4 Day Work Week

Not all 4-day work weeks are created equal

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job Control

There seems to be some excitement around the 4-day-work-week being trialled in the UK. However, not all 4-day work weeks are created equal.

There are a few different ways that an employer could implement a shorter working week. Either employees:

* work the same number of hours per week, but reduced to 4 longer work days
* work less hours with the same amount of pay
* work less hours with less pay

The article suggests that of the 30 businesses taking part, participants are required to still complete the same amount of work they were previously doing. And they will still be required to work up to 35 hours per week (i.e. the same number of hours they were required to work previously over 5 days). What this implies is that these workers will be working less number of days, but more hours within each of those days. It also does not make clear who this 4-day work week would apply specifically to. It seems from the link supplied in the article to the 4 Day Week website, that there is a skew towards those who belong to a trade union. I wonder what impact this would have on the potential for overtime hours (and therefore, the potential for earning overtime pay) may have on these workers.

There is only so much productive, effective work our brains are cognitively able to do each day. Expecting increased productivity with the same number of hours worked per week – shoe-horned into just 4 days (as per the current research being conducted in the UK), seems a bit of a self-defeating exercise to me. I also fear that a number of these employees will still be working on their ‘day off’, but not in the office environment. Unless there is a mandated ‘no technology use in your day off’, it will be difficult to manage and monitor the effectiveness of the ‘day off’.

I also wonder how working more hours each day may impact those who are working parents – who have to drop off and collect children from preschool or school. How do these parents manage to fulfil their home-based responsibilities, such as homework, bath times, family meals etc if they are working longer hours? It doesn’t quite seem as feasible or idealistic as initially presented in the Time-Out article or on the ‘Why a 4-day week’ website.

I hope to be proven wrong.

Research conducted by the BCG in 2009 showcases a different type of 4-day work week. Although project teams trialled different working time off options during the week, the main criteria for each of the trials conducted was that consultants were required to refrain from technology use during their mandated time off.

An additional, and I think critical, point is that the teams worked together to decide which team member took the time off and when. The team members also negotiated how the client work would be completed without the client suffering from any team-mandated time-off.

What the research found is that those who participated in the experiments were more productive, and had higher energy levels and standards of service delivered. They were also more likely to stay at the company for longer and reported higher levels of job satisfaction. In addition, the need to maintain high client service levels increased the level of teamwork and effective communication among team members.

I would suggest the BCG model is a better option than simply ‘demanding’ that a working week be reduced to 4 days while working the same number of hours for the same amount of pay.

Related Articles
The Autonomy Paradox

Technology both helps and hinders autonomy

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job ControlResearch
'The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devides for Knowledge Professionals'
Extracts and summary of the research by: Melissa Mazmanian, Wanda J. Orlikowski and JoAnne Yates (October 2013)

A note: The original qualitative research for this paper was conducted during 2004 and 2005. It is therefore reminiscent of knowledge workers use of mobile email devices (e.g. Blackberries) and mobile phones (rather than smartphones). Although some mobile phones had internet connection capability from 2001, the first iPhone was launched in 2007.

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘Although individual use of mobile email devices offered professionals flexibility, peace of mind, and control over interactions in the short term, it also intensified collective expectations of their availability, escalating their engagement and thus reducing their ability to disconnect from work’
  • ‘Professionals were ending up using [mobile email devices] everywhere/all the time, thus diminishing their autonomy in practice’
  • ‘[The] autonomy paradox reflected professionals’ ongoing navigation of the tension between their interests in personal autonomy on the one hand and their professional commitment to colleagues and clients on the other’
  • ‘The ongoing use of mobile email devices enacted a collective dynamic of escalating engagement that was attenuating the very autonomy that professionals were extolling. Having the freedom to use the device anywhere, anytime, the professionals ended up using it everywhere, all the time’.

Summary of the research: 

Autonomy is defined (in this article) as: ‘the ability to exercise a degree of control over the content, timing, location, and performance of activities’. It is traditionally either endowed (through status or seniority) or bestowed (e.g. through experience or length of service) on those who have earned the privilege to decide when and how they get their work done.

