[northerdome]

This! I don't doubt that Bolt still requires a lot of work and honestly the 4 day work week is probably more marketing speak than anything real. But the world (at remote companies at least) has drastically changed and there is no reason to expect everyone to always have the same hours. Work when you need to to get your stuff done. Be around at pre-decided hours when you need to collaborate. But the rest is up to you.

[eldavido]

This is so unrealistic.

Whenever I see people making the "get your stuff done", I think of sports teams. Owners don't tell players, "The goal is to win the super bowl. Go figure it out." They hire managers, exercise physicians, and dozens of other specialists that prescribe detailed programs of physical training, practice, and even what to eat, to maximize performance.

The point is that management has value. Someone has to do the work, of course. But someone also has to figure out how to organize everyone, ensure things are done in the right order, the right people are meeting, and communicating, and such, and yes, tell people whether they're doing enough work, or need to be doing more, and maybe even when to show up for work, or how late to stay. Management's job is to connect the highest-level goals with the actions of the people lower down in the organization, and that very much includes things like controlling the quantity of work and how long people are in the chair/at the screen.

I'm not saying management is always done well (it's not) or that you can never have too much (you can). Only that, most people don't want to be told "Go run a business. Figure it out." They need milestones and pacing and to have huge nebulous goals broken down into smaller chunks that can be measured and scheduled. People want to know how to do the job well, whether they're doing enough, and whether things are on schedule. That's management.

If you don't like it, there are plenty of career paths like outside sales, consulting, or others where you get to more or less make your own hours.

[riffraff]

> controlling the quantity of work and how long people are in the chair/at the screen.

I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a categorical difference between those two.

The first you want to maximize, the second is a (blunt) tool to achieve the first.

If people prefer to work 4 hours in the morning and 3 in the night, vs 8 hours in one go, vs 10 hours of low focus vs 5 hours of hyperfocus, it should be up to them, provided they deliver.

As a manager, it's your job to suggest something, but also to understand not everyone works the same way.

[petesmithy]

I get what you're driving at, but have you considered that sports teams, athletes are also optimising for 15+ year long careers (or even a long season)? Sports teams help players avoid over-training, over-competing, picking up injuries and burning out. Then there's managing the psychological side (keeping on winning, bouncing back from losing) which athletes are also not expected to look after 100% on their own. Finally, there's just simple personal mental health. So it can't be true that a great sports org is constantly driving marginal gains 24/7/365 with every athlete every day the way you describe.

4 day work weeks just look sensible to me. A massive privilege, for sure, given most people will still have to work 5+ days a week for the foreseeable future. But honestly the difference to my life (for the periods of time I've pulled it off) of having a 3- vs a 2-day weekend is ... transformative. And I'm better at my job for it.

A 4-day workweek arguably puts MORE emphasis on everyone in the company knowing exactly what they need to be doing. The company needs to be better run, to take advantage of the productivity boost of happier/better rested/more motivated employees 4 days /wk.

[jokethrowaway]

What you said is general agreeable.

Nobody is saying all management is useless - what's being discussed is different philosophies of management.

And I doubt the manager telling you to sit down for 8 hours straight will get more output out of you compared to the one that tell you to get output done by X, working in your own time.

All the problems with performance in companies I've seen were either due to staff motivation (caused by personal reasons, low pay, working on a shitty codebase / project, bored of the same job after years) or because management was forcing too many meetings or not having clear requirements or changing requirements up all the time (being agile still has a cost, even if you stopped writing documentation).

[lifeisstillgood]

This is well put, but boy reading through that there are so many parts that cry out "automate me" - replacing management with a perl script is likely to be a defining factor of successful companies to come.

[mojzu]

Are high level sports teams the best comparison? Google tells me NFL players make $400,000+ per year, if I was being paid that much I might accept that level of control from an employer over my life. But otherwise if I'm getting my work done to a decent standard and I'm not blocking others from getting their work done, then a manager trying to exert additional control over how I spend my time in or out of work is not going to increase my productivity

[auspex]

Sports teams don’t really work that way.

They provide the facilities and a prescriptive plan to get the team where they need to be game ready. Drills, strategy and ensuring everyone is operating as a team on the field.

Tuning their body is the responsibility of the player. The teams aren’t sending them a list of what to eat, how to train or what exercises to do. That’s on the athlete.

Of course they do have specialists to help if the players needs but it’s not “total control for performance”

[hackernewds]

Seems redundant if people are adults. Cross functional collaboration can be ensured by stakeholders that aren't also holding hostage how much tuition your kids can afford.

[xmprt]

I find that I often need to have quick conversations with coworkers while working. These can't be pre-planned meetings because if they were then I'd be blocked for up to a full day. Personally I'm much more in favor of 3 or 4 day work weeks where everyone is available and then having more days that are completely free to myself. Unfortunately, it seems like the world has converged on this hybrid schedule where you come into work for a few days (meaning you still have to live near work and commute) but also work remotely the rest of the time (meaning a lot of communication is async and inefficient if the company isn't built remote first).

[presentation]

I run a global remote startup, by the nature of people having different time zones it’s impossible to ensure everyone is on at the same times - mostly just means a) employees need more than one thing going on at once in case one thing gets blocked a few hours for a stakeholder to wake up; and b) we have to communicate more than a colocated, same time zone team would. But I find the ups to outweigh the downs.

[josephd79]

I think the bigger issue is people are still trying to work remotely like they’re in the office.

[erikerikson]

Is https://4dayweek.io/ not real enough?

[rsanek]

How many of the companies listed there have a >$10b valuation?