[Inside Chodong] Writing a Report on the Four-Day Workweek While Working on the Weekend

"Long Working Hours in Korea, Need for Work-Life Balance" vs.
"Heightened Organizational Tension Needed to Overcome Management Challenges"
Reducing 'Fake Work' Is the Starting Point

Recently, a forum was held at the National Assembly on the topic of "How to implement a four-day workweek." It caught more attention as it came at a time when the need for a change in corporate culture to support work-family balance (work-life balance) was being closely examined. Those in favor of the four-day workweek pointed out that South Korea's annual working hours far exceed the average of OECD member countries. They argued that the four-day workweek should be introduced quickly to achieve a substantial reduction in working hours and realize work-life balance. They emphasized that reducing statutory working hours is the most powerful policy tool to actually cut working hours, and many studies have reported its positive effects on quality of life. Experiments with the four-day workweek conducted in countries like Iceland and Belgium also showed positive impacts on workers' work-life balance, and the concerns about negative effects on corporate productivity were found to be unlikely.

South Korea works long hours. According to the OECD, last year South Korea's annual working hours per person were 1,872 hours, exceeding the OECD member average of 1,724 hours. Public opinion also responds positively to reducing working hours. According to the "Survey on Working Hours and Perceptions of the Four-Day Workweek among 1,000 Office Workers" by the Four-Day Workweek Network, 63.2% support the introduction of the four-day workweek, and 68.1% agree with reducing the statutory 40-hour workweek to 35-36 hours. The proposal to expand statutory annual leave from the current "15 days" to "20 days" was supported by 79.2%.

Despite working long hours, hourly labor productivity is low. As of 2022, South Korea's hourly labor productivity was $49.4, ranking 33rd out of 37 OECD countries. This is about three-quarters of the OECD average ($64.7). Because of this, employers often cite this as a reason to oppose the four-day workweek, expressing concerns about a decline in corporate competitiveness due to low labor productivity. They explain that the wage system in South Korea, based on seniority and working hours, limits the actual reduction of working hours.

While discussions on the four-day workweek are in full swing, on the other hand, there are observations of working hours actually increasing, with a de facto return to a six-day workweek. Major Samsung affiliates, including Samsung Electronics, are showing changes such as implementing a six-day workweek for executives and increasing work intensity for new employees. This trend seems to be spreading throughout the business community. The stated reason is to create tension within organizations to overcome management difficulties caused by uncertain external environments and high inflation, high interest rates, and high exchange rates.

Looking at the purpose alone, all these discussions are necessary. Reducing the time spent tied to work allows for mental refreshment and increases the likelihood of focusing on important things outside of work, such as childcare or self-development. The argument that one must work with tension in an increasingly fierce global competition is also valid. Is there a way to bridge this gap?

Danish anthropologist Dennis Nørmark found the reason for long working hours with low productivity in the "Parkinson's Law," which emerged in the 1950s. It states that if there is a fixed amount of time to do a task, the work will expand to fill that time. Fixed working hours determine our work. The perception that working hours equal labor produces "fake work" that is just for show, he explained. This fake work, which is especially common in office jobs, includes tasks unrelated to performance, work done just to occupy a seat, and meaningless tasks done merely to appear busy. This is not what either workers or employers want.

Eliminating widespread fake work will be the starting point to narrow the gap. Nørmark said that since actual change takes time, openly discussing fake work and understanding where it occurs is important. When managers ask workers if fake work exists, they should check whether a 30-page report is submitted. Focusing on achieving targeted outcomes, jointly considering efficient work methods, and both sides committing to leaving only "real work" is the beginning. Working with tension in an uncertain external environment and reducing working hours to achieve work-life balance by adopting various work methods are not mutually exclusive or matters where one must be sacrificed for the other.