The 40-hour workweek reform: why HR must lead the transformation, not just manage it

The 40-hour workweek reform should not be viewed merely as an adjustment to working hours. For companies, the real challenge will be transforming how work time is organized, measured, and managed.

For years, many organizations have treated the workday as a simple administrative data point: a start time, an end time, a contractual schedule, and an attendance system. That vision will no longer be enough. The progressive reduction of working hours will force companies to review processes, supervisory structures, workloads, internal communication, control systems, organizational culture, and decision-making.

In this context, HR cannot limit itself to communicating the change or updating documents. Its role must be much more strategic. HR will need to act as the orchestrator of a cross-functional transformation involving Legal, Operations, Finance, Technology, department heads, and employees.

The key question is no longer just: How do we comply with the reform? The right question is: How do we adapt the organization so it can comply, operate, and sustain productivity under a new logic of time?

The reform cannot be implemented by a single department

One of the most frequent mistakes when facing significant labor changes is assuming the issue belongs solely to the legal or HR departments. That view reduces the reform to a mere formality: reviewing contracts, updating policies, issuing announcements, and adjusting systems.

But the workday doesn't just live in documents. It lives in daily operations. It lives in shifts, supervision, after-hours meetings, messages sent after work, the accumulated workloads of certain teams, month-end closings, customer service, urgent reports, and the informal practices that often sustain a company's actual productivity.

Therefore, no serious implementation can be built from an isolated desk. HR must coordinate a comprehensive conversation. Legal must review compliance and exposure. Operations must identify real coverage needs. Finance must model costs. Technology must ensure reliable systems. Leaders must execute the change in day-to-day operations. And employees must understand what is changing, why it is changing, and what is expected of them.

When any of these areas are left out, the implementation weakens. If Legal designs rules without knowing the operation, it may create policies that are difficult to apply. If Operations adjusts shifts without legal criteria, it may create liabilities. If Finance calculates costs without considering culture and adoption, it may underestimate the impact. If Technology implements tools without human support, it may face resistance or misuse.

HR's role will be to connect these pieces.

The first challenge: turning compliance into a management system

Compliance does not just mean having updated documents. It means being able to demonstrate, with consistent evidence, that the company manages working hours in an orderly manner.

This involves reviewing individual contracts, collective bargaining agreements where applicable, internal work regulations, work-hour policies, overtime authorization procedures, rest rules, recording mechanisms, and after-hours communication protocols.

However, document compliance is only the starting point. If the documents say one thing and the operation does another, the risk remains. A policy that establishes prior authorization for overtime is useless if supervisors continue to request additional work through informal channels. An updated contract does not solve the problem if the recording system does not reflect actual hours worked. An internal memo does not transform habits if leaders continue to measure commitment by constant availability.

For this reason, HR must move from a documentation-based logic to a management-based logic. The company needs clear processes, defined responsibilities, and accessible evidence.

Traceability becomes a central element. It is not enough to know that a person worked a certain schedule. The company must be able to explain how it was authorized, who validated it, why it occurred, whether it was regular or overtime, and how it was integrated into payroll or the corresponding internal control.

This changes the role of HR. It stops being a department that reacts to incidents and begins to function as a preventive control center. Its task will not just be to fix problems after they occur, but to design mechanisms to anticipate them.

The second challenge: redesigning operations without turning the reform into an overload

Reducing working hours without reviewing processes can lead to an unintended consequence: attempting to cram the same amount of work into less time, without adjusting priorities, tools, or expectations.

This approach is risky. It can increase pressure on teams, heighten reliance on overtime, compromise work quality, or lead to burnout among middle management. It may also lead the company to demand results based on a logic that no longer fits the new time constraints.

Implementation must begin with a realistic review of the work. Which activities are essential? Which processes can be simplified? Which meetings add no value? Which tasks are redundant? Which reports exist only out of habit? Which authorizations could be automated? Which areas depend on after-hours availability?

The reform can be an opportunity to make visible what was previously hidden. Many companies operate with inefficiencies that are masked by extra time. When available time is reduced, those inefficiencies become more costly.

Human Resources must drive an uncomfortable but necessary conversation: not everything can stay the same. If working hours change, priorities, leadership dynamics, and productivity criteria must change as well.