In this qualitative research, a number of professionals within interdependent teams were interviewed on their use of mobile email devices (i.e. blackberries). Within these discussions, the researchers came to understand that although these professionals felt that they had been empowered, through the use of a mobile email device, to be more responsive and available to their managers, colleagues and clients as a way of demonstrating their competence, work ethic and desire to succeed in their job, they individually and collectively changed the workplace norms around availability and responsiveness within their work environment.

The workers not only justified their increased technology use by stating that the constant checking of their email device:

  • allowed them to stay up to speed with and manage the flow of information that passed by them
  • gave them the ability to ‘watch work’ and a sense of control over their workload
  • ensured that they did not become a work bottleneck when they were not in the office
  • helped to enhance their sense of professional status and competence

However, the constant checking of their devices had a number of unintended consequences:

  • it shifted the norms, expectations and assumptions of others (colleagues, clients and managers) in terms of accessibility, availability and responsiveness times
  • it increased the number of hours spent looking at and responding to emails, thereby directly reducing their amount of downtime
  • it blurred the lines (temporal boundaries) between work and private time
  • it increased the levels of stress experienced by these professionals

The professionals justified their voluntary increased use of the devices as a way to demonstrate their level of autonomy and their ability to act as responsible and competent professionals. They also stated it to be a consequence of their ‘Type A’ workaholic type personalities that are an integral part of succeeding within a professional environment.

The very behaviour used by these professionals to showcase their workplace dedication, escalated tacitly into a normative expectation by others of what it means to operate within that particular professional environment. The individual actions of each professional subtly changed the collective behaviour of all professionals, increasing ‘the pace and volume of communication in the network, raising expectations of responsiveness and accessibility and leading to a collective reduction of autonomy as workers began to engage with work at all times’. i.e. the normative expectations around quick response times to emails became the very thing that restricted the personal autonomy that these professionals were trying to live out and capitalise on in their daily working lives, and to showcase their level of commitment to their jobs.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Scheduling-Autonomy

There is a Difference Between Job Control and Autonomy

by Autonomy, Flexibility and Job Control

Those who are allowed either job control and/or autonomy within their role are more likely to experience lower levels of stress, anxiety and perceived burnout.

The simple explanation of the difference between these two concepts is that:

  • Schedule Control is the ability to schedule working hours within the course of a day.
  • Job Autonomy is schedule control plus the freedom to decide what and how to get the job done.

Schedule control is often associated with flexible working practices. In 2014 the UK Government passed the Flexible Working Regulations. These regulations allowed for all employees to apply for flexible working, rather than only caregivers and working parents. However, the decision to approve an employee’s flexible work request is the remit of each individual company. These regulations do seem, therefore, to be more of a token gesture, than a viable solution for those who would benefit from flexible working practices.

When it comes to remote and hybrid working, schedule control comes into its own. In research I conducted during Lockdown 1.0 amongst working parents, those who were able to schedule their working day to allow for homeschooling and other home commitments, seemed to be less stressed than those who couldn’t. This was especially important for those who had children under 6 years old (especially as they engage in higher levels of active childcare).

Job autonomy, prior to March 2020, was mostly the remit and privilege of those in particular professional occupations, who had extensive work experience or were in more senior managerial roles. Essentially, job autonomy is the ability and freedom a worker has to make independent, job-related decisions and to choose how and when the tasks get completed.

In theory, this would be an enviable position for many – allowing for a greater ability to manage a more robust work-life balance. However, research has found that instead of technology-aided autonomy allowing workers greater levels of freedom to manage their work role, workers tended to rather spend increased amounts of time on their phones. They effectively diminished their autonomy by justifying extra hours of unpaid work through rationalising the perceived expectation that others had of them.

Research conducted just prior to March 2020, already showcased how workplace norms and the pace of work demands mean that workers felt constantly tethered to their technology. With seniority (and social status synonymous that comes with autonomy), came an additional perception of being indispensable to others. This includes an expectation of needing to keep an eye on project-related communications, ensuring projects are kept moving forward and subordinates are given continuous guidance and answers. This inability to disconnect actually reduced workers’ autonomy and increases their overall job stress.   

Referred to as “The Autonomy Paradox”, the very flexibility and freedom granted to workers – allowing them the ability to work and engage in professional technology-related communication anytime and anywhere, can be the very thing that binds workers to the company, their colleagues and clients every waking hour.

Related Articles