Leaving Work as Soon as Possible — Who Decided on the "40-Hour Workweek"? Year-End Homework to Question the 9 to 5

As the end of

approaches, the feeling of "I want to change next year" arises. Losing weight, starting to exercise, saving money—while these are the classic resolutions, in recent years, resolutions related to "work" have been gradually gaining presence. An article from The Conversation published on Phys.org hits this very point. "When did we start assuming that '9 to 5, 40-hour weeks' were the norm? And is there room for change?" This article attempts to reevaluate work styles not through "toughness" but through the lens of history, data, and culture. Phys.org

"9 to 5" Is Not a Law of Nature

For many people, the 40-hour workweek, the so-called "9 to 5," is the standard. It's symbolic that calendar apps color-code this time as "working hours," giving the sense that life is designed around work from the start. Phys.org

However, the article emphasizes the fact that "this has not been an unchanging common sense from the past." Before the Great Depression, a six-day workweek was common, with Sundays off for church, and the concept of a "half-day off on Saturday" began to spread. From there, against the backdrop of New Deal-era legislation, the 40-hour workweek became established. In other words, the work style we consider "normal" is a product of political, economic, and social movements, not a fixed destiny. Phys.org

What's important here is that the historical discussion is not about nostalgia but serves as proof of "changeability." The current way of working can be redesigned if systems and culture change—the article carefully lays the groundwork for this.

The Richer the Country, the Less They Work? Yet the U.S. Works Longer

The article touches on the trend that "generally, the richer the country, the shorter the working hours," while pointing out that the U.S. tends to work longer than other developed countries. Phys.org

Here, the invisible barrier of "work culture" comes into play. Even if you want to shorten the hours, the workplace atmosphere doesn't allow it. Or, you simply "can't shorten" them for the sake of living.

Furthermore, the article doesn't dismiss the impact of overworking on mental and physical health as mere "guts." It refers to Gallup data showing that the risk of burnout increases with longer working hours and notes that the average working hours in the U.S. have slightly decreased in recent years, with a larger decrease among younger generations. Phys.org

"Reducing working hours ≠ laziness" can be read as "a shift in the prioritization of values."

"Time Macho" and "Face Time": The Curse of Long Hours = Excellence

An impressive part of the article is where it verbalizes the misconception that "the longer you work, the more you're valued." "Time macho," a term proposed by Anne-Marie Slaughter, refers to the culture where people who work long hours are seen as "strong, excellent, and committed." Phys.org

Another phenomenon is "face time"—the time spent being seen at the workplace itself is treated as proof of loyalty. Phys.org

The problem is that this curse prioritizes "time spent" over the quality of outcomes, potentially harming productivity and health. The article introduces research findings that "working longer doesn't automatically improve results" and touches on the mechanism by which fatigue reduces productivity. Phys.org

In other words, a time macho workplace seems to value "effort" but actually encourages "accumulation of fatigue."

The Four-Day Workweek: From "Ideal" to "Experimental Data"

So, how do we change it? One specific measure introduced in the article is the experiment of implementing a "four-day workweek (32 hours) while maintaining pay." Initiatives like 4 Day Week Global are being trialed across multiple countries and industries, with positive results reported for both companies and employees. Phys.org

The research page of 4 Day Week Global presents figures from a large-scale trial in the UK, showing a reduction in sick leave and many companies choosing to continue the practice. 4 Day Week Global

A common misconception here is the intuition that "more days off = lower productivity." The four-day workweek is not merely about "more vacation days" but involves redesigning the way work is done, including compressing meetings, asynchronous communication, and reviewing tasks. Therefore, success or failure depends not only on "implementing the system" but also on "operational design." The article carefully depicts this as a "misunderstanding of means and ends." Phys.org

Will AI Reduce Work? Or Will It Lead to More Intensity?

The expectation that "AI will take over tedious tasks and reduce working hours" feels real in the current atmosphere. The article acknowledges this hope but warns that "there's no guarantee." The benefits are not distributed equally, and there's a possibility that new quotas will be added to the "freed-up time," increasing the density (intensity) of work. Phys.org

"Efficiency = Leisure" could instead become "Efficiency = Raised Expectations." This is a common experience felt by many workers.

Those Who Can Change Have the Responsibility to Change

What makes the end of the article interesting is that it doesn't escape into idealism but acknowledges that "only a limited number of people can change." Many people cannot choose their working hours, and some have to juggle multiple jobs. Phys.org

Still, if you're in a position to make adjustments—as an individual, you should demonstrate "how to achieve results within this time frame (how to manage it)," and as an organization, you should be aware of the "authority to influence others' working hours" and pass on positive impacts to the "next person." Phys.org

This conclusion resonates not as mere self-improvement but as a discussion about breaking the "chain" of work culture.

---

Reactions on Social Media (Examples + Points of Discussion)

The article itself is displayed with a share count of "0" on the Phys.org page (this could be due to display specifications, but at least the counter on the page is not moving). Phys.org

Meanwhile, the author, Jennifer Tosti-Kharas, has shared the article on LinkedIn, where it has garnered reactions and comments on her post. LinkedIn

1) "It's not just about personal determination; it's an organizational culture issue."
Comments appreciate the point that reducing working hours cannot be achieved solely by "individual will" but depends on organizational needs and culture. LinkedIn

2) "Some companies are already doing the four-day workweek."
Comments also mention Dutch company examples (four-day workweek with five days' pay) and share that "the results are promising," indicating that the four-day workweek is not a "distant future dream" but has increasing real-world applications. LinkedIn

3) "Symbols (Dolly Parton) can help change culture."
Another comment lightly references the pop culture element of "9 to 5" (Dolly Parton) mentioned in the article while affirming the article's quality. Adding "shareability" to serious topics makes them more likely to spread on social media. LinkedIn

Additionally, it can be confirmed from search results that the article has been shared from The Conversation U.S.'s official X (formerly Twitter) account. X (formerly Twitter)

 

Typical "Splits" in Social Media Discussions(General Reaction Patterns Aligning with the Article's Claims)

• Proponents: "Long hours aren't a virtue," "Judge by results," "It should work with a four-day week."

• Cautious: "Isn't that only for discretionary and white-collar jobs?" "What about on-site jobs?"

• Skeptics: "Will AI make it easier? Probably just more quotas."
  This "split" itself is close to the article's conclusion that "there are still parts that can be changed / but not everyone is under the same conditions."