Take a minute and think for a short while about the weekend - there is nothing quite like it, is there? After a long week of hard work, you finally get to kick your shoes off, put your feet up, and relax for a few days while disconnecting from work. I’m guessing you’re probably thinking of Saturday and Sunday, as the dominant pattern across the globe typically is a five-day workweek, with two days off. This pattern is so ingrained in us that it can be seen through artifacts in our language. For example, we have phrases such as “TGIF” (“Thank God It’s Friday”), “hump day” for Wednesday, the midpoint of the week, and even “having a case of the Mondays” or “Monday blues”, which joshingly refers to feeling low about returning to work. Not surprisingly, the two-day weekend might feel like a force of nature or given natural law by now. But it hasn’t always been like this.
Since the last post focused on the importance of taking a break, vacations, and recovery - I figured we’d stay on the recovery track in this second July post and take a deeper look at a different type of break that has been discussed vividly lately. Namely, working time reductions, such as the 4-day workweek.
But first, let’s take a look in the rearview mirror
About a century ago, people were not as quick to throw around “TGIF”, since the norm back then was a 6-day workweek, spanning from Monday to Saturday, with Sunday as the only day off. However, due to a combination of technological advances, productivity increases, and labor union advocacy, there was a push toward a general working time reduction resulting in an additional day off each week. Thus, we saw the advent of the weekend in its modern form. At the same time, the average hours of a workweek were reduced substantially, from about 60 hours per week to the now more standard 40-hour format (unless you’re in academia, where 60 hours of work is what we call “Monday”). This transition took place at different points in time in different countries, but an increasingly globalized economy has contributed to the harmonization of working time formats, where a 5-day week has become common in many countries.
Nowadays, the International Labor Organization defines working 48 hours per week or more as excessive, citing adverse health outcomes such as sleep disturbances, cardiovascular disease, and mental health issues as possible risks of regularly exceeding normal work hours. They also refer to fatigue as a risk factor for accidents or injuries at work, and reduced productivity as an outcome of pushing boundaries too hard. Taken together, there is much to gain from keeping a healthy balance between work and leisure. But is a 40-hour workweek the optimal balance?
Over the past century, academics, philosophers, and politicians have all speculated about further working time reductions. The famous economist John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946) predicted the possibility of a 15-hour workweek within a few generations, due to the technological advances being made. And this was before the rapid digitalization of today. Since few of us seem to be living the 15-hour workweek, this begs the question: What happened to the working time reduction trend? What consequences would further working time reduction bring to us on an individual level, on a societal level, and on an environmental level? Is it desirable? Or a pipe dream best left at the idea stage?
Let’s have a look at the literature
In 2022, a systematic review was published, that compiled evidence of studies carried out on reduced working time interventions from the years 2000 to 2019. In this case, the focus was on working time reductions with maintained salary. The reviewed studies looked into various aspects of time reduction, such as 6-hour workdays, replacing work time with time for exercise, and general reductions of work time by 25%. Overall, studies showed favorable outcomes in terms of sleep and reduced stress, but with some contradictory findings for other health outcomes. The authors argued that it is not necessarily the reduction per se, but rather how the additional free time is spent that is likely to determine the outcome of the work time reduction. Consequently, there were indications of some positive effects of work time reductions, but the picture was not fully clear, and most of the included studies were conducted on Scandinavian healthcare workers, which of course may not generalize to other contexts.
Following this work, the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health published a scoping review about a year later, taking stock of the knowledge about work time reduction trials to date. While surveying both experimental scientific studies and trials carried out without peer review, they found that reduced working time with maintained salary was associated with greater job satisfaction, but also work intensification, meaning that the actual working hours were more intense. There was some evidence of maintained levels of productivity, although this was quite limited in scope, and the effects on sickness absences were very mixed. As for how preferences go, if given the choice, most seem to prefer working fewer days per week rather than fewer hours per day. Collectively, the studies to date seem to indicate that there may be positive effects in relation to health and well-being, but this could also result in more intense work during remaining hours, and there are many unknown elements in how productivity is affected.
What can we learn from this?
As famously sung by Dolly Parton:
Workin’ 9 to 5, what a way to make a livin’
The five-day workweek, with around 8 hours per day, is strongly ingrained in the current work culture. Historically, technical advances and major changes occurring to the world of work have resulted in a general work time reduction, developed in parallel with increased global productivity. Nevertheless, productivity developments occurred in the technological boom of a post-industrial society, which makes the possible caveats and benefits of reduced working time difficult to analyze. Generally, there still seems to be quite limited research on the effects and outcomes of working time reductions, particularly on secondary and tertiary levels such as organizational, societal, and environmental impact.
At the same time, many workers today experience the opposite of reduced working time. A development propelled by digital technology and constant availability. As discussed in the previous post, the “Right to Disconnect” movement is evidence of a situation where people are increasingly struggling to keep to the 8-hour format, feeling pressured to be within reach almost around the clock. Perhaps the technological advances we have seen, and the increased accessibility we have to each other through digital communication, will spark new fire to the discussion about working time formats. Where it will end up, we will just have to wait and see.
Working 9 to 5 is indeed one way to make a living, but it is not necessarily the only model. Many would probably prefer to work fewer days, even if this may come with the cost of increased intensity during the hours spent at work. If productivity could be maintained, this could indeed be a very promising alternative to the traditional model.
Then again, TGIT - Thank God It’s Thursday - just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Thanks for reading Observations of Work & Organizations! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
