Along with a gazillion other people, I am inspired by Tim Ferriss and his book, “The 4-Hour Workweek”. He’s the uber rock star of work-life balance, and he challenges us to rethink how we live and work and escape the 9-5 box.
But – and he himself probably knows this – Tim’s concepts aren’t entirely reality. Jonathan Mead does an excellent job of dispelling the myths in his blog post, “The Lie of the Four Hour Work Week.” One of Jonathan’s main points: A four-hour work week is only an enviable thing if you hate your work – if it’s truly a chore and not something you get too excited about.
Tim talks and writes a lot about “mini-retirements”, which he says “entail relocating to one place for one to six months before going home”. Tim apparently takes three of four mini-retirements a year. The guy is basically on a permanent, extended vacation.
What annoys me – and yes, this is, in part, semantics – is that his book incorrectly defines a sabbatical, which he says is different than his “mini-retirements”. Here’s what’s in his book: “Sabbaticals are often viewed much like retirement: as a one-time event. Savor it now while you can. The mini-retirement is defined as recurring – it is a lifestyle.”
Sabbaticals should never be viewed as retirement, and they are hardly a one-time event. Companies that have offered sabbaticals since the 1970s – like Intel, McDonald’s, and Arrow Electronics – have employees who have been on three and four sabbaticals. Stay with one of these companies, and you’ve got your lifestyle.
It’s a clever word, “mini-retirement”, but the “retirement” part of it is an unfortunate choice. How many people do you know who go seriously down hill in retirement? I can name several. And even if you can’t, then just look at the research that says the incidence of depression, substance-abuse, declining mental health, and suicide increases after a person retires. Wow – now that’s something to save your money for.
Go from being totally engaged in meaningful work to playing golf day after day, and something bad happens. Eventually – unless you add a few purposeful goals or activities to your time off – you start to lose yourself.
Jim Huhn agrees that a sabbatical is not a mini-retirement. As a software development consultant with St. Paul, MN-based Intertech, Jim gets three months of paid time off after every seven years of work. Even as a small company with only 35 employees, Intertech has managed to offer sabbaticals since 1999. Jim used his last sabbatical to visit family, travel, and spend time with his wife.
Jim’s time away from work gave him a chance to consider how he might design his life when, at some point down the road, he “retires” from Intertech. “It was an opportunity to investigate the activities that equal the return that I see from the work I do,” he said. Obviously, Jim’s the type who will engage in meaningful work even when he’s no longer earning income from it.
My mother argues that we should never retire, and I’m thrilled to partner with a Boomer who has so much energy and passion for her work, who isn’t living for the day when she’ll “get” to stop working and who’s committed to lifelong learning. By the way, she’s currently on a “mini-sabbatical”, sailing with her friend David in Central America. While I’m doing her work coverage, I’m picturing her sitting on the bow of the boat she once owned (David bought it from her), listening to the howler monkeys up the Rio Dulce.
Does the concept of retirement even still fit in the American way of living and working? Whether it’s Tim’s “mini” version or the whole gold-watch-and-goodbye thing, I would argue not. First, consider all of the dwindled “retirement” funds. You bet we’ll see people working longer than originally planned. And that’s okay, because the global knowledge economy needs your brains to stay in the game, you sweet, smart Boomers.
For sure, retirement isn’t part of Gen X and Y values. Why would you “retire” if you love your work, and your work and life co-exist? Read what one young blogger, Jamie Varon, just wrote in a post titled “you can label me these things, if you’d like”:
Millennial. Entitled to greatness? Yes. Impatient for an amazing life? Yep. Selfishly focused on my own development? Yeah.
Environmentally-conscious and globally concerned? Yip. Not to mention optimistic, passionate, and ready and willing to make change.
This young woman envisions a continuum for herself that has work, love, and life all mashed together into one ball of living. Suggest to Jamie and all her Brazen Careerist friends that they work for 40 years SO THAT they can finally live, and they’d probably throw a Facebook punch at you, drive off in their Zipcar … and then Tweet about it.
What does all this mean for companies? They must make jobs rewarding enough (and not just with money) so that people choose working over not working. In that world, with that lifestyle, retirement becomes unnecessary and organizations retain their talent.
9 Responses (add yours)
Suggest to Jamie and all her Brazen Careerist friends that they work for 40 years SO THAT they can finally live, and they’d probably throw a Facebook punch at you, drive off in their Zipcar … and then Tweet about it.
Even though I do feel that you were mocking me (just a bit), I still found this incredibly funny and amazing. Especially since you followed up with something I truly appreciate:
They must make jobs rewarding enough (and not just with money) so that people choose working over not working. In that world, with that lifestyle, retirement becomes unnecessary and organizations retain their talent.
What you are hitting at here is that we do want to work hard and be passionate about the company we represent. Sure, we may come off as abrasive and a little bit snotty, but that’s only because we want to be happy within our work and personal life. We don’t want those separated. Of course, I’m speaking in generalities, but this is the impression I get from others like myself in the Brazen community.
