Whatever Happened to the 15-Hour Workweek?
- Kathryn Page
- Jul 4
- 4 min read
In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes made a bold prediction.
Within 100 years, he said, we’d all be working around 15 hours a week. Why? Because advances in technology and productivity would solve the “economic problem” - the challenge of meeting our basic material needs. The real challenge, Keynes said, would be figuring out how to spend all our newfound leisure time.
Fast forward to 2025… and most of us are still working full-time. Many of us feel like we’re working more than ever. So what happened?
A paper from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) revisits this question - not just through an economic lens, but through the lens of culture, identity, and meaning.
And it lands on a powerful idea: we haven’t just failed to work less because we can’t. We’ve failed to work less because we won’t - at least, not without rethinking what work means to us.
Why Are We Still Working So Much?
Despite major technological advances, full-time work remains the norm. The SIOP paper outlines several reasons why:
Work is Cultural
In many societies, work is not just how we earn a living - it’s how we prove our worth. The cultural narrative that glorifies busyness and equates long hours with value still runs deep. Part-time work is often undervalued. Leisure is seen as indulgent. Rest is something we think we have to "earn" (I definitely can relate to this one!).
Work is Structural
The systems we live and work within - our organisations, policies, and economies - are built for full-time work. Flexibility exists, but often only when it serves productivity. The default is still the 40+ hour week.
Work is Psychological
Then there are the psychological reasons we work. Work provides structure. It also provides purpose and identity. When we meet people for the first time, how many of us talk about what we do in the first few minutes? What we do for a living meets core psychological needs - like competence, connection, and contribution. In its absence, many of us flounder - hence why mental health can take a dip post-retirement. Leisure, on its own, isn’t always meaningful.
Work is Unequally Distributed
Finally, we have the issue of inequity. Some of us are overworked. Others can’t get enough work to survive. The benefits of technology and efficiency haven’t been shared evenly. That’s part of the story too.
AI: A New Chapter in an Old Pattern
Enter AI. Surely, this is the moment Keynes imagined? Tools like Copilot and ChatGPT can summarise meetings, draft content, automate admin, even write code. Isn’t this our big opportunity to work less?
Not quite.
What we’re seeing so far is a familiar pattern: the technology that could give us time back is mostly being used to speed us up.
Recent research suggests that workers in AI-heavy industries are actually working more, not less. Productivity gains are being swallowed by rising expectations. Meetings happen faster - so we have more of them. Emails are drafted in seconds - so now we send even more.
A CEPR study found that AI adoption in some industries added an average of 2–3 work hours per week. Another study showed that while AI saved some time, it created additional tasks that cancelled out those gains. Microsoft’s own data shows that late-night logins are up. The “second shift” is growing.
We’re not saving time. We’re filling it. And without deliberate redesign of work and cultural shifts around time, AI will amplify busyness - not reduce it.
A Real Moment with a Real Question
I recently gave a keynote at Microsoft on the Performance Paradox - the idea that in a world obsessed with speed, our real competitive edge might actually lie in slowing down. In particular, we talked about the importance of slowing down to connect, to recover and to grow.
Microsoft, like many organisations, has been navigating immense change. They're experiencing structural shifts and making strategic pivots. Like in other industries, including my own, the rise of AI and ongoing tech is fuelling disruption.
In the midst of all that, I wanted to offer a reminder - that even when everything feels like it’s changing, some things aren't. Like what it means to be human and what we need to do to protect our own and others' wellbeing.
In that session, I spoke about the value of pausing to connect with others, the importance of effort recovery, and the quiet power of everyday moments of growth. After sharing her own story - with incredible vulnerability - Vanessa Sorenson, Microsoft’s Chief Partner Officer, asked the room a question: “What will you do with the time you’re saving with AI?”
People in the (virtual) room started responding... and it wasn't about work - it was about what they cared about outside of work - exercise, connecting with family, reflection, helping people out. It reminded me that the future of work isn’t just about what we do. It’s about who we want to be while we do it.
Could We Still Make Keynes Right?
If we truly want to reduce hours, improve wellbeing, and work in ways that serve human potential, then AI on its own won’t save us. We also need:
Leaders who design roles that genuinely reduce overload - not just make people faster.
Cultures that value recovery, creativity, and deep thinking - not just output and activity.
Systems and policies that redistribute gains - through shorter workweeks, job-sharing, and fair and equitable pay.
We also need to decouple productivity from presence (i.e. calm down on return to office mandates). We need to stop treating time as something to be filled - and start treating it as something to be valued.
Key takeaway
Keynes may have been wrong about the timeline. But he wasn’t wrong about the question. And the answer does not necessarily sit with AI.
AI won’t give us back time - unless we decide it should.
Productivity tools alone don’t reduce burnout, meetings, or overload. Without thoughtful redesign of work, protected time for recovery, and intentional leadership, technological gains will keep being absorbed into busyness.
This is why the question posed by Microsoft’s Chief Partner Officer, Vanessa Sorenson, is so timely:
“What will you do with the time you’re saving with AI?”
It’s not just a question for individuals - it’s a design prompt for teams, leaders, and entire systems.
Comments