The 4-Day Work Week (4DWW) has been met with mixed-reactions. Some are skeptical, finding it hard to imagine its feasible and implementation, while others are anticipating its adoption. They are eager to become recipients of the reported benefits and to have a longer weekend.
One notable claim of 4DWW supporters is that it will result in better work-life balance. When people have an extra day to focus on non-work activities and responsibilities, they will be better able to fortify their boundaries between work and life outside of work and mitigate the stresses that work-life conflict incites. Have we then found the solution for achieving work-life balance? Like most silver bullet solutions, this is likely too good to be true.
Flexibility Paradox
Too often, there is a disconnect between intentions and consequences. For example, it is possible that the 4DWW, designed to encourage more freedom and leisure time, would impose more rigid constraints on those who already work flexibly. Many people operate based on a series of peaks and valleys in their work demands. In some weeks, deadlines are tight, and more work (often in terms of hours) is needed to deliver outcomes. In other weeks, work slows down; deadlines are no longer looming. How can the 4DWW, which is all about limiting days worked per week, accommodate the shifting demands of external factors, such as client needs or fiscal calendars?
According to CEO Lindsay Tjepkema, giving everyone a three-day weekend is ‘a sham’, because the rest of the world does not stop operating on Fridays just because some workers now have it as a weekend. Of course, organizations can arrange rosters across the whole week to make sure services can be delivered consistently throughout. Nevertheless, if workers are straining to fit all their work into a compressed 4DWW, they might no longer have the flexibility to leave work early on Tuesdays, for example, to coach their children’s basketball team.
Work Intensification
The added pressures to meet productivity demands that accompany a reduced work week can hinder workplace flexibility in its other forms. This is particularly applicable if the organization implements a rigid version of flexibility. There are limits to humans’ capabilities, and a narrow focus on working fewer hours or days might risk ignoring the level of intensification. Work intensification is the disproportionate amount of extra work employees across industries are increasingly expected to do within the same time and resources constrains.
When it comes to the future (and, in some cases, the present) of work, there is still a lot we don’t know. Further research is needed to discover which flexible work arrangements are compatible or incompatible with the reduced work week model and how to allow more people to work in the ways that fit their lives and needs.
Facilitating Greater Flexibility
Due to the work-life blur, especially when working from home, many remote workers have experienced increasing work intensification. Boundaries are hard to set and even harder to abide by. Restricting working hours can reduce burnout and challenge the ‘always on’ culture that has become the norm, but it can also reinforce the 9-5 style of working that is incompatible with getting kids to and from school or going to the dentist. As an unintended consequence, many may see part-time work as the only option. Allowing people to be productive at the time they feel the most in-the-zone or at the only time they have childcare arrangements is crucial for those who cannot satisfy synchronous work conditions.
If people are already experiencing work intensification, condensing workloads into a set four days each week will put a lot of pressure on workers to deliver within ‘business hours’. Even in a reduced work week model, people should have the flexibility to work a reduced week over five days or seven days (if needed), but managers cannot expect employees to be on-call all the time.