It’s 3:00 pm, and my colleague is staring blankly at her screen. The energy she began the day with has vanished.
Across the room, another colleague is scrolling through social media, laughing loudly enough to disturb others.
Some of the team have joined a few others in the studio to play a game. It’s not that they don’t want to work anymore they’ve hit the wall. Their energy and creativity are spent. Yet, they must remain at their desks until the clock strikes 5:00 pm.
One of them, Ama (not her real name), wishes she could go home, refresh, and continue working later from home with renewed focus.
But no , the contract binds her to the chair for two more hours, and she must endure the ritual of waiting. She, like many of her colleagues, is simply marking time.
This daily ritual of “marking time” is a quiet productivity crisis in many offices. It raises the question: is the 9-to-5 model still relevant in today’s knowledge-based economy?
It makes me wonder: is the traditional 9-to-5 schedule still effective?
The 9-to-5 model was created during the Industrial Revolution when factories needed a uniform system.
But knowledge-based work is different. It relies on creativity, focus and deep thinking — all of which are finite during the day.
Dr Sahar Yousef, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that we now live in an “always-on” era — we can work from anywhere, at any time, on any device, and with anyone. And yet, paradoxically, we struggle more than ever to get things done.
In fact, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics (cited by Curtin, 2016), the average American works 8.8 hours each day.
Yet, a study of nearly 2,000 full-time office workers revealed that most people are not working for the majority of the time they’re in the office.
The most common unproductive activities included reading news websites for over an hour, checking social media for 44 minutes, chatting about non-work-related matters with colleagues for 40 minutes, searching for new jobs for 26 minutes, and taking smoke breaks for 23 minutes.
Other distractions like phoning partners or friends, making hot drinks, texting, and eating snacks also contribute.
In addition, research from the University of California, Irvine, highlights how costly workplace interruptions can be.
On average, employees are interrupted every 12 minutes, and it takes over 25 minutes to return to the task. Even once they resume, it can take another 15 minutes to regain full focus — particularly on complex tasks.
Surprisingly, just a few seconds of distraction can double the chances of making computer errors. Workers in open-plan offices are especially vulnerable, with over 60% of their tasks being interrupted, compared to about 50% in private offices.
These frequent disruptions not only waste time but also lead to mental fatigue, stress, and mistakes. (That “quick question” or offhand remark may seem trivial, but it chips away at concentration and deep work. One of the most respectful things colleagues can do is wait and save such comments for a more appropriate moment.)
This shows that being busy doesn’t always equate to working effectively — it may just mean constantly reacting to interruptions.
These habits are not unfamiliar in some African offices, including those in Ghana. This insight is particularly reassuring for remote workers, who often feel pressured to prove their productivity without the structure of a physical workplace.
If being productive for just three hours a day can equal the output of an eight-hour office day, what does that say about the traditional working model?
Forcing employees to sit still for eight continuous hours isn’t solving the productivity puzzle.
The Illusion of Presence = Productivity
According to Vogel et al. (2021), productivity is closely linked to employee engagement, and engagement begins with energy and focus. Yet, people hit their stride at different times of day. Some need a morning routine; others are afternoon thinkers — and some, night owls.
If someone hasn’t mentally transitioned from home life, they may be physically present at work but mentally elsewhere. The rigid clock-based model ignores these nuances, to the detriment of employee engagement and productivity.
This is not merely about tired or unmotivated employees. Fundamentally, it’s about waste. Fay et al. (2014) note that labour costs account for more than 50% of total business expenses in many industries.
Imagine paying for time rather than value. Research by Spira et al. (2005) suggests office workers lose 28% of productive time to distractions — that’s roughly two hours per day, lost.
This “presenteeism” — being seen but not necessarily working — creates the illusion of effort while masking deeper inefficiencies.
Employers’ Concerns
Understandably, many employers are hesitant to fully embrace flexible work models. Some argue that employees aren’t even fully productive in the office — so why trust them at home?
Some organisations experimented with flexible or hybrid systems but abandoned them because some staff didn’t meet expectations.
Others fear a breakdown in supervision and collaboration.
But the issue isn’t really about location or trust. It’s about individual commitment to work and deliverables, and the organisation’s management culture.
A results-oriented approach — where output, not time, is the metric — is what sets high-performing companies apart from rigid ones.
Still, employers face a genuine challenge: not every employee is self-disciplined or high-performing. Some have indeed taken advantage of flexible systems.
But scrapping a modern solution due to a few bad apples is counterproductive. Instead, organisations should invest in building strong cultures, clear expectations, and systems of accountability.
If an employee consistently fails to deliver, perhaps it’s time for a warning letter — or even dismissal.
There’s also a striking perception gap: 87% of employees believe they are more productive when working flexibly, yet only 12% of leaders agree (Microsoft Work Trend Index).
This disconnect suggests that the issue isn’t effort, but a lack of shared understanding about what productivity truly means.
Rigid schedules do not affect all employees equally. Women, especially those managing caring responsibilities, are disproportionately affected.
A mother who could be highly productive between 7 am and 3 pm may be forced to remain until 5 pm (sometimes spending two hours in traffic). The remaining time is often spent on unproductive activities while waiting for the clock — leading to stress, burnout, and missed family time.
Flexible work arrangements offer a solution. They allow all employees — not just women — to integrate work and life more effectively and design routines that suit them, without compromising productivity.
Rethinking Work Structures
So, what if work were structured around when people are most productive, rather than where they sit? Imagine a workplace where employees:
Mix in-office and remote days, based on tasks.
Choose their hours within reason.
Are evaluated based on outcomes, not time spent.
Microsoft Japan trialled a four-day working week and saw a 40% increase in productivity. The research is clear: small shifts in flexibility can lead to huge gains in morale and performance.
The question remains: which company will be bold enough to lead the next wave of change in how we work?
As we observe International Workers’ Day, it’s time to reflect: are we truly working efficiently — or merely marking time?
The world has changed. Our tools have changed. Yet our approach to work remains stuck in the past.
We need to move beyond rigid structures and towards human-centred productivity models that trust employees, reward output, respect individual energy rhythms, and hold accountable those who abuse the system.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
