In all honesty, I am in the group of people who believe that this question has a lot to do with micromanagement within the workplace. You bring up a good point of not having to clock in and having the freedom to manage your time as you wish, I believe this truly helps an employee complete the days or weeks tasks at their own pace. As long as you are not late or your work is not "slacking" per say, why would you need to be micromanaged to the point of needing to clock in and out, especially if its for a lunch or meal break. 

My opinion on this is that corporate employers should trust their employees to complete the research or any work on due time while working at a pace that is comfortable for them. I have heard of scenarios from peers in the corporate industry where they are getting rushed and micromanaged, and almost in every situation, the quality of the work suffers. Even from personal experience, I have seen people who get tasks and work assigned and due at a specific date work better when working at own pace, rather than being managed to ensure they're working 8 full hours. 

I agree with the statement you mentioned that an emphasis on working 8 hours would make people work harder and not smarter, it does shift the focus from the actual work to simply the amount of time worked. I hope this was helpful and I would love to hear the opinion of others on this topic! 

Hello! I thought your view on this idea is extremely interesting. As someone, who currently works in the biomed industry (specifically regenerative medicine), I feel like it is better to work within a set amount of hours than to work towards completing a project. I agree that sometimes there can be slow periods where work isn't so forthcoming but I feel like having a set amount of hours gives a better work-life balance. Sometimes you won't be able to get all your work assigned for the day completed within your shift, but the 8-10 hour shifts give you a good stopping point so that you do not overwork yourself. I believe that if you are salaried instead of hourly pay, this would be a good concept to have incorporated into any business. 

Hello! This is an interesting topic you bring up in your post. I also work at a research lab where I organize my own schedule to complete my projects without a specific number of hours needed to be completed. Personally, I think that by having a set amount of hours blocked off each day for work, I can organize myself much better to complete several tasks at once and on time. Having a set amount of hours at work each day also allows others to know exactly when to contact you if an issue or question arises. For example, if I know you have an 8am-4pm job, then I’ll know to contact you during those hours. On the other hand, if your job hours are more flexible and dependent only on the completion of a project, then someone else may contact you when you’re unavailable and their specific job will be impacted (possibly in a negative way). For this example, especially in industry, I believe that a set schedule for each employee benefits overall product development due to better communication between partners. In academia, I believe flexibility in work hours is more feasible since jobs in the field require a lot more writing and scattered projects, unlike a job in industry. As a PhD student, I try to block off a certain time every day for work, but I know that when deadlines for grants/projects approach, my work day will probably be much longer than usual. Therefore, it might be good to consider this discussion for both industry and academia separately. In addition, providing the same salary to two employees (one who works a four-hour day, and the other who works a 8-hour day) is likely not appealing to the person paying those employees. 

I have never worked in industry and my opinions are based on only a couple of months as a PhD student. I’m interested in hearing more about this discussion, especially from someone in industry. Do you think that this flexibility in work hours is as feasible in industry as it is in academia?

Last fall, I had a full time co-op at a medical device company in Production Engineering. At my company, we had a little flexibility but for the most part, it was a set schedule. We had to work around 40 hrs/wk but we could essentially choose if we wanted to start at 7/8/9am and end at 3:30/4:30/5:30pm (30 min for lunch). 

I can only offer my perspective as a student employee which I know is different than that of a regular salaried employee. I knew that I was stuck to the 40 hours that I needed to work, but I appreciated the flexibility given to me. Because I had classes, some days I only worked for 4-5 hours, other days 10 hours. I could dice it up any way I wanted to but the majority of my working hours needed to be during the time the Sr. Engineers were in office. For the most part, my hours were the same, from 7:30am-4pm. The set-up was most useful for the weeks when school projects/exams were due. I'd work longer hours on certain days of the week so that I'd be calmer the day of my exam, because honestly, when you're already so focused on your project (and you don't get paid OT), it's better to grind it out and relax later. So in a roundabout way, I think structured work hours are important because as "gdecarvalho" mentioned, its allows you to be contacted. If I worked whenever I wanted to, I would be hard to contact other people needed for the project. 

To add to the point of two people working different hours getting paid the same salary, I agree that it would not be an appealing set-up to the payer. I didn't realize until I spoke to some friends in industry that I was lucky to have an "honor" type system where we were trusted to record the total hours we worked for that week. My friends on the other hand, had to log the hours worked on each project and what part. While I understand why managers would like this style of managing, people work on different aspects of projects and different paces. So for example, if in your 40 hrs/week you get your work done in 30 hrs while your coworker takes the full 40 hrs (given similar positions and workload/projects), I don't think you should be penalized or assigned even more work (resulting in getting paid the same as coworker and working more). Ideally, I think employees should be given a practical amount of time to complete project and as long as it was done by the agreed deadline during the working ours (whether that be 8 hrs or 10 hrs), it shouldn't matter how long Tim took vs how long Tina took. Realistically though, with the constant "hot" projects that usually turn up, it's probably not quite feasible.

