5

I'm currently looking for jobs and I would love for it to be a four-day affair (reduced hours, not full hours squeezed into fewer days). I value free time way more than the money I can get for it and besides I genuinely believe I can offer the company way more productivity if I have more space outside work to get involved in my own projects instead of getting burned out with the monotony of a 40h-week grind.

It's worth noting that the four day thing is not a hard line on my side. I would be willing to work full time (and overtime) for the right company with the right mission etc. but otherwise I'm pretty picky. I would consider a sub-optimal opportunity if it includes a four day week. That's why currently I think a salary negotiation period might be an appropriate time to discuss this, kinda as a way to communicate "offering me more money won't make me more likely to join, but fewer hours will". But there are other options too - maybe it's better to be completely upfront about it and risk the companies being discouraged from pursuing interviewing me, or maybe its better to be patient, establish myself at a role and then ask once I've proved myself?

About me: I'm an embedded software dev with a pretty strong background but in an awkward phase of having a couple of years professional experience but not enough to consider myself a senior dev. The location is non-London UK.

virolino
  • 27,187
  • 8
  • 60
  • 103
  • Do you want the fewer hours that comes with a 4-day week, or are you okay with longer work-days? A lot of companies offer flexible schedules which have 1 or 2 days off in a pay period, but the extra hours are just moved to other work days, so you're working 9 or 10 hours a day. – David K Mar 26 '19 at 12:50
  • 1
    @DavidK - Yes, I do want proportionally fewer hours and I'm happy to take an appropriate cut in my pay to go along with it (even though I think my actual productivity would not change proportionally to hour reduction). – EmbeddedBob Mar 26 '19 at 12:52
  • I hope you can find what you're looking for. I think there are some (potentially major) obstacles in your way, so you might want to consider them (if you haven't already). 1. Saying that you can provide 40 hours worth of productivity in only 32 hours is basically saying you're wasting 8 hours per week. You can attribute that to burn out due to the "monotonous grind" of a 40 hour work week, but I suspect most people's reaction will be "40 hours isn't that much." – Anthony Grist Mar 26 '19 at 13:06
  • You think that you'll still be as productive in 32 hours, but you can't prove it. My experience would suggest that it's unlikely to be true. Cutting your hours by 20% might not also cut your productivity by 20%, but it almost certainly won't cut it by 0%. 3. If you're in the office 4 days a week, and everybody else is in the office 5 days a week, scheduling becomes more difficult; there's now an entire day where they can't schedule anything that requires you to be there.
  • – Anthony Grist Mar 26 '19 at 13:15
  • 1
    It's also worth pointing out that many benefits are calculated or accounted for against a 40 hour week. Something with a fixed cost to the employer may not scale according to a discounted salary, for instance. Even if your hiring manager is OK with your proposed schedule, the accounting or HR departments may refuse to play along. – dwizum Mar 26 '19 at 14:38