Related articles
Insights to understand the work environment, anticipate risks, and make decisions with clarity, free from noise and unnecessary jargon.
View all
The 40-hour reform has focused attention on limits, obligations, and penalties. However, there is a less visible aspect that can define the success or failure of its implementation: the culture of time management within companies.
An organization can update contracts, install tracking systems, adjust schedules, and train its legal team. But if it maintains the same work habits, the same culture of constant urgency, and the same way of measuring productivity, the change will be incomplete.
Reducing the workweek does not just require complying with a new labor framework. It requires rethinking how the company understands time. How it plans it. How it measures it. How it distributes it. How it wastes it. How it overloads it. And how it turns it into value.
For years, many companies have confused availability with commitment. Staying connected after hours, responding to messages immediately, extending meetings, treating everything as urgent, or compensating for operational disorganization with more work hours have become normalized practices. The reform forces us to question them.
The real cultural shift won't be working less. It will be working with more clarity.
Every company manages resources: capital, talent, technology, inventory, data, and business relationships. Yet, work time is often managed with less rigor than other critical assets.
Budgets are planned in detail, but workloads are not always planned with the same precision. Financial productivity is measured, but the cost of unnecessary meetings, slow authorizations, duplicate tasks, or postponed decisions is not always tracked. Companies invest in technology, but often tolerate internal processes that consume hours without adding value.
The 40-hour reform will make it harder to hide those inefficiencies. When available time is reduced, every unproductive practice weighs more. A poorly designed meeting, a duplicate report, an unclear instruction, or an excessive approval chain are no longer just internal annoyances. They can become factors of operational pressure.
Therefore, companies must stop viewing the workday as a container for activities and start seeing it as a strategic resource. The question should not only be how many hours a person works. The question should be what value is generated during that time.
This shift involves moving from a culture of presence to a culture of planning.
Many organizations will try to address the reform by strengthening attendance control. That step may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Recording clock-ins and clock-outs allows for documenting the workday. But it does not, by itself, transform the way people work. A system can tell you what time the workday started and ended, but it doesn't necessarily explain why a team is overwhelmed, why a person accumulates extra work, or why certain processes depend on after-hours availability.
Time management requires observing habits. Do meetings have a clear objective? Do leaders respect schedules? Are urgencies real, or are they the result of poor planning? Do teams know how to prioritize? Does the company distinguish between operational availability and effective work? Are data used to make decisions, or only to justify decisions already made?
These questions are uncomfortable because they reveal culture. And culture does not change with a policy. It changes with repeated behaviors, clear incentives, and consistent leadership.
A company may say it respects the workday, but if its directors send messages at night expecting an immediate response, the real message is different. It may claim to promote efficiency, but if it measures commitment by time spent in the office, the organization will continue to reward presence. It may implement advanced systems, but if leaders do not use the information to plan better, the technology becomes just an administrative layer.
The reform demands consistency between rules, tools, and behaviors.
One of the main enemies of a healthy time management culture is constant urgency. When everything is urgent, nothing is prioritized. When everything must be resolved immediately, planning disappears. When a company always operates in reactive mode, the workday becomes insufficient, no matter how many hours it has.
Constant urgency usually has several causes: a lack of clear processes, poor distribution of responsibilities, reactive leadership, disorganized communication, a low capacity for anticipation, or excessive dependence on certain individuals.
In the context of labor reform, this culture becomes especially risky. If teams continue to work under constant pressure, a reduction in working hours can translate into more overtime, more burnout, or more undocumented work.
The solution is not to generically ask employees to be "more efficient." That instruction solves nothing. The company must identify what is generating the urgency. It could be a problem with commercial planning, a lack of staff, manual processes, inadequate tools, or leadership.
Managing time means tackling causes, not just measuring consequences.
A time management culture depends largely on leaders. They define priorities, authorize workloads, call meetings, request deliverables, validate urgent matters, and model behaviors.
If leaders do not change, the organization does not change.
Therefore, the reform must include a specific strategy for middle management and executives. It is not enough to inform them of the new working hour limits. They must learn to manage under a different logic.
This implies planning further in advance, defining real priorities, distributing workloads with greater precision, avoiding requests outside of working hours except in justified cases, documenting authorizations, reviewing time data, and talking with their teams about operational capacity.
