The four-day week is subject to increasing interest all over the world. Trials are taking place, political parties are including it in their manifestos, and organised labour organisations are arguing for it.  The four-day week however is nothing new. It has been around for decades, in various forms and undertaken to varying levels of success.

Last week, the UK government, once again demonstrating its disdain for flexible forms of work, banned local authorities from undertaking trials of the four-day week and ordered ones underway to cease: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/four-day-working-week-arrangements-in-local-authorities

The four-day week is, in my view, sometimes presented as something of a silver bullet. A potential solution to all sorts of challenges from employee wellbeing to productivity and economic and social challenges. Like any form of flexible work however, it has both benefits and challenges on an individual and organisational level.   My own research, along with other studies has identified the potential for work intensification, which can have a negative impact on employee wellbeing. Positive outcomes from four-day weeks are often established, but are not always long lasting, fading away over months or years. 

Understanding previous research into the four-day week is made difficult by the different forms studied (such as reduced hours working and compressed four-day weeks) and the various outcomes assessed. It is impossible to say, with certainty, that the four-day week is either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because it depends on what it is we are actually trying to measure. Like many forms of flexible work, it can have both positive and negative outcomes in the same organisation and for the same people.  Also like other forms of flexible work, there are often trade-offs to be made and balance to be struck. Whether adopting a four-day week is the right decision for an organisation will be highly contextual and success will depend much on implementation. 

What would be helpful, is more research. Robust, longitudinal, peer reviewed evidence, that goes beyond case study organisations. We need to know how it influences a whole range of outcomes such as productivity, wellbeing, creativity, absence and organisational performance – to name just a few.   We need to see this kind of research done across a whole range of different industries, roles and organisations.

Outright rejection of new ways of working is unhelpful. It is perhaps, however unsurprising. New ways of working have often prompted anger, denial and robust argument, from the Luddites to the more recent polarised debate about remote work. What we need to move the four-day week discussion forward is inquiry, open minds and experimentation. What we don’t need, is ‘computer says no’ attitudes.