Work Culture Is Broken: Why Systemic Change Feels Unattainable—But Isn’t

Who Designed This Mess?

As I age and my thirties feel like my fifties, with new aches and pains emerging daily, I keep circling back to one question:

Who the hell came up with the structure of the workday, the workweek, the work year?

We operate on a model built for industrial efficiency, not human well-being. It was never designed with brain function, energy cycles, or modern work realities in mind. And yet, here we are—still following a blueprint from the 1800s like it’s gospel.

The concept of the 40-hour workweek can be traced back to Henry Ford’s introduction of the five-day workweek in the 1920s, which aimed to optimise factory efficiency rather than support cognitive or emotional well-being (Ford, 1926). Interestingly, the Pareto Principle, formulated by economist Vilfredo Pareto, suggests that 80% of outcomes stem from just 20% of efforts (Pareto, 1896). This principle highlights how most productivity is condensed into short, high-impact bursts, yet modern work culture still enforces an outdated structure that disperses energy inefficiently.

So let’s break this down.

The Traditional Workday: A Performance, Not Productivity

Let’s be real—nobody is productive for eight hours straight, especially after exhaustion, commutes and school drop off. Neuroscience shows that our brains work in 90-120 minute focus windows, after which we need a break (Dinges, 1989). Yet, the corporate world still forces us into long, stretched-out days where performing the illusion of work matters more than actual output.

What really happens in an 8-hour workday?

 ✔ 3-4 hours of deep, focused work.

✔ The rest? Meetings, emails, distractions, and pretending to be busy.

The traditional workday doesn’t measure impact—it measures hours, and that’s why it feels exhausting yet unproductive at the same time.

Furthermore, prolonged working hours lead to cognitive fatigue, reduced executive function, and impaired problem-solving abilities (Antosz, Rembiasz, & Verhagen, 2020). This is even more critical when considering neurodivergent individuals, who may have different cognitive rhythms and require flexible work patterns to optimise performance.

The 5-Day Workweek: An Economic Relic

The 5-day, 40-hour workweek became standard because of Henry Ford in the 1920s, not because it’s optimal for human performance (Ford, 1926).

Back then:

• Most jobs were physical labour—not strategic, creative, or knowledge-based.

• Work and personal life were completely separate (no emails, no after-hours messages).

• Productivity wasn’t measured by endless micro-tasks and artificial busyness.

Fast forward to today? We’re still running on this model, even though it’s clear our brains, our bodies, and even our economies don’t function this way anymore.

Additionally, studies have found that chronic overworking alters brain structures, particularly in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, leading to long-term cognitive impairment (Tucker & Folkard, 2012. Even after taking leave, research suggests that it takes up to four weeks for the brain to recover from burnout, yet employees remain connected, checking emails and notifications during their holidays.

Remote Work Didn’t Fix the Problem—It Just Moved It

We thought remote work meant freedom and flexibility—but instead, it turned into an always-on nightmare.

✔ Instead of working less, we’re working everywhere.

 ✔ Instead of being present, we’re constantly connected.

✔ Instead of ditching the 9-5 model, we’re just replicating it at home.

Research has found that remote work fosters a culture of guilt, where employees feel obligated to be constantly available (Allen et al., 2013. This perpetual availability blurs the boundaries between work and personal life, leading to higher stress levels and increased risk of burnout.

The Online Platform Business Model: The New Factory Floor

The gig economy and digital platforms were supposed to bring flexibility, but instead, they created a hypercompetitive, always-on work culture with zero boundaries.

✔ Algorithms dictate visibility and opportunities, forcing freelancers to overwork just to stay relevant.

✔ Work is measured by engagement, not effectiveness.

 ✔ The burden of “flexibility” is placed on the worker, not the system.

Studies show these platform-based economies perpetuate overworking tendencies and create a reliance on popularity-driven metrics that penalise rest (Kossek et al., 2016)

The Real Alternative: Deliverable-Based Work, Not Presence-Based Work

The solution isn’t remote work, flex time, or even a 4-day week in isolation—it’s about breaking the presence-based model entirely.

✔ What if work was measured by actual outcomes, not by hours worked?

✔ What if people had autonomy over when and how they work, based on their natural energy cycles?

✔ What if instead of scheduling work, we scheduled breaks—because our brains function best that way?

People thrive when they can align their work with their most productive hours, instead of forcing output at random times just to fit an outdated schedule.

The Big Fix: A Gap Analysis Across Industries

What we actually need:
✔ A systemic redesign of work structures—not just piecemeal experiments conducted in isolation.
✔ A full work ecosystem map—where every industry can see how their workflows connect.
✔ A gap analysis to expose inefficiencies—so we can create work structures that actually serve the people in them.

