Long hours have long been worn as a badge of honour in business. But as you shape your people strategy, you may be weighing up two very different philosophies that tend to hit the headlines: the intense “996” culture or the increasingly popular four-day working week.
Which one genuinely drives performance in office-based roles? And which one helps you attract and retain the calibre of talent you need? Can you take positives from both?
Understanding 996 Culture
The term “996” refers to working 9am to 9pm, six days a week. It rose to prominence in China’s tech sector and has been publicly associated with leaders such as Jack Ma, who once described long hours as a “huge blessing”.
Supporters argue it fuels rapid growth. For founders, entrepreneurs and equity-holders, that intensity can make sense. When your financial upside is directly tied to success, long hours can feel like investment rather than sacrifice. It’s been growing in popularity again in the AI boom.
But for employees in salaried office-based roles (who don’t directly share in ownership or major profit gains) 996 can feel less like opportunity and more like obligation.
The Risk of Presenteeism
From an HR strategy perspective, this is where risk creeps in.
When long hours become the norm, you may see presenteeism rather than productivity alongside higher sickness absence and burnout. Ultimately there’s less engagement over time and quiet attrition of your most capable performers. Even in the shorter term, cognitive fatigue after 60+ hour weeks increases the likelihood of mistakes, not excellence.
There is also the cultural issue of coercion. Even if you don’t mandate 996 explicitly, employees may feel pressure to conform. That can undermine psychological safety and damage your employer brand, particularly among younger professionals who prioritise balance and wellbeing.
What the Research Says About the 4-Day Week
In contrast, research suggests that a four-day working week can deliver measurable business benefits. Analysis indicates that many organisations implementing a reduced-hour model report improved productivity, higher staff satisfaction and lower recruitment costs. A significant proportion also cite reduced absenteeism and improved retention.
The key distinction is this: the four-day model is not about working less for the sake of it. It is about focusing on output, not hours. When you compress or reduce the working week strategically, you force better prioritisation, clearer processes and more disciplined meetings. You remove low-value activity. You reward results.
Strategic Considerations for HR Leaders
The question is not simply “longer or shorter hours?” It is “what drives sustainable performance in our context?” It’s about moving away from trends to what works for your workplace.
In most traditional employment structures, 996 risks diminishing returns. A well-designed four-day week, on the other hand, signals trust, modernity and confidence in your people.
Building a Model That Attracts Talent
Even in a difficult market, candidates have options. If you expect entrepreneurial-level commitment without entrepreneurial-level reward, you may struggle to secure (and keep) exceptional people.
By contrast, when you design working patterns around performance, clarity and wellbeing, you strengthen engagement and your long-term talent pipeline. That doesn’t necessarily mean a 4- day working week. It means a business pattern that works for you.
Get in touch.