Why Millennials Should Reconsider The 9 to 5

I have a confession.

This might seem controversial but I have to get it off my chest.

I’m a millennial and I don’t hate my day job.

It’s true. I work from 9 am to 5 pm on most days. I don’t consider it the end of the world. There are certainly weeks where I may have to work late nights or weekends. There are days where I may have to cancel social plans to complete a last-minute client request. There are also periods of time where I get the flexibility of shorter hours, adjustable schedules and perks of planning around community service. Most weeks, however, are stagnant.

This might seem like a strange concept to even have to defend but I’m apparently in the minority of people belonging to my demographic in this camp. It’s somehow not okay to like having a strict and relatively consistent “9 to 5” work schedule. Every week, I see another post about how “Millennials are changing the paradigm and doing away with 9 to 5.” Even a quick Google search will verify that millennials are supposed to see a “9 to 5” job as the anti-thesis to a gratifying and lucrative career:

In a sense, the “9 to 5” appears as a metaphor. It’s symbolic. It’s a prison, full of monotony and boredom, where the work doesn’t change and you’re sentenced to a never-ending life lacking of purpose or satisfaction. Breaking the mold will change everything. A more flexible work schedule is going to suddenly bring a promise of joy and energy. Right?

Personally, I’ve been through many variations. I’ve had schedules that have enabled me to work four days a week, schedules that have enabled me to work only after hours, and schedules that rarely changed week by week. I’ve spent summers creating businesses where I put in four-five hours a week at most. In all those scenarios, my ability to be satisfied, creative, empowered or successful depended less on the amount of hours I worked or even the time of day I worked — instead, it depended on a few things:

• The relationship I had with my managers, clients and constituents
• The flexibility with which I could manage expectations for myself and others
• The amount of challenge presented with my work
• The amount of impact I could see in my work

It didn’t matter if the work week was 4 hours or 40 hours — At some of the happiest moments in my career, I don’t even remember what my work week looked like on a time card. I just remember an alignment of values that stood out to me.

Some people have found these same values through entrepreneurship and freelance work which I greatly admire. I even have friends who are helping create entrepreneurial programs for others. To suggest that entrepreneurship would work for everybody, however, is bold. As James Altucher writes in his book, The Rich Employee, “I’m experienced far grater volatility in my entrepreneur experiences. Don’t forget that entrepreneurship is just like having a job with an 85% of failure. Once you jump into that pool, it’s too dark to see if a shark is waiting to see you. But there’s an 85% chance that a shark is there.”

A “9 to 5” seems like a feasible suggestion for people who may not be ready to go out on their own or who are struggling with finding their path, yet it’s not nearly as glamorous to write about. So what is a 9 to 5 actually killing? In the sameForbes article where the author suggests that millennials are ending the 9 to 5, the author writes:

“Millennials have been pegged as a generation committed to change. 72% of students, as opposed to 53% of workers, consider having “a job where I can make an impact” to be very important or essential to their happiness.”

Does this have any correlation to the amount of hours you work a week? Does it matter if you can work from 9 to 5 or 12–8? Does it matter if you have a desk job or get to work from home?

As someone who works three days a week remotely and two days at an office, I can definitely tell you that perks don’t exist in a vacuum. When I’m in the office surrounded by people and able to build a relationship beyond exasperated emails, I do feel satisfied. When I work 65 hours a week but finish a huge client deliverable that gets praised by management, it’s easy to feel good about the transparent impact of my work. If I’m met by a significant and urgent challenge, it’s far more simple for me to message someone at noon as opposed to 9 pm on a Thursday night. At the same time, I love being able to work online and travel when my schedule accommodates it. If I’m able to get my work done ahead of time or create a solid plan of action that will inspire confidence among my team, it’s usually a non-issue.

Cultural fit and satisfaction has everything to do with the strength of your relationships, the clarity of your expectations, the challenge of your work and your ability to adapt. It has very little to do with the hours or time you attend a job.

What about the Forbes article that suggests graduates “don’t get a 9 to 5 and do something creative” instead? Does having a “9 to 5” really determine your tenacity, level of creativity or entrepreneurial spirit?

