Are there really any benefits to the four-day workweek?

In 2019, the then Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told Labour Conference that if they were to win the general election, they would “reduce the average full-time working week to 32 hours within the next decade”. It was unclear whether McDonnell was advocating for a blanket cap on the number of hours allowed to work, but there is no doubt that this would be disastrous. But are there any benefits to the four-day workweek?

Fast forward to 2022, the world’s largest trial of the four-day workweek has commenced in the UK, with over 3,300 workers participating. Provided they promise to maintain productivity at 100%, employees will work 80% of their usual hours for 100% of their pay. 

Joe O’Connor, Chief Executive of 4 Day Week Global, one of the non-profit groups coordinating the trial, said in a statement:

“As we emerge from the pandemic, more and more companies are recognising that the new frontier for competition is quality of life, and that reduced-hour, output-focused working is the vehicle to give them a competitive edge.”

Proponents of the four-day workweek argue that the morale-boosting benefits of reduced working hours, as well as the supposed boost in productivity, makes the four-day workweek worth the change.

The pandemic saw millions of people switch to remote working, and so the effects of alternative working arrangements may have changed. So this new research into the effects of alternative working arrangements is certainly welcome, as it helps companies make decisions based on more recent evidence.

A week and a half into the trial, and some companies taking part are beginning to regret their decision. Samantha Losey, Managing Director of communications company Unity, got off to a rocky start:

“We did our best to be as prepared as possible, but I think we were always going to hit snagging issues- that first day with half of the team out after the Jubilee weekend, it was challenging to get everything coordinated the way we wanted. We had the wrong team off, stuff went awry- it was deeply chaotic”.

These logistical issues may be solved as the trial continues, but only time will tell if these companies will be able to reap the positive benefits of reduced working hours.

However, looking at previous research, the benefits of the four-day workweek are often oversimplified and over-exaggerated. These kinds of alternative working arrangements have been tried in the past, and the morale-boosting benefits have been impermanent. Individual companies can make decisions on what working arrangements work best for them, but any government-imposed four-day workweek would be unjustified, counterproductive, and of course, illiberal.

The Icelandic government reported a number of  benefits from their trials, which saw the public sector move towards a four-day workweek. Workers reported that their work-life balance improved, they felt a reduction in stress levels, and had more time to spend with family. 

However, the validity of self-reported claims which were made immediately after these trials are questionable. In 1974, Martin J. Gammon credited the continued over-enthusiasm with the four-day workweek to the “Hawthorne Effect”. This is the idea that individuals subjected to the study of a new system will report more beneficial effects, purely because the system is novel. Like most things, with time, novelty wears off. These boosts in morale are just temporary and eventually subside, returning to pre-four-day workweek levels.

Myron Fottler’s 1977 paper questioned the supposed high employee acceptance rates of the four-day workweek. According to his own survey, Fottler showed that of employees who were given the opportunity to vote 6 months after the implementation of a four-day workweek, only 56% voted to continue the program. This is not the overwhelming endorsement cited in other studies, especially as the Hawthorne Effect would have still been working to boost short-term morale.

Finding the sweet spot between increased productivity within a shorter space of time and minimising fatigue is a difficult balance to strike. Reducing the number of days a person works to four often results in requirements to work evening and overnight hours, resulting in longer days. As was the case in Iceland, the introduction of the four-day workweek caused a reduction in the number of coffee breaks, water cooler chat, and the frequent movement of meetings to email correspondence. For those who work in shifts, a compressed workweek may also require quicker shift rotations throughout the day. Some studies have shown that compressing the workweek aggravates the negative effects of a rotating shift schedule. The full effects of a compressed workweek on businesses which use a rotating shift schedule should be looked at more thoroughly in these new trials which are currently taking place.

This brings to light a particularly positive aspect of the UK trials. Across the 70 companies taking part, there is huge variety in the sectors. A fish and chip shop in Norfolk, as well as financial service, hospitality and retail companies are taking part. This should give us some new data on the effects of the four day workweek in different sectors, and thus help inform company decisions moving forward.

Although there are short-term benefits to introducing a four-day workweek, the increase in costs (or reduction in wages) may not be worth the change. Whatever the outcomes of these trials, businesses should be free to create the working arrangements they see best, and workers should not be forced to sacrifice income due to government imposed caps. Work is not homogenous and working hours shouldn’t be either.