Reading Between the Lines on the 4-Day Work Week
Reading Between the Lines on the 4-Day Work Week 1024 512 Jason Lauritsen

Last week, Quartz published a piece about a New Zealand company that has implemented a 4-day work week policy.

This company offered the shortened work week without any reduction in pay or other benefits. They tested it and then implemented it broadly when they found that it didn’t cause any decrease in overall performance for the organization.

The owner of the company, Andrew Barnes, is bullish about these results and wants every company to try it. But, he offers some words of caution not to talk about this effort in terms of employee well-being. Instead, he advised that you talk about it in terms of productivity.

Here’s a quote from Barnes about how they rolled this out:

“We sat down with each team and we said, ‘Right, let’s agree what is the base of productivity that you’re delivering now,’” he says. “And then the deal was, provided you delivered on the productivity goals, you would be gifted a day off a week.”

This is a cool story. It highlights what is possible when organizations think differently about work.

Is this really about a 4-day work week?

While I think it’s awesome that this company is proving that some of our assumptions about work (i.e. the 5-day work week) are limiting, I think the article is misleading for anyone who might want to pursue something similar in their own organization.

The 4-day work week is the kind of gimmicky silver-bullet we love to read about and debate. The gimmick is a distraction.

If you read between the lines, here’s what you find echoed in this article.

  • This company found that employees could produce the same amount of output in 4 days that they had been producing in 5.
  • When given this challenge (or opportunity) to work more effectively, employees stepped up. When surveying employees before and after the 4-day week trial, they “found that 78% of staff felt able to manage work and other commitments after the trial, compared to 54% before.”
  • The policy is less about a 4-day week than it is about autonomy and flexibility. The leaders essentially told employees that if they can get their work done in less hours, they could have those extra hours back.
  • And please don’t say this effort is about employee well-being if you want to be taken seriously because nobody (particularly leaders) cares about that. (Forgive my sarcasm, but this seems to be what they chose to lead with.)
  • The key to making this transition happen swiftly is an owner or CEO who gets it or has a eureka moment.

My take on the 4-day work week

Conversations about a shortened work week are colored by how we think about work. It highlights a fundamental conflict in management philosophy. The practice of management was born during the industrial revolution where the objective was primarily to maximize the productivity of employees per hour. A majority of organizations today are still rooted in this belief.

The objective of work processes is to motivate and/or coerce the maximum amount of productivity out of each hour the employee works. 

In this model, the number of hours the employee spends working is viewed as vital to achieving performance expectations. Your role as an employee is less about achieving specific outputs as it is about seeing how much you can contribute. The manager’s role is to get the maximum amount of value out of the employee.

This way of thinking is prevalent among leaders. It’s this way of thinking that makes the “discretionary effort” model of employee engagement so attractive. It’s oriented towards getting more and more out of the same investment in people–to maximize productivity for the benefit of the organization.

An alternative way of thinking about work is that employees are hired to fulfill specific roles with clear expectations for the value they contribute to the organization’s success. This role clarity drives compensation, management evaluation, and other work processes. This way of thinking about work might be summarized this way:

The objective of work processes is to ensure that employees are clear about the expectations of their role and that they have everything they need to succeed.  

In this way of thinking, a manager’s role isn’t to get the maximum amount of productivity out of each employee. Instead, it’s about ensuring that each employee is crystal clear about what is expected of them and then supporting them in achieving those goals successfully.

If an employee can complete their work in less than 40 hours per week, good for her. She’s met her expectations, so what she does with those extra hours is up to her. If she’s able to do her work in 25 hours/week, then that likely means she’s either due for a more challenging role or the role she’s in is poorly designed. Or, maybe she’s just super efficient at her job and everyone’s happy.

These two very different ways of thinking about work are really what the discussion about the 4-day work week is truly about. If your leaders believe that their mandate is to create a workplace that extracts the maximum amount of productivity from employees, then you are dead in the water before you start.

I suspect that’s why the article led with the insight to talk about this effort as “productivity” and not well-being. The implication seems to be that perhaps you can trick your leaders into the 4-day work week. But, if you don’t address the underlying belief that the goal is to maximize employee output, how long do you think it will take before your leaders realize that if employees can be 20% more productive in four days a week, imagine the productivity if they get back that fifth day?

Instead of trying to trick your leaders into this experiment, focus instead on building a better system of performance management that clearly defines expectations and creates systems of measurement and feedback to help managers effectively manage to those expectations. Once your organization and its leaders are more clearly oriented around thinking of roles in terms of defined performance expectations, the conversation about greater autonomy and flexibility will become much easier.

P.S. This has everything to do with employee well-being, even if your leaders aren’t ready to