When it comes to the working week, the 9-5 schedule has long been the gold standard. A relic from the industrial era designed for factory floors and assembly lines. But here’s a thought that’s been nagging at me; the 9-5 only makes sense if everyone has the same work rate. And let’s be honest, that’s rarely the case.
I’ve seen it firsthand in my career. There are colleagues who plod along steadily throughout the day, methodically ticking off tasks at a consistent pace. Then there are the sprinters; those who dive into focused bursts of 5-6 hours, powering through complex problems or creative challenges, and somehow produce the same (or even more) output as their slower counterparts. It’s not about laziness or inefficiency; it’s about how our brains and bodies are wired. Some thrive on marathon sessions, while others excel in high-intensity sprints followed by necessary recharge time.
Productivity isn’t linear; it’s deeply personal. Research from productivity experts like Cal Newport (author of Deep Work) highlights how some workers often hit peak performance in shorter, uninterrupted blocks rather than grinding through an eight-hour day. Yet, traditional office cultures enforce the same rigid hours for everyone, assuming equal output from equal time invested. Even those offering flexibility, still require the hours to be ‘made up’ elsewhere and in some cases, such as busy families, this just isn’t possible, meaning that talent is often overlooked, in place of having someone who can fit the 9-5!
A software developer might debug a critical issue in a hyper-focused 4-hour session, achieving what could take another person an entire day of distracted effort. Writers and strategists who need “diffuse thinking” time involving walks, breaks, or even downtime, to let ideas percolate. Forcing everyone into the same mould pushes aside these differences and can lead to burnout, resentment, and suboptimal results.
In remote and hybrid environments, this disparity is even more apparent. Without the physical office for surveillance, performance is measured and sometimes micro-managed with hours logged in productivity apps or showing as online. Refreshingly, companies like Basecamp and Buffer have embraced flexible schedules, focusing on results over rigid timetables, and they’ve seen boosts in employee satisfaction and innovation.
I’ve worked in teams where “slow workers” weren’t slow, they were thorough, catching errors that speed demons might miss. Conversely, those short-burst superstars often deliver breakthroughs that propel projects forward. The key? Matching work styles to roles and allowing autonomy.
Applying a blanket policy breeds inequality: The sprinter feels trapped, while the marathoner might perceive them as “slacking off.” This isn’t just anecdotal; studies from Gallup show that flexible work arrangements can increase engagement by up to 41%, as employees feel trusted to manage their own productivity.
So, what if we ditched the one-size-fits-all approach? Imagine workplaces where success is tied to deliverables, not desk time. Leaders could implement:
- Results-Only Work Environments (ROWE): Judge by output, not presence.
- Customised Schedules: Allow core hours for collaboration, with flexibility around the edges.
- Productivity Tools: Use apps like RescueTime or Toggl to track real efficiency, helping individuals optimise their rhythms.
Of course, this requires trust, clear metrics, and communication. But in 2026, where talent is global and competitive, clinging to outdated norms could mean losing top performers.
Leave a Reply