The data are not as supportive as claimed.
On February 21, a consortium of advocacy groups and academics released a report on a program piloting four-day workweeks for employers in the United Kingdom from June to December 2022. In a press release, the authors described the pilot program as a success and claimed that it “demonstrate[d] the benefits of reduced-hour, output-focused working.” Major news organizations, such as NPR and CNN, amplified these talking points. Although the report does seem to contain some positive data on this issue, a careful review of the report raises questions about the results.
First, it is important to understand who is behind the study. The team includes (1) Autonomy, an economics research organization; (2) 4 Day Week Global, a non-profit dedicated to promoting the concept of a four-day workweek; (3) Dr. Juliet Schor, a professor at Boston College and advocate of reduced work schedules; and (4) Dr. David Frayne and Professor Brendan Burchell from the University of Cambridge, researchers with a focus on labor and employment matters. Thus, at least some of the authors have a predisposition to achieving results that demonstrate the value of a four-day workweek.
Second, the report, its results, and the underlying methodologies have not been peer reviewed.
Third, the program and its results seem likely to suffer from selection bias. The press release touts the program as having taken place at “over 60 companies.” However, many of the companies that agreed to take part in this program were workplaces likely to be politically or socially aligned with the goals of the program, or workplaces in which a four-day workweek would not be disruptive to operations. Indeed, the report says that “initially, 70 companies had signed up to take part in the pilot” but nine then bowed out for various reasons. (p. 17, n. 20) Next, although 61 organizations participated in the pilot, only 44 to 51 provided data for the report. (p. 15) It seems quite possible that the organizations that responded to the survey were those that had a positive experience with the program. It would be important to know why 10 to 17 organizations did not provide data.
The employee data on this point are even more troubling. Only 58 percent of the 2,900 employees covered by the pilot provided survey responses at the conclusion of the study. Again, those who chose to respond were likely to be those who supported the program.
Fourth, the reduction in work is not what it seems. The report describes a variety of ways in which the employers altered their schedules to create a “four-day workweek”: some closed all operations on Fridays; some divided their staffs’ days off between Mondays and Fridays; some continued to work a five-day week, but only with four days’ worth of work; and, some adjusted schedules so that the workload was spread over a year. (pp. 20-21) Nevertheless, the average number of days worked decreased from 4.86 to 4.52 (p. 32), only a third of a day’s reduction. Moreover, the average weekly workload decreased from 38 to 34 hours (id.), a reduction of only about half a day.
Fifth, the effect on company performance is unclear. The researchers’ methods here seem particularly confusing. (See p. 29.) In one bucket, the researchers analyzed the revenue of 23 companies (weighted by size) and found an average increase in revenue of 1.4 percent from the beginning to the end of the trial. This result is well below the rate of inflation, which has been around 10 percent in the U.K. since the pilot began. For another 24 companies, the researchers averaged the companies’ revenues before and after the pilot, and found a size-weighted average percentage increase of 35 percent. The researchers do not explain how the companies were split between the two analyses. There is no obvious reason why both analyses could not have been run for all companies. The underlying data here too would be important to provide for verification.
The researchers otherwise do not appear to have made any effort to measure and evaluate companies' outputs. The pilot was only six months long, and thus a negative effective on revenue may certainly lag until a later date.
That said, the employees who responded to the survey do seem to have liked the change. On average, employees reported mild but statistically significant improvement in stress, job satisfaction, mental health, and sleep. (p. 36-38) The biggest positive changes were reported in employees’ ability to manage their family and household duties. (p. 39) Perhaps not surprisingly, 96 percent of respondents expressed a preference for a four-day workweek. (p. 45)
In an ongoing tight labor market, a four-day workweek may become a recruitment tool used by some employers. Some organizations may find that they operate more efficiently on such a schedule. However, this report does not clearly make the case for the adoption of a four-day workweek. Everyone would benefit from the results of a longer, more representative trial that is qualified and scrutinized appropriately in a peer-reviewed publication.
- Senior Counsel
Chris is an attorney with more than thirteen years of experience at law firms, in-house, and in academia, with extensive expertise in sports, litigation, and labor and employment. He represents and advises employers with respect to ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010