Debunking Parkinson’s Law

If one was really honest, the answer many times would be “no.” But, during our employment years, did we use the allotted time to complete the tasks we had at work? That answer would probably be “yes.” 

In other words, Parkinson’s Law is affirmed in that most of us in our 40-hour work-weeks, used the allotted time to complete our tasks, when, in actuality, the jobs could have been done in a shorter period. There is hardly a person in any occupation who hasn’t said to themselves, “I could have done this job in half the time, but I had to punch in at nine and leave at five.”

Which brings one to this question: what is so sacred about the 40-hour work-week? The answer is, “nothing.” 

The 40-hour week simply morphed into fields of employment mostly to fill up what was thought of as a reasonable amount of time to work during a week so-as to earn a decent wage and appease unions and many employers. 

Could the work-week have been 20 or 30 hours? Sure it could have, but somehow business decided on 40. (Of course farmers were most likely not held to that time frame).  

There is, however, absolutely no data that will confirm all employment needs 40-hour weeks and workers to be at a work station for that amount of time. In fact, during the past two years, dealing with trying to find ways to stay employed and at the same time deal with issues of the pandemic, many employers and employees have found the 40-hour work-week on the job at a work station to be not only unfeasible, but surprisingly passe. 

Employees found ways of completing their tasks from work stations at home and many were able to prove Parkinson’s Law is correct, since they were finishing their tasks not in the allotted time provided, but in the time it actually took, which in many cases was less than 40 hours.

Just as there is no proof that learning takes place in all subjects by sitting in a classroom 180 days per year for 50 minutes per day, there is no scientific evidence for needing to structure our work-week in 40-hour increments. 

So, as they say, let us now start to “think outside the box” with regard to our work periods. 

Let us trust Parkinson’s Law and know that it is a wasteful concept to “expand our completing tasks at work to fill the allowed time provided,” when we all know we could have our own law that says, “we will complete our work tasks in the time it takes us to do them,” then pack up our lunch pails and head on home. (Although for the same pay as a 40-hour week)