The author writes this about the 40 hour work week: “This is a life of desperation, humiliation and constant goading from management that likes to remind you that ‘there’s more where you came from’. You feel like your boss owns your life and you have to put with everything thrown at you because there’s nothing else on the horizon.” In turn, the author suggests entrepreneurship as a potential path: After all, what’s the point of burning out at 25? Even if it doesn’t work out, you’ll understand so much more about your talent, skills and business — much more than you’ll ever learn in a 9–5.

I’m sorry… what?!

Disregarding the fact the author somehow sees every experience in corporate America as sixty years of a jail sentence where all your managers are Javert from Les Miserables, is the reality really that bad?

Consider the opposite. Could taking a stable job where you work consistent hours help you be even more creative in your innovative pursuits?

As NYT best-selling author Adam Grant writes in his book Originals,

“When we embrace danger in one domain, we offset our overall level of risk by exercising caution in another domain.”

Branch Rickey opened the door for Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier, but refused to go to the ballpark on Sundays, use profanity or touch a drop of alcohol. Pierre Omidyar built Ebay as a hobby and kept his day job for another nine months. While they were considered radical creatives, they balanced it out by exercising caution elsewhere. The examples go on. In fact, some even credit their “9 to 5” jobs to better honing their talents, skills, and business acumen. Henry Ford was employed as a chief engineer for Thomas Edison for more than two years, under which he was able to build not only the financial security necessary to try out inventions for his car but learn under Edison’s tutelage and refine his carburetor.

This has been true even in my own life. When I began to pursue a non-profit startup, having my job at IBM to support my schedule and finances was a no-brainer. By covering my bases, I was able to escape the pressure of having a half-baked idea, selling a shoddy concept, or launching something that had no value in the market.

There are now even opportunities for the growth of intrapreneurship — entrepreneurship within a company. This is not contingent on your time schedule — just how you navigate opportunity within your company.

When I look at IBM, I see almost zero correlation behind the most intelligent, quick-thinking, and creative consultants we have and a resistance to a structured time schedule. Many of them are parents with kids in school. Many of them have day care schedules that are centered around being at work at certain times. This doesn’t stop them from giving 100% to the job they do and it certainly doesn’t diminish my perspective of them as amazing innovators and leaders.

Look, I understand. Everyone is trying to sell millennials on the idea that underemployment is inevitable, you’re going to hate your job, and it’s better to pursue a life of freedom and choosing your own hours than a “9 to 5” or “desk job”. Journalists and millennial experts are putting pressure on companies to create a loose environment and allow flexible hours at a risk of economic consequences and millennial attrition.

The key is to really analyze what you’re looking for. If you care about being valued at work, having a supportive team, and issues that challenge you — you may just find that at a “9 to 5” or a “desk job”. I’m not saying that all millennials should work desk jobs if it’s not for them — just remember that being a millennial does not require you to pursue an all-out war against the concept.

Even if you have dreams of being an entrepreneur, consider the benefits of building a fearless idea with some stability. If you don’t think you’ll be at your “9 to 5” forever, atleast take advantage of bringing your best to work, learning as much as you can, building relationships that transcend your time there, and using financial security to experiment.

I’m not saying there are companies out there that aren’t terrible. I’m not saying there isn’t a benefit to going out on your own and finding out what works for you. I’m also not disposing any of my opinions or experiences as facts or guarantees — there are certainly downsides to going down this path.

If you look hard enough though, most companies will want you to be happy. It serves no company well to have low morale and constant turnover. In return, you may have to be adaptable. If being adaptable just means that you can get out of work at a consistent time on most days, it may just be the best compromise you will get in your career.

Kushaan is an IBM Consultant based out of Washington D.C. His interests are rooted in strategy consulting, entrepreneurship, social media, and the intersection of technology with social impact. He enjoys blogging about life, career insights, social technology, and hacking the corporate environment. If you liked this post, follow him on twitter: @kushaanshah or click “Follow” at the top for more posts on Medium.