Behind the seemingly neutral office hours, a quieter reality emerges: that of different chronotypes, shaped by age, culture and professions — and sometimes, by organizational mechanisms that favor certain profiles to the detriment of others.
When biological rhythm becomes an invisible variable of work
Meeting at 9 a.m., emails expected at dawn, implicit appreciation of early arrivals at the office: the contemporary professional world remains largely structured around a morning model.
However, a study conducted by Herrmann International in partnership with monCVparfait, covering more than 1.5 million workers in North America and international samples, shakes up this implicit norm.
The observation is clear: young employees and junior profiles are almost twice as likely as managers to prefer night shifts. They are also 29% more likely than average to define themselves as “night owls”.
At the other end of the hierarchy, senior executives appear more anchored in morning rhythms, and 32% less likely to be operational in the evening.
These differences are not just an individual preference. They draw a discreet divide between work rhythms and professional trajectories.
“We designed workplaces based on the assumption that everyone is a morning or day person – it’s like ignoring that some people are left-handed.”said Karim Morgan Nehdi, CEO of Herrmann. “Of course, you can force people to adapt, but accommodating different working styles requires very little change, and the gains in productivity and well-being largely make the effort worth it.”.
A simple, almost trivial image, but which says a lot: that of a system built on a single operating model, even though the diversity of rhythms is the biological norm.
Jobs, cultures and hours that do not tell the same story
The study also highlights a lesser known dimension: the distribution of chronotypes varies greatly depending on the sector of activity.
So-called “nocturnal” profiles are particularly represented in creative and service professions: +52% in the arts, +51% in education, +33% in writing, +30% in consulting, or even +25% in entertainment.
Environments where fragmented work, extended hours or the need for creativity outside of strict frameworks naturally favor offbeat rhythms.
At the country level, the differences are just as marked. Italy stands out for its strong morning orientation (+52% of “early risers”), as do the Nordic countries – Denmark (+48%), Sweden (+43%). Conversely, Singapore displays the highest proportion of nocturnal profiles (+45%), while France is also among the most “night owl” countries in Europe (+31%).
These variations remind us of something often underestimated: the chronotype is not only biological, it is also cultural.
For Jasmine Escalera, career expert at monCVparfait, this evolution must be read in light of the transformations of work:
“Digital culture and teleworking allow more nocturnal profiles to express themselves. The real question is whether more people are becoming ‘night owls’, or whether we simply see them more clearly now that work has become less rigid.”.
Behind this question, another emerges: are organizations finally seeing a diversity that already existed, or are they only beginning to recognize it?
Towards an organization of work more attentive to human rhythms
If morning profiles remain the majority in all populations studied, nocturnal profiles are never marginal: they represent up to 20% of the workforce, but are concentrated in strategic sectors and pools of young talent.
This imbalance directly questions the organizational models inherited from the 20th century. Because if standard schedules favor “early risers”, they can also, unwittingly, slow down the expression of certain potential – particularly among younger people and in creative professions.
The authors of the study therefore plead for simple but structuring adjustments: staggered meetings, more flexible deadlines, more flexible organization of days. So many levers that would make it possible to better integrate these differences in pace without disrupting the functioning of companies.
Behind these recommendations, a central idea emerges: performance does not depend only on the time spent at work, but also on the way in which this time fits with the natural rhythms of individuals.
In a rapidly changing professional world, where teleworking and flexibility are redrawing the boundaries between personal and professional life, this question is becoming more and more sensitive.