By Pavel Shynkarenko
Rigid work models like China’s 996 or the standard 5-day week no longer fit today’s blended workforce. Freelancers and full-timers work on different rhythms, and productivity now depends on flexibility, trust, and outcomes, not hours. Leaders must design adaptable systems that balance urgency with sustainability and empower diverse teams.
The “996” work model — working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week — has resurfaced in startup circles, often presented as a shortcut to innovation. The appeal is clear; its benefits, according to its promoters, are undeniable: speed, urgency, and scale.
However, romanticizing extreme hours misses the biggest picture. Work isn’t one-size-fits-all. And for companies balancing full-time teams with a growing freelance workforce, rigid schedules can do more harm than good.
Born in China’s tech sector during a period of hypergrowth, 996 offered a fast track to product launches and market dominance. It didn’t last long, though — in 2021, China’s Supreme Court declared it illegal. Companies like ByteDance abandoned the practice, citing burnout, reduced efficiency, and long-term talent costs. This provided valuable lessons, particularly, the fact that what works for a founder under pressure doesn’t scale easily across a diverse workforce.
Today, the conversation is broader: How should different types of workers work? As 4-day pilots multiply and remote-first teams rethink structure, it is time to acknowledge that not everyone experiences time the same way, and that not every model serves the same people.
Urgency vs. sustainability
Some sectors still reward speed over balance. In AI, companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity release model updates and product features at a breakneck pace. When market leadership feels like a race, longer hours can seem inevitable. For small, technical teams chasing breakthroughs, the instinct to compress time is understandable.
On the other hand, for most knowledge workers — including freelancers — the law of diminishing marginal returns kicks in fast. Research consistently shows that productivity declines sharply after 50 to 55 hours per week. Beyond that, fatigue sets in, decision quality deteriorates, and burnout creeps in — often unnoticed.
Even in startups, hustling has its limits. As analyst Josh Bersin notes, while founders may work 60 to 100 hours per week, their teams typically don’t. And, by the way, they shouldn’t. Building for scale means designing systems that protect energy instead of merely extracting it.
Sustainable pace matters, not just for health, but for output. Forcing everyone into a high-stress timebox like 996 risks short-term gains at the cost of long-term velocity and durability.
Rhythms and realities: Full-time vs. freelance
The traditional 5-day, 40-hour workweek remains the global default — anchored by labor laws, payroll systems, and team routines. When reinforced by a strong culture and clear expectations, it still works. But in hybrid and remote contexts, its edges blur quickly.
Asynchronous Slack messages creep into evenings. Zoom fatigue leads to inconsistent engagement. Without active management, “flexibility” becomes a time drain. In this context, reducing hours — when done intentionally — can increase focus. That’s why companies like Buffer and N26 have embraced 4-day models, with clear metrics around output and well-being.
While the debate often centers on full-time employees, freelancers make up an increasing share of the workforce. And they experience time differently.
For freelancers, value is tied to deliverables, not hours. Autonomy is everything. Hence, the 996 model is incompatible with freelance logic — culturally and contractually. Freelancers choose their hours based on peak productivity, client deadlines, and global time zones. Imposing rigid schedules breaks the very flexibility that attracts them to the work in the first place.
That doesn’t mean freelancers don’t work hard. It means they work differently — often more efficiently, with sharper boundaries and outcome-based focus. Meanwhile, full-time employees may crave predictability but increasingly value freedom over face time. They want clarity, but not micromanagement.
Layered models beat rigid mandates
Today, the most effective work models are layered, not universal. They recognize that freelancers, contractors, and full-time team members operate on different clocks — and that’s okay.
Some companies experiment with 4-day weeks for internal teams, while giving freelancers project-based autonomy. Others adopt asynchronous workflows, enabling everyone to work at their own peak hours.
At the end of the day, what matters most isn’t the number of hours worked, but how that time is used — setting clear goals, eliminating low-value meetings, and empowering teams to make decisions without lengthy and unnecessary approvals.
For example, freelance designers or developers may work in short, high-intensity bursts followed by rest periods. Full-time product teams might block out deep work days midweek. What they need is clarity on objectives, trust in execution, and tools to stay aligned without constant check-ins.
Time, in this model, becomes more strategic than standardized.
Final thoughts: Productivity is an outcome, not a schedule
In the age of AI, automation, and global collaboration, the ability to produce high-impact work quickly no longer depends on hours at a desk. The metric has shifted from attendance to output, from visibility to velocity.
996 may have made sense for a narrow slice of founders in a very specific context. But it is not a playbook for modern teams. It is a warning.
The future of work belongs to those who can build flexible systems — ones that honor different rhythms, reduce unnecessary friction, and reward outcomes in lieu of optics.
So, based on this, it is the responsibility of the leadership team to design environments where people — freelancers and full-timers alike — can do their best work without burning out. The first step to accomplish that is letting go of one-size-fits-all expectations.
The best work model is the one that fits the work — as well as the people doing it.
