A new international study found that a four-day workweek with no loss of pay significantly improved worker well-being, including lower burnout rates, better mental health, and higher job satisfaction, especially for individuals who reduced hours most.
If there’s a positive that came out of the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s that it caused us to rethink work-life balance. In the wake of COVID, several countries have actively experimented with or adopted a four-day workweek, including Iceland, Spain, the UK, Japan, Belgium, and the UAE.
A new, large-scale international study, led by Boston College, examined the impact of moving to a four-day workweek with no reduction in pay on employee well-being and garnered results that will probably not come as a surprise to most people.
The study involved 2,896 employees from 141 companies across six countries: the US, UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. These companies were compared with 12 control companies that didn’t implement the four-day week.
Employees were surveyed before and after a six-month trial of reduced work hours. Their employee companies had reorganized workflows to cut back on unnecessary tasks such as meetings, enabling employees to work 80% of their original hours for 100% of their pay. There was no mandated format. Companies chose their own way to reduce hours, which meant that employees did not always work a strict four-day week.
The researchers measured work-related well-being, including burnout and job satisfaction; mental and physical health; and mediators such as work ability, job demands, schedule control, job support, sleep quality, fatigue, and exercise frequency. They found that in the intervention group, the average workweek fell from around 39 hours to 34 hours. The control group’s hours remained unchanged (around 39 to 40 hours a week). Compared to the control group, employees working a four-day week showed a reduction in burnout, higher job satisfaction, improved mental health, and slight but significant gains in physical health.
The researchers observed that larger reductions in personal work hours equaled greater improvements in well-being. Company-wide reductions also helped, but did not show a dose-response effect like individual changes did.
Three main mediators explained much of the benefit seen. One was an increased work ability, which reflects how capable people feel at their jobs. The second was fewer sleep problems, and the third was less fatigue. Other contributing factors included slight gains in schedule control, exercise, and job support. Perceived job demands decreased at the individual level but increased at the company level, possibly due to more intense workdays.
“Even with the extensive set of mediators, changes in work hours remain significant predictors of well-being, especially for burnout and job satisfaction, suggesting the presence of other mediators,” said the researchers. “Increased intrinsic motivation at work could be one potential factor, which we, unfortunately, cannot assess due to data limitations, while the organizational change itself could be another.”
The findings have drawn expert commentary, particularly regarding the study’s methodology in comparison to previous research.
“Findings from research over the last decade have been generally positive about the effectiveness of a four-day workweek at full pay for employee well-being and company performance,” said Dr Dougal Sutherland, a clinical psychologist and the CEO of Umbrella Wellbeing in New Zealand. “However, much of the published research has been limited by difficult data collection conditions, lacking controls and longitudinal data.
“This study sets a new standard, finding across a large sample that employee well-being improved over a six-month period when work hours were reduced, explained in part by increases in people’s perceived productivity, sleep and energy. One important factor contributing to the trial’s success, no doubt, was that participating organizations were coached in the weeks before the trial to find smarter ways of working for staff, streamlining processes, and reducing unnecessary meetings or tasks. Reducing work hours without any supporting workplace scaffolds is unlikely to produce the same results.”
The study does have limitations. Companies self-selected into the trial and weren’t randomized, potentially biasing results, and most companies were small, originating from high-income Anglophone countries, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Also, all control companies were US-based, and skewed toward nonprofits and social services. The fact well-being measures were self-reported, means they were subjective and possibly influenced by expectations. Finally, the researchers only undertook six months of worker observation; longer studies are needed.
Regardless of its limitations, the study’s findings suggest that a four-day workweek with no loss of income is a viable path to improving employee well-being, especially mental health and job satisfaction. Organizational support and workflow restructuring are critical to making this successful.
The study was published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Source: Boston College via Scimex