Unless you have been locked away in a bunker, you likely have heard about a 4-day working week. Every major news outlet seems to be reporting as the global trials for a 4-day working week continue. At the time of writing, Unilever is extending its trial in Australia; Belgium made it law to allow people to request condensing working hours into fewer days; a considerable number of those trialling in the UK have suggested they are likely to make it permanent. The bandwagon is moving, and the hype is on, no matter how much you might want it to go away!
Of course, the reality may be more complex and success stories tend to get over-promoted. The data (and analysis of it) coming out of these trials will be critical to understanding if organisations should adopt it and how to make it a success. Nevertheless, interest will continue to grow as people are reevaluating priorities and demanding more of their time back.
I have formed a perspective and am attempting to articulate it in a Q&A style. I expect my views will adapt as I learn more.
What is a 4-day working week?
It is a solution for workplace flexibility at its heart. There are two main camps:
- Fewer hours e.g. 32 hours instead of 40
- Same hours, flexible use e.g. 40 hours compressed into 4 days
Option 1 is being trialled globally (https://www.4dayweek.com/) and is the most interesting given it is the harder sell.
Would people get paid less?
This trial is happening without loss of salary. Yes, you heard right. Perhaps the most contentious bit of this to some. How can people work fewer hours but still get paid the same? The trial is tied to one key requirement: that organisational performance (output) is at least unchanged. It is rather hard to sell without that requirement.
Surely the output would drop?
Plenty of companies involved in the trials report no loss of (or even increased) output. The data seems light: restricted to reports confirming no loss of output, and plans to continue post-trial. I would want to see more detailed data on the kinds of companies for which it worked (the context) and the specifics about how the output was retained. Unaffected output seems a simplification at this point.
I love that this is being run as a trial globally and in different kinds of companies. I cannot wait to see the data that comes out of it!
How does output stay the same or improve?
I imagine it could force organisations to find productivity gains previously left unattended; for example, automating more, removing waste, and simplification. Also, companies could take more focused, calculated commercial choices to maintain or increase output. There could be an indirect impact with greater individual well-being contributing to productivity boosts at work. Another possible effect on the demand side could be increased consumption if people have the time and cash to do so.
Wait, hang on a minute…?
If inefficiencies are already there, surely they can be closed through other means without giving fewer hours to employees? Yes - perhaps better management, innovation and simplification can optimise inefficiencies in the 40-hour working week and, thus, generate more output. But that doesn’t solve the problem of people wanting their time back for non-work related things, nor improve well-being in their personal lives.
OK, so this is about benefits for the individual?
A sustainable view considers individuals’ well-being as important. More time back gives people control to enhance their well-being. The rationale is that this indirectly improves satisfaction and productivity at work; therefore, it also benefits the workplace. The impact could be even bigger, having a positive effect on the whole of society.
To summarise the benefits to individuals:
- Lower costs e.g. commuting, childcare
- Work-life balance - time for family, health, social, community, hobbies
- Better mental health - reduced stress, less burnout, more rest
Surely there are other solutions for that?
Of course, and that is why we should be dubious about silver-bullet solutions for flexible working arrangements. Many other viable options can work well in specific ways for each individual - things like remote working, more paid leave, and flexible hours can be effective solutions too. Increasing empathy and understanding and surfacing options are what this is about, in my view.
What other problems does this solve?
Aside from individual well-being and corporate productivity, there are claims of other societal benefits e.g. lower carbon footprint, and removing workplace barriers. I recommend keeping a critical eye - distant effects are difficult to predict in complex (and untested) social systems but easy to theorise (and use in motivating sales pitches!). Some things, though, are well-validated in scientific literature such as the effects of well-being. Critical thinking is needed to get through the noise and find what a 4-day working week is likely to solve and what things are possible side effects. At least until data is available that proves once-theoretical causal effects.
How universal can this be?
A century ago, The Ford Motor Company led the world in adopting a 5-day, 40-hour working week, which has stood the test of time. Of course, the economy and workplace are very different now and context matters.
There are sectors for which implementing such a solution is much more challenging like health/care work or shift work. People who most need flexible working arrangements like a 4-day work week are the ones least likely to gain it right now. Changes in legislation could facilitate this, yet some organisations (e.g. SMEs) could need lots of support and/or financial subsidy to create space to adapt without economic disruption - it sounds politically and economically complex, especially during economic uncertainty.
Grassroots-led implementations are an effective method to demonstrate feasibility, positive effects and encourage change. Though I think without universal adoption (e.g. via changes in legislation) it will leave society less equal with only the lucky few benefiting. As an ideal, it’s great; practically achieving it so that it works for everybody seems incredibly challenging.
What would delay progress?
Economic uncertainty or recession may delay such efforts more universally. As could lobbying against a 4-day working week. If the labour market was becoming less tight, there could be downward pressure on any form of flexible working. There are also plenty of organisations low on the maturity curve (unpaid/zero-break work, presenteeism is monitored) - for these expect a long, arduous journey to adapt to a 4-day working week (or any form of flexible working arrangements for that matter).
Does everyone want this?
Probably not. Some people could be quite happy with 5 days if they were working on a meaningful mission. Some may want to work more for the reward of the IPO and the realisation of a small fortune. Some may be OK with a reduced salary for more of their time back. Some may want other forms of flexibility. Whilst others simply want sustainable working in their workplace. Not everyone needs or wants 8 hours back. Therefore, start the conversations with employees (and potential future hires) about what they are looking for to surface all workable options.
Should my organisation adopt it?
Work-life balance has grown as a value for many people around the world since Covid struck. So it has highly likely more work-life balance is already a need for some individuals in your organisation - neglect it at your peril.
If other similar organisations start trialling and adopting flexible working practices, remaining competitive with retaining talent will become a huge issue. There are already tailored job boards for 4-day working that should be seen as a sign of emerging change - albeit presently targeted at white-collar jobs.
Ultimately, if the feedback is swaths of your team are considering leaving for a 4-day working week, the flexible working options available in your organisation are probably not up to scratch - you may be sitting on a ticking time bomb. There may be alternative options; so start conversations with your people.
The sheer brand benefit right now might be the push needed to trail it - currently, it is possible to be seen as an innovator amongst the trail-blazing few (maybe even get your name in the media). The leverage on output/productivity might be another reason to try it - if your organisation (or parts of it) were able to improve productivity by ‘dangling the carrot’ of 32 hours, it might actually be worth it assuming you are capable of supporting the change.