Structured and flexible hours can work with pros and cons in different situations. For a student who is continuing their education it may be more beneficial for them to have flexible hours. Like stated by sm2744, they would change their hours when exams or projects needed more of their attention. By dividing the load to more to some days than another, it can allow the student to still get their hours of work done while still being able to focus on school. 

Regarding industry, I have no experience but I believe if that is the main focus of the person, then structured hours work better. I believe that it would set a better work-life balance. By having the person understand that they need to get a percentage of their work done by a certain time each day would lead to a consistent routine. And as mentioned earlier by gdecarvalho, structure hours ensures that team members know when are the available hours to contact others. Instead of contacting others at inconvenient times, like late at night or early hours of the day, there would be set times where each person is available for asking questions or providing  help.

Regarding structure or flexible lab hours, I believe it is up to preference of the researcher and topic of the research. I’ve been in the lab since the spring and I’ve found that structured hours work best for my research. I can come in at an early time, be there to assist others who need it, complete a certain amount of work and then leave at a similar time each day. That is because many components of my current project are not time sensitive. But compared to others who have time sensitive projects, they may find more benefit from flexible hours. Some days they could set up materials that would take them for example 2-3 hours and say 24 hours of setting. They could leave after 2-3 hours and spend the next day longer in the lab conducting the experiment. Both types of schedules can get their project completed but at different rates. 

To conclude, structured and flexible hours depend on the situation and the type of job being done. Another important factor to consider is how best the person themselves works. Different people work with different preferences.

I believe that the situation varies depending on your company's management style. All my experience has come from a single company. I recall during my 40 hour/week internship, that when I asked my manager about my working hours, he told me that as long as I got my work done properly it was up to me how I wanted to use my time. His management style was less micromanagement and instead he chose to trust his workers to be responsible. This level of trust motivated me to perform to the best of my ability so I didn't abuse his trust. 

I believe that allowing employees to work on their own schedule and judge them based on the work they complete rather than the time they spend working is the better method of management. If you give someone a task and tell them they have to work 8 hours a day, then they will spend the full 8 hours working on that task. Thus, it makes more sense to assign tasks along with a deadline and let the employee complete the tasks on their own schedule. Even though the employee may not be working for the hours they get paid, the work they are getting paid to do is getting done efficiently. In addition, not only does allowing the employee work on their own schedule promote a level of trust between the manager and worker, it also improves the work-life balance for the employee. 

So far, I have mainly experienced a more flexible hour schedule. While I was an intern in the Research and Development and Product Development teams of a company, I would normally be assigned work pertaining to a project and given a timeframe to complete all the assignments by. When and how much time I spent working was completely in my control. I liked the flexibility and control I had with my work schedule because it allowed me to work at my own pace as long as I met the set deadlines. I wouldn't have to worry about sitting on my computer working continuous hours everyday even if I was done with my work. Furthermore, lot of the work I was assigned pertained to reading, writing, and editing scientific papers and other documentation, which I could and was allowed to work on remotely. This was especially helpful for me because I know I would not be able to look at documents and write for hours straight.

The flexible schedule and remote working allowed me to feel at ease taking short breaks in between and not feel judged or fear being reprimanded by a manager. We were expected to be responsible for getting our assignments done punctually. It was also nice to feel a sense of trust from my managers right away even as an intern, since micromanagement is prevalent in many work spaces. I also think this mutual respect and trust from my managers along with the flexibility in my working hours allowed me to provide quality work to the team, because I didn't have to force myself to work long hours straight and I felt comfortable asking for more time for certain assignments that were more difficult than others. I will admit that having a flexible schedule may not be feasible in many situations. I think what makes it work best is if all parties involved (managers, employees, and even interns) have mutual trust and respect for each other. Of course there is risk that some employees may take advantage of this, which is why it is important to address concerns related to this right away. Overall, from my experience this type of scheduling allows for better work relationships, more productivity, and quality work. 

My 2 cents on this topic is that I would prefer if employers would look at it that if you get your work done it doesn't matter how long you work for. The thing is that my experience has always been that there is always more work to be done and you are never really fully done with the work unless you finish a project fully and the new one hasn't been given yet. Sadly there is no way to quantify how much work should be done in a day and let someone go home after hitting that threshold but maybe in the future I will have a job where this is possible. I feel like in my experience I have been able to get more work done in 6 hours than others do in 8 but like I said so far I have not had  a position where leaving early is possible if you finish your work.

This is a very relevant topic of discussion nowadays due to changing work habits brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. I work in industry so I can't speak to academia work, but in my opinion, the rigid 8-hour work day is quite antiquated for many professions, including engineering. I think many organizations continued to go along with the 8-hour workday since it's been the standard for so long, since the industrial revolution. But then when the pandemic hit and many of us were forced to work from home, both companies and employees started to rethink this approach. Different people simply work at different paces. Some work best in short intervals throughout the whole day with frequent quick breaks, whereas others may prefer working non-stop for a few hours then being done with it. However, I also see the merit in having set working hours, so there is a defined end of the working day to avoid burnout. A good balance might be that you have to be available to be contacted during a certain timeframe (e.g. from 8 AM to 5 PM) but in terms of actual time you spend working, it should be more goal-oriented. In other words, you are expected to complete a task by a certain date, and as long as that is accomplished, you can work on it whenever you want.