Currently, several countries are trialling four-day workweeks with promising results. Studies from Spain, the UK, and Iceland indicate that productivity remains stable or even improves, while well-being increases (Hill et al., 2008).

But you know who benefits?

Honestly? It doesn’t seem that employers, employees, businesses, or governments truly profit from this structure. Tired, unhappy people produce lower-quality outcomes.

It’s not that industries intentionally profit off exhaustion, nor that governments are actively keeping us stuck. But as a society, we are terrible at letting go of the old… why?

Each company, every year, develops a list of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators):

• A global list of KPIs, followed by business vertical KPIs, down to team and individual KPIs—all of which must align.

• And what drives them? Profit and loss. Each year, targets are set—some continuing previous standards, some aiming to recover from past financial losses.

Making big, structural changes would require a standstill period, and no one can afford that. So, the wheels keep turning, good or bad, as long as revenue keeps flowing. We’ll worry about it next year.

The same happened with sustainability standards—frameworks like BREEAM and LEED initially became tick-box exercises with minimal implementation. Businesses continued choosing non-sustainable materials because they were cheaper in the short term—"we just have to get this one project over the line." To continue the saga, the same is happening with employee well-being policies—yoga in the office, lunchtime seminars on managing stress, mental health workshops—all surface-level solutions, all Band-Aids, all designed to keep the machine running rather than fixing the root issue.

The reality? Businesses, individuals, and entire economies are stuck in a loop, investing less in long-term change because they are locked into short-term survival.

But let’s talk numbers, because here’s where the whole system really collapses on itself.

On paper, it seems like we can’t afford a full-scale restructure. But you know what’s both funny and tragic?

The economic cost of workplace-related mental health issues is staggering, affecting both public health systems and overall productivity.

• In England alone, mental illness costs the economy approximately £300 billion annually—nearly double the NHS’s entire budget (The Guardian, 2024).

• The NHS allocated £12 billion to mental health services in 2021–22, making up 9% of total healthcare expenditure (Public Accounts Committee, 2023).

• Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that depression and anxiety disorders cause a loss of 12 billion working days per year, amounting to $1 trillion annually in lost productivity (WHO, 2022).

Despite these enormous costs, workplace structures remain largely unchanged, continuing to contribute to chronic stress and burnout rather than preventing them at the source.

So let’s be clear: We are already paying the cost of broken work systems.

If you do the math, you’d think all this money lost would be reason enough to hit pause and actually build something better… right?

Closing thoughts

This isn’t about offering people fake flexibility or shallow wellness programs. The real shift is in how we measure work itself. If companies stopped valuing presence over impact, they would reduce operational costs, improve hiring, and unlock new cross-industry collaboration. And for individuals? The shift would mean true autonomy, clear boundaries, and the ability to work in ways that actually make sense for their energy and productivity cycles. The future of work isn’t about more time off—it’s about redesigning the way we work entirely

We’ve been sold a work model that no longer works. The science is clear, the data is overwhelming, and yet, we cling to outdated structures that harm our health, productivity, and overall well-being.

Now it’s time for a conversation. I want to hear from you.

💬 What’s your experience with the traditional work structure?
🔹 Have you felt the pressure of overworking just to “appear productive”?
🔹 Have you experienced burnout, even after taking time off?
🔹 Do you feel guilty disconnecting from work, even outside hours?

 If you had the power to change one thing about work, what would it be?

💡 What solutions do you see for the future of work?
🔹 Do you think a four-day workweek is enough, or do we need deeper change?
🔹 Should work be based on deliverables rather than presence?
🔹 How do we create real boundaries between work and life?

This isn’t just a rant about broken systems—this is about rebuilding them from the ground up.

Let’s rewire work together.

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Let’s start a revolution.

References

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(2), 40-68.

Antosz, P., Rembiasz, T., & Verhagen, H. (2020). Employee shirking and overworking: Modelling the unintended consequences of work organisation. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(2), 155-172.

Dinges, D. F. (1989). The nature of sleepiness: Causes, contexts, and consequences. In A. J. Stunkard & A. Baum (Eds.), Perspectives in behavioral medicine: Eating, sleeping, and sex (pp. 147-179). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ford, H. (1926). Announcement of the five-day workweek. Ford Motor Company.

Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2008). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life balance: A review of workplace flexibility literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 759-777.

Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2016). Designing workplace flexibility: Managing the work-family interface. Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, 1, 53-75.

Pareto, V. (1896). Cours d'économie politique. University of Lausanne.

Public Accounts Committee. (2023). NHS financial sustainability: Twelfth report of session 2022–23. UK Parliament. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk

The Guardian. (2024). Mental illness costs England £300bn a year, study shows. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com

Tucker, P., & Folkard, S. (2012). Working time, health and safety: A research synthesis paper. International Labour Organization.

World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health at work: Policy brief. WHO. Retrieved from https://www.who.int