in itself, regardless of its purpose.
By measuring task volume, occupancy rates, or hours spent, we end up optimizing what is measurable rather than what matters.
Businesses believe they are driving performance, but often they are just managing busyness.
How can we stop confusing activity with impact?
If we want to escape the illusion of productivity, it’s not enough to simply declare that we’re going to “work better,” which ultimately means very little. Here are some simple but useful questions to incorporate into your individual or collective routines:
What does what I do really contribute to?
Ask yourself this question at the start of the day or during team meetings.
Anything that isn’t linked to a goal, a deliverable, or a useful decision can probably be reconsidered.
What do I do “out of habit” that no longer serves any purpose?
A report, a meeting, a table, a chat channel: many professional actions become automatic, even when they are no longer useful.
Could I achieve the same result with less effort?
The right question is not “how can I go faster,” but “how can I reduce unnecessary complexity.” This usually starts with removing a validation step, clarifying a rule, or sharing information upstream.
Am I producing a deliverable or managing the effects of disorganization?
This is a good indicator of whether you are really making progress on an issue or simply filling in the gaps.
What would be the real cost if I stopped doing this task?
If the answer is “none” or “no one would notice” you’ve found a good candidate for elimination.
Bottom line
Working faster or harder does not mean working better. And working more does not necessarily produce better results.
Productivity only has value if it is linked to a concrete result; otherwise, it becomes a trap: we optimize our efforts, we waste time improving useless tasks, we focus on appearances rather than impact.
It is not enough to do more. We must first understand what needs to be done, why, and in what order.
Improving your own efficiency and that of the group does not mean performing individual miracles in a rusty and rigid system, but rather redesigning the contours of the work, simplifying flows, and clarifying expectations. And, above all, having the courage to question what we have become accustomed to doing without always knowing why, in light of the ultimate goal.
In other words: working smart means starting by looking at what needs to be done and what doesn’t.
Related articles:
The numbers we overlook when reinventing work
Why your Digital Workplace is hurting your organization’s performance
Remote work and productivity: what if we rethought the real drivers of efficiency?
Hyperconnectivity in the workplace: digital becomes a burden
Are you familiar with the Jevons paradox at work? When efficiency leads to inefficiency.
Eradicate Meeting Delays: 6 Simple Rules for Optimized Productivity
