|
It
is a controversial notion, particularly in the US, where
people work longer hours than anywhere else in the
developed world. In Silicon Valley, the connection
between success and long hours is so much assumed that
venture capitalists are said to make investment
decisions, in part, on the number of cars at night in a
company's parking lot.
I could say that I have
come to that conclusion from a study of international
productivity statistics. The International Labour
Organization points to labour productivity growth -- that
is, productivity growth allowing for the impact of
capital spending. In the 1980s and 1990s, as US workers
put in longer and longer hours -- 1,966 per annum
compared with 1,560 in Germany -- labour productivity
rose much more rapidly in western Europe. This is
despite the fact that annual working hours have been
going up in the US, while they've been on the decline or
remained steady in Germany, France and other western
European countries.
One could draw conclusions
from France's Loi Aubrey, which legislated for a 35-hour
week. France outstrips the US in output per man-hour.
When workers in the UK had to work three days a week in
the 1970s to save power, production dropped only
marginally.
But I've dug out these statistics
only to justify a gut feeling: that part-timers are
simply more effective, and just plain nicer to have
around.
At Moreover Technologies, we employed a
marketing writer called Eric who did not really want the
job. He was, and is, a novelist, but reluctantly
supplements his income with part-time commercial work.
Open about his lack of commitment, Eric would achieve
more in three days than others in a week, and with much
less fuss.
Generalizing a little, part-timers are
better employees first of all because they are more
disciplined. It is an item of faith among part-timers
with young children that they are more efficient than
their full-time (usually male) counterparts, because
they can't procrastinate. They simply have to get
everything done by 5.30pm in order to relieve the child
care.
Second, part-timers focus on the job rather
than their own psychological needs. Someone who writes a
novel out of hours -- or looks after children, or scales
cliffs on Fridays -- is less likely to have a mental
breakdown over the company's decision to target larger
corporate customers.
Third, part-timers are more
loyal. It is so hard in corporate America to find a
part-time job with real status that no-one can easily
afford to leave. Once an employee has tasted the
delights of another 52 days off each year, they will not
want to go back to the US norm: most working Americans
get less than three weeks of paid vacation each
year.
It is true, that part-timers lack
single-minded drive. To which I would counter: yes,
thank God. The creative and driven individuals who
populated the management of most dot.coms spent far too
much of their time arguing strategy, concluding
meaningless deals and politicking. Give me someone who
is in it for the wage cheque, any day.
There is
just one problem with hiring part-timers. The obsessive
full-timers. They dislike the idea that someone else has
a life outside work; they complain about absent
part-time colleagues; and, above all, they resent
reporting to someone who puts in fewer hours. That
means, in practice, that it is difficult to put
part-timers into management positions, even though they
often have the right, calm and organized
temperament.
So my solution: employ only 80%-ers.
Close down on Fridays. That way an employer can hire
people with a life outside work, and give them a career
path. Yes, you too can become a CEO one day. An 80% CEO,
that is.
Nick
Denton is founder-chairman of Moreover Technologies;
e-mail: nick@moreover.com or
visit http://www.nickdenton.org/ |
