Imma Perfetto
Cosmos science journalist
In yet more evidence that the standard 9 to 5 isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, an international study has found that spending less time on the job improved the wellbeing of almost 2,900 employees.
The outcomes of 6-month trials across 141 organisations in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the USA indicate that 4-day work weeks (with no reduction in pay) significantly improved workers’ self-reported burnout, job satisfaction and mental and physical health.
This improvement was not seen in 285 employees at the 12 control companies which continued business as usual.
“The 4-day week trial challenges the ideal worker norm that equates long hours with hard work and a strong work ethic, which could contribute to improved well-being,” write the authors of the study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Associate Professor Paula O’Kane, a researcher at New Zealand’s University of Otago says, while the study centred on a 4-day work week, “the broader implication is clear: flexible and potentially individualised working arrangements can deliver similar benefits.”
O’Kane, who specialises in human resource management and was not involved in the study, says that, traditionally, time spent working is used as a proxy for productivity.
“In fact, better rested and healthier people can be more productive in less time. The 4-day week model in this study enhanced work ability, reduced sleep problems, and decreased fatigue – all of which contributed to the positive outcomes.”
“Findings from research over the last decade have been generally positive about the effectiveness of a 4-day work week at full pay for employee wellbeing and company performance,” adds Dr Dougal Sutherland, a principal psychologist at Umbrella Wellbeing in New Zealand who was not involved in the research.
“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 wellbeing improved over a 6-month trial period when work hours were reduced, explained in part by increases in people’s perceived productivity, sleep and energy.”
The private sector companies involved in the 4 Day Week Global initiative allowed employees to work 80% of their regular hours for 100% of their pay. The study evaluated the effect of this on workers’ self-reported well-being outcomes, including burnout, job satisfaction, mental health and physical health.
Employees who reduced their working hours by 8 or more per week reported experiencing the largest reductions in burnout and improvements in job satisfaction and mental health, compared to the control. The effects were smaller among employees with 1 to 4-hour and 5 to 7-hour reductions.
The smallest changes were reported in physical health, a pattern which the researchers say is expected as they “may take time to manifest”.
“Although self-report measures have limitations, the study effectively addressed many of these,” says Sutherland. This included administering baseline and endpoint surveys 6 months apart, which made it difficult for employees to remember their previous responses.
“In addition, their response patterns to different survey items suggest that employees are reporting based on their actual circumstances rather than attempting to manipulate the data,” the authors write.
“It was also insightful to examine both average company-wide reductions and individual-level changes in working hours,” says Sutherland.
While the study found that greater reductions in individual hours predicted more pronounced improvements in well-being, this dose-dependent pattern was not seen at the company level.
“Regardless of the actual organisational-level changes in hours, employees in trial companies experience greater improvements in well-being compared with those in control companies,” the authors write. “This result suggests that organisational reductions in hours largely operate by shaping individual employees’ actual changes in hours, even though the collective reorganisation process that trial companies underwent may provide additional well-being benefits not shared by control employees.”
An important factor contributing to the trial’s success, according to Sutherland, was this reorganisation.
“Participating organisations 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,” he says.
“As organisations continue to look for innovative ways to improve wellbeing, this study offers a strong business case for businesses to work smarter, rather than longer, to keep workers and their work output strong.”