I think this topic is very relevant now; we've all read the stories about "quiet-quitting" and how workplace dynamics have changed post-covid. However, most of these come from corporate offices with relatively stable day-to-day operations. In the biomed space, whether in industry or research, most work is project based. By design, projects have deadlines. Failing to meet said deadlines, the workers/researchers may or may not get paid. 

So, in our field we seek to complete projects in a timely and organized matter, with little to no mistakes. The latter part is important here. All the projects going on in the world right now could most likely be completed in less time if everyone worked 24/7, but this is inhuman. Thus the responsibility falls upon the manager to decide what works best for their team. An international team of biomedical software developers obviously wouldn't have everyone working 9-5 every day. Conversely, a product development team in their product testing phase wouldn't have their employees working from home. 

Managing people is difficult, two people on one team may have vastly different productivity at different time intervals during the day. A good manager would allow them to work the hours that they are most productive in, while also reeling everyone in for necessary meetings, etc. One shouldn't be forced into a 9-5 workday, especially if their productivity suffers because of it. In addition, an employee shouldn't be looked down upon for coming in from midnight to 8 am to complete their part of the work. We are all humans living different lives, we should not live to work.

Posted by: @knd26

Some workplaces offer more flexibility in hours than others. In the lab I work in now, you do not need to clock in, you are just held accountable to finish your work. You could complete all your work in 6 hours or 10 hours, and you are paid and treated the same. In most industry settings and other labs, you must be at your job for at least a certain number of hours even if you have completed your work. I know that some weeks of work are more demanding than others, but do you have any opinions on which you think is better, working to complete a project or working a set number of hours? Or do you think this discussion is only applicable to either academia or industry?

I personally feel like if someone can get their "8 hours of work" (or the expected amount of work) done in 6-7 hours then they should not need to waste or burn time in the office if they are done. I find that this makes people work harder and smarter. The con is that some employees may not pay for this to happen if they are not working. I have never worked in the industry, however, so I am not sure if this argument would be relevant. Both have many pros and cons, and I would love to hear what other people think!

I agree with you about “8 hours of work” being outdated. Nowadays, if someone can complete their work in less than eight hours, they should be allowed to leave. However, this will enable companies to get their money’s worth out of their employers because if you finish all your day’s work in 6 hours, you will start working on other things or even checking over the completed work for errors. The standard of eight hours of work is acceptable to me, but I think there should be an option to work earlier to get out of the office/lab earlier. This will give workers time to work on their projects and get everything done with their schedule instead of coming in for a set amount of hours. All in all, working eight hours a day is outdated and should change to how many hours it takes to get the job done.

I have to agree with your statement that someone can get their “8 hours of work” done in less time. Personally, I feel as though it does depend on the person and how they work. You have those that are self-sufficient, and don’t require any oversee and then you have those that are procrastinators and could possibly rush their work which could diminish the quality and then you have some that thrive off leadership and want someone to tell them what to do, when to have it done by, when to clock in and out, etc. However, I think this should be established based on the workplace, workload, and atmosphere. Also, there could be incentives to get the work done earlier that maybe motivating to some employees. I can imagine it depends on the type of field one works in. If you work in a factory, some get paid by how much they process and not necessarily the amount of time they work. Then there are some that just need to have work completed by a certain deadline and that can allow it to be done at the employees’ leisure. But then there are those who work with the public and it seems to be necessary to work 8 hours. In response to your question, I think this discussion can apply to both the industry and academia. I feel like I can get through a course rather quickly if I have prior knowledge and it is something I am passionate about, and it shouldn’t be required for me to sit through a class for 8-12 weeks.

To piggyback off of your initial post: do you think it should be required to sit through a course, that you know you can finish at a quicker pace?

"if someone can get their "8 hours of work" (or the expected amount of work) done in 6-7 hours then they should not need to waste or burn time in the office if they are done."

Given my current occupation as an investigative reporter and that the bulk of my job is researching and conducting interviews. A lot of the overall work that I  am able to do does not require a full 8 hours. Due to the fact that I  know that I  am sufficient enough in getting my work done within 6-7 hours, I  do feel like it is understandable that one may not need to remain in the office if they are done with work. I typically use that time to complete school assignments or essentially organize my schedule, however when all is complete, it does often feel like I'm wasting time when I  could be resting or recharging. I  know that not all are the same, but from my personal experience, I agree that there is a lot of work that can be completed in less than 8 hours. 

Covid changed the workplace environment for many businesses. When everyone was forced to work from home, businesses saw that work could get done without being in the office. People worked at their own pace and got the job done.  Companies saw this and realized all the money they could save by not having to pay leases on office space.  I believe that a hybrid model of work environment is the key.  I you are the tyoe of person that loves person to person interaction and thrives in the office space setting, then go in more often.  But if you are the type of person that like to just grind alone on your computer at home, then work from home.  I think managers and superiors need to see what situation benefits their employees and their business the best, and go with it.  At the end of the day, we just want people to be happy from the employee, to the manufacturer, the boss, and the consumer.