Before his son wakes up, John D. Connolly has already been working for an hour. He has breakfast with his family, works four hours before eating with his wife, resumes at four in the afternoon and returns to the computer when the child is in bed. On weekends, when necessary. Connolly, 46, founded the financial advisory firm Bifrost Advisors and spent more than two decades working regular hours before accepting that this wasn’t how he thought best. “I could spend six hours looking at the screen without more gas, but I had to stay two and a half more hours,” explained to wall Street Journal. Now he doesn’t work less. He works when his mind is there.
Jen Meegan, editor-in-chief of creative agency Sheer Havoc, starts her day before her teens order breakfast. Read emails, review ideas from the previous day. He takes them to school, does the shopping, comes back and works in concentrated blocks of a few hours. It ends late at night. “Sometimes the most important work happens during the break,” told the agency AP News“because you’re not sitting staring at the screen with no ideas.”
Connolly and Meegan practice what has begun to be called microshifting: Fragment the workday into short, non-linear blocks, adapted to moments of greatest energy or the demands of real life. It’s not a passing productivity fad. It’s the next frontier of workplace flexibility, and the debate is already underway.
What exactly is microshifting?
The most precise definition has been coined by the company that popularized the term. Owl Labs, video conferencing technology company, describes it in its 2025 report as “structured flexibility with short, non-linear blocks of work tailored to each person’s energy, responsibilities or productivity patterns.” In practice, these blocks usually last between 45 and 90 minutes, separated by personal, family or rest time.
The distinction with teleworking and the hybrid model is fundamental. Teleworking changed where you work; microshifting changes the when. It is, in the words of researcher Jonathan Westover, “the next evolution in work design, beyond remote and hybrid models,” according to his article published in the Human Capital Leadership Review.
It is not, however, a completely new concept. It is related to techniques such as timeboxing or the Pomodoro method, although with a fundamental difference: it does not respond to an external timer, but to the vital rhythm of each person. As he describes it with some irony The Guardian, “an extreme form of hybrid working” and remember that, in the past, this was simply called “taking liberties.” The difference now is that there is data, there are companies that promote it and there is a name.
Why now?
He microshifting It has a specific origin: the 2020 pandemic. Mandatory closures forcibly broke the traditional schedule. Millions of workers learned, without looking for it, that they could do their jobs in unconventional hours. When the mandates came back to the office, many did not want to give up that autonomy.
The paradox of the current moment is striking. While the microshifting grows as desired, physical presence in the office also silently increases. The Owl Labs report named the phenomenon as hybrid creep: 34% of hybrid workers go to the office four days a week, up from 23% in 2023, without there having been a formal mandate. Employees are being called back out of inertia, and in response, they are claiming control over when.
Data suggests this is already happening: 59% of employees schedule personal appointments during work hours and 82% prefer meetings to end before four in the afternoon. The most powerful driver is also care: 72% of caregivers are interested in microshifting, compared to 28% of those who do not have that responsibility. Theresa Robertson of Maryland practiced it for 25 years to care for her chronically ill husband. “It was the only way to have a life and earn a salary,” told to CNBC.
The next battle according to Fortuneit is no longer where you work, but when. Work-life balance has overtaken salary as the top priority for office workers globally.
The new perspective of the experts
Academia and business management, traditionally conservative, are beginning to validate this intuition. Mark Pacitti, founder of Woozle Research, not only defends that five hours of work deep are more valuable than eight of diminishing returns; has measured it. At his firm, he invested in tracking tools to track when his researchers were performing best and discovered that the last few hours of an eight-hour shift were inefficient. Reduced shift length and output increase. Today he promotes it as a competitive advantage in a sector, that of financial research, where the burnout It’s epidemic.
This approach is supported by cognitive science. Professor Anita Williams Woolley, of Carnegie Mellon University, explains that when trying to solve difficult problemsthe mind can only push for so long; Microshifting, well managed, prevents burnout. However, voices like that of Professor Kevin Rockmann of George Mason University, they ask for caution: “The whole point of microshifting is to take care of yourself. That’s not a bad thing, but it shifts the emphasis from the individual to relationships.”
Aytekin Tank, CEO of Jotform, adds thatalthough microbreaks boost creativity, they require clear rules so as not to cannibalize deep work. “To do cognitively demanding work you need an environment where your brain can focus on a single task without interruptions,” he warns. It is a delicate balance: flexibility, yes, but with precise communication so as not to break the team’s coordination.
Lights and shadows: the risk of the infinite journey
He microshifting It has a dark side. The first is the feeling of being “always connected.” Isabelle Young, political organizer who organizes his work like this to manage a chronic illness, she admits bluntly: “Work is never over, so you’re never really disconnected.” Labor experts warn that schedule autonomy can become a hidden expectation: employees who stretch their day to fourteen or sixteen hours to be available in different time zones.
Cali Williams Yost, flexible work design expert, is the voice of the necessary counterweight: “Without clarity, we have an infinite work day.” Pranav Dalal, founder of Office Beacon, tolerates flexibility in management positions, but imposes clear limits: “If someone abuses the model by affecting in-person commitments, it becomes destructive for the team because it generates resentment.” For him, the key question is not where, but whether a reliable service can be delivered with this model.
The next risk is measurement. He microshifting It requires abandoning hours as a metric and moving on to measuring results, a profound cultural change that not all organizations are prepared to make.
What if the problem was the clock, not the office?
The eight-hour day was born in 1817 with an industrial formula—eight hours of work, eight of rest, eight of leisure—designed for textile factories. It was not designed to solve complex problems, raise children alone, or manage a chronic illness. The question that microshifting The question, ultimately, is not whether work blocks work better than a continuous schedule. The question is why it took us more than two centuries to question the clock.
John Connolly, the financier who opened this report, did not discover a new technique. She found out how he works. Shellie Garrett, who ran a team in Oklahoma, let each member set their own schedule: “Giving that autonomy led to better production and happier employees.” He microshifting It’s not the perfect answer, it’s an honest answer to a real problem that the nine to five has been ignoring for decades. As Mark Pacitti summarizes: “This is not just what people want. It’s what works best.”
Image | Unsplash
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings