I have a confession to make…I am not a workaholic. Far from it. I don’t show up more than 15 minutes early, and most days I’m out of the office when the clock hits 5:00. Yes, I’ll put in extra hours when a deadline demands it, but I’m likely to try to balance that with a few hours off the next week. I work 40-45 hours per week, and I’m proud of it.
This came up in a discussion with my boss this week. When discussing my career goals, I said, “You may have noticed I’m not a workaholic. If a position requires 50 or 60+ hours each week, I’m not interested.” He smiled and said, “I know, you’re a true millennial.”
Generational comments aside, I appreciate that my supervisor supports my idea of what a full-time position is, even if he doesn’t share the same view of his own position.
Because I value my free time (which is dedicated to work-like activities, like studying, research and gardening), I would not apply for a job if I didn’t believe I could fulfill the responsibilities in 40-45 hours per week. When I’m in the office, I work hard, using technology to make my work as efficient as possible.
The question remains in my mind: are there senior leadership positions at colleges and universities that only require 40-45 hours of work? My utopian view of career progression involves positions that require higher levels of intelligence, problem-solving ability, and a wider range of skills while requiring the same amount of time. Increased capacity, rather than increased seat time.
What do you think? What do you think a “full-time” position should entail? Must you commit to more work hours as your career progresses?