It also requires changing how performance is evaluated. If a person meets their objectives within their working hours, they should not be perceived as less committed than someone who stays connected longer. A time management culture requires separating productivity from presence.
Leaders must understand that respecting working hours is not a concession. It is part of the new management standard.
When management does not convey this message, implementation gets trapped between policy and practice. On paper, the company is compliant. In reality, teams continue to operate under previous expectations.
Time management must be supported by data. But the use of data also requires maturity.
A company can accumulate information on clock-ins, clock-outs, overtime, absences, shift changes, incidents, and breaks. However, if that data is not analyzed, it just takes up space. Information has value when it allows for better decision-making.
Data can reveal patterns. Which areas accumulate the most overtime. Which teams have the greatest deviations. Which time slots have the highest concentration of incidents. Which processes create bottlenecks. Which leaders authorize the most exceptions. Which work centers require a redesign.
This analysis allows for a shift from a reactive culture to a preventive one. Instead of correcting after a contingency, the company can intervene beforehand. It can adjust processes, train leaders, review workloads, redistribute work, or modify internal rules.
But it must be done carefully. Time data should not become a tool for indiscriminate surveillance. It must be used with clear, proportional criteria that are aligned with labor compliance. Trust is also part of the culture.
The goal is not to monitor every move people make. The goal is to understand how work is organized and where risks arise.
Cultural transformation requires communication. But not just any communication.
Saying "you have to log your hours because it's mandatory" may be true, but it is insufficient. That message frames the change as an administrative burden. If people perceive time tracking and management solely as a form of control, adoption will be much harder.
The company must explain the purpose of the change. Better time management allows for organized workloads, reduced improvisation, clearer planning, risk prevention, and data-driven decision-making. The message must shift from obligation to organizational value.
This does not mean softening compliance. It means communicating it intelligently.
Employees must know what is expected of them. Leaders must know how to act. Administrative departments must understand how to document. Operations must identify how to plan. Technology must facilitate the process. Legal must ensure consistency. Human Resources must integrate the message.
Communication must be ongoing. An initial campaign is not enough. Habit changes require repetition, follow-up, and correction.
One of the most significant shifts will be moving past the idea that working hours are exclusively the concern of the employer or the Human Resources department. Time management requires shared responsibility.
The company must design clear rules, reliable systems, and reasonable processes. Leaders must plan and execute with discipline. Employees must log their time correctly, follow procedures, and report issues. Support departments must use the data to improve.
When every party understands their role, time management stops being an exercise in control and becomes an organizational practice.
This is especially important in hybrid, remote, or mobile models. In these environments, culture carries as much weight as the system. If there is no clarity regarding schedules, availability, breaks, meetings, and communication channels, flexibility can turn into ambiguity. And ambiguity often creates risks.
The reform does not eliminate flexibility. But it does require it to be better documented and managed.
Effective time management can help reveal work that previously remained hidden. After-hours messages, meeting preparation, commuting, troubleshooting, overlooked administrative tasks, informal cross-departmental support, or extended availability.
This invisible work can explain why certain teams are overwhelmed, why some areas rely on overtime, or why apparent productivity rests on unrecognized efforts.
Identifying it not only reduces risks, but also allows for better talent management. A company that understands how time is truly distributed can make fairer decisions regarding workloads, resources, automation, hiring, and leadership.
This point is critical. The reform can be viewed as a limitation or as an opportunity to improve how work is organized. The difference lies in the depth of the diagnosis.
The 40-hour workweek will require a new level of business discipline. Simply meeting formal requirements won't be enough. Companies will need to plan better, measure better, communicate better, and lead better.
A culture of time management isn't built overnight. It requires habits, data, leadership, and consistency. It also requires abandoning practices that have been tolerated for years: constant urgency, unlimited availability, undocumented overtime, unproductive meetings, and presence-based supervision.
The change won't be exclusively legal. It will be organizational.
Companies that understand this will have an advantage. They will be able to use the reform to streamline processes, strengthen leadership, improve traceability, and make decisions based on real data. Those that reduce it to a mere administrative obligation will likely face costlier adjustments, internal resistance, and greater exposure.
The fundamental question isn't whether a company can reduce working hours. The question is whether it can better manage the time it has available.
At DM Abogados, our Labor Intelligence practice supports companies in analyzing data, organizational habits, and operational risks related to work-time management to build clearer, more measurable, and sustainable compliance models.
.png){kind=logo}