“Mocking” in admiration, Jamie. I wholeheartedly support the values you’ve described. You’re right, work and personal life should be one. And I think we’re slowly getting there. Certainly, the Brazen community’s popularity makes evident that this kind of work-life design is the future. And Zipcars are so perfectly sensible…..thanks for reading and commenting.
It shocks me that you do not see the like mind in Tim Ferriss’ approach of integrating work/play rather than separating. This seems very much your philosophy – hence my shock that you are annoyed so by him. To quote you above “Tim apparently takes three or four mini-retirements a year. The guy is basically on a permanent, extended vacation.” You make it sound like he sits on the couch in far off lands. This guy gets more out of every day and practices learning (actually hyperlearning), applied experience, and giving back – whether it be at home or elsewhere. He posts from everywhere how he blends and improves and doesn’t wait until a magical vacation at the end of the year to do it. Or, worse, a magical retirement at the end of work life. Help me understand….He advises for simplifying the more repetitive things in one’s life in ways to maximize value (i.e. be conscious of your savings/spending and automate your finances so you don’t spend extra hours worrying or backtracking). You advise to integrate work and life to maximize value. Semantics are critically important….I wonder if he should have called his book “The 168 hour work/life week”. Or, better “The 168 hour week”. I would think YourSabbatical would be a raving supporter. How is this person someone that would annoy you? Maybe the solution is that we need a dinner with Tim Ferriss to clear up his actual intentions in his words? Maybe in Fiji?
Karen – My dear, super-sharp and talented mother annoys me sometimes, but God I love her. Tim’s incorrect definition of sabbaticals annoys me, as does his use of the term “mini-retirements”. But do I love and support his work? He’s been at the top of our books page since our inception. I think that’s raving. I love the larger picture of what he represents; as you so eloquently describe, Tim sucks the life out of every day with hyperlearning, giving back, etc. But you’re also right in that semantics are critically important. I am annoyed that he promotes the concept of “retirement”, instead of focusing more on the definition of *work* in the way that Jonathan Mead’s post describes. Tim’s solution is basically an entrepreneurial one. What about all the folks who aren’t cut out for entrepreneurialism or who love their company so much that they want to continue working AND have a Ferriss-like lifestyle? His book offers little for those people and mis-defines a concept that offers a partial solution for those who will always work for larger organizations – sabbaticals. Thanks for reading. Thanks for your very intelligent comments/feedback. Thanks for participating. And although I bet Tim is too busy for dinner, you and I could still continue the dialogue over a shared entree at 4th & Swift – I’ll bring his book.
Right on! Mini-retirement is a bad way of looking at it. A sabbatical is a way to recharge the battery and go back to work with a refreshed outlook.
When we work in an environment that engages us it usually means that we put our heart and soul into it. If we work 40 years and try to live after we are retired that’s no life. We must live now.
Great article!
The whole notion of trying not to work annoys me-if the goal is to be unproductive at the cost of society. I am a teacher, and a happy one. I have a mini-retirement every summer, if that is the terminological currency of value here. In fact, I only “work” about eight months per year. I love that, and I love my work. It feels like the most serious sort of play there can be.
There is a fellow who teaches on the same campus. He works what we call a 7/6 position, teaching extra classes to speed up his retirement. He has offered to teach during his lunch hour if it will hasten his retirement. I find that exceptionally sad. I love what I do so much that I never begrudge the end of a weekend or of a week off (I am in the midst of one currently).
It seems to me that there is a deep-seated kernel of truth in the contention that we stigmatize work as being that which we don’t do by choice. If this is the case, then call me unemployed.
So well said, C.S.I. In Tim Ferriss’ defense, I think he’s found ways to be “productive” (in the sense of giving back to society) with his state of un-work. But I understand your point. Even though I’ll continue wishing that everyone finds work that they love, I know that won’t always be the case. Sometimes our “meaningful work” is outside of our salaried job, and that’s okay. Either way, I continue to advocate “meaningful breaks” – and I’m awfully glad you get yours every year. I bet the breaks make you a better teacher for your students. Thanks for stopping by …
Continuing the Discussion
[...] Last week, Penelope Trunk nailed anyone still whining about being too busy. “People feeling overwhelmed are putting their careers at risk.” Trunk says there is a correct response to information overload (”I’m on top of it!”) and swipes (again) at Tim Ferriss’ The 4-Hour Workweek (”he’s a scam”). And she admonishes her readers to get a grip on “busy.” As an aside, we have issues with Tim Ferriss, too. [...]
[...] Why Tim Ferriss Irks Me and How a Sabbatical is Not a “Mini-Retirement” | yourSABBATICAL.com yoursabbatical.com/blog/2009/03/27/why-tim-ferriss-irks-me-and-how-a-sabbatical-is-not-a-mini-retirement – view page – cached Along with a gazillion other people, I am inspired by Tim Ferriss and his book, The 4-Hour Workweek. He’s the uber rock star of work-life balance, and he — From the page [...]