This does not mean generically asking to "do more with less." That phrase often masks a lack of planning. The right approach is to identify which work adds value, which work needs to be reorganized, and which work should be eliminated.

Productivity cannot depend on extending the workday. It must depend on better work design.

The third challenge: preparing leaders to manage under a new logic

Implementation is not won in the executive committee. It is won in daily operations.

Direct supervisors will be the ones to translate the change into reality. They will decide whether to respect schedules, authorize overtime correctly, plan workloads better, avoid after-hours requests, and communicate the change clearly.

For this reason, leadership training should not be just an informational module about the reform. It must be practical training on time management, planning, prioritization, communication, and documentation.

A supervisor who does not understand the impact of an after-hours instruction can create a labor risk. A manager who continues to call meetings at the end of the day can undermine the implementation. A leader who rewards constant availability can send a message contrary to the new culture the company needs to build.

Human Resources must establish clear criteria. What constitutes an emergency? Which channels can be used after hours? How are extra workloads authorized? How are changes documented? How is performance managed without measuring excessive presence? How are expectations communicated without creating ambiguity?

The reform forces the professionalization of leadership. It is not enough for managers to know the regulations; they must change their management habits.

The fourth challenge: communicating without creating uncertainty

Any workplace change raises questions. If the company does not communicate clearly, the interpretation is left open. And when interpretation is left open, expectations, rumors, or resistance arise.

Internal communication must explain three things: what is changing, why it is changing, and how it will be implemented.

It is not advisable to communicate in an alarmist way, nor is it wise to downplay the change. The message should be sober: the company is reviewing its processes to ensure compliance, maintain operational continuity, and protect an orderly management of working time.

It should also avoid making undefined promises. If it has not yet been decided how schedules, breaks, or processes will be adjusted, it is better to communicate the analysis path than to anticipate results. Poor communication can compromise the strategy before it is ready.

Human Resources must segment its messages. An operator, a supervisor, a financial manager, a remote worker, and a plant manager do not need to hear the same thing. Each audience has different concerns. Communication must address those differences.

Communication is more than just sending an email; it is about enabling conversations. It involves preparing leaders, creating clear materials, opening channels for questions, and ensuring consistency between words and actions.

If a company announces a new time management culture, but its leaders continue to operate under the old logic, the message loses all credibility.

The fifth challenge: shifting from attendance tracking to strategic time management

One of the most significant changes will be conceptual. Many companies have used attendance tracking simply to see if an employee showed up or not. The new conversation requires something more sophisticated: understanding how time is actually used.

Managing time does not mean monitoring more; it means deciding better.

Workday data can help identify areas with excessive workloads, poorly designed processes, teams with a recurring reliance on overtime, schedules that do not match actual demand, and leaders who need additional support.

But for that to happen, Human Resources must work with reliable information and clear criteria. Data should not be used solely for disciplinary purposes; it should be used to prevent, correct, and redesign.

A mature company does not wait for a problem to surface during an inspection or a complaint. It observes trends, detects excesses, reviews patterns, and asks why one department logs more overtime than another. It analyzes whether the issue is understaffing, poor planning, inefficient processes, or a culture of constant urgency.

This approach turns Human Resources into a strategic department. It no longer just manages records; it interprets information to improve the organization.

The reform as a test of organizational maturity

The reduction of the workweek will test more than just legal compliance. It will test a company's ability to adapt without resorting to improvisation.

Organizations that treat this change as an isolated obligation will likely react too late. They will make documentation adjustments, send generic communications, and fix problems only as they arise. That path can be costly.

Companies that view this as an organizational transformation will be in a better position. They will review processes, train leaders, model scenarios, use data, organize documentation, and build a clearer culture around the value of time.

The difference will lie in internal leadership, and that is where Human Resources has a central responsibility.

It is not about HR doing everything; it is about HR coordinating the transformation with a holistic vision. It is about connecting compliance, operations, costs, technology, and culture, and helping the company stop measuring time as mere presence and start managing it as a strategic resource.

The 40-hour reform will not only reduce work hours; it will also make it clearer how prepared a company is to organize work with clarity, evidence, and discipline.

At DM Abogados, through our Consulting, Labor Intelligence, and Labor Engineering divisions, we support companies in designing and implementing internal strategies to adapt their processes, leadership, and organizational culture to new labor challenges, with a preventive approach aligned to the operational reality of each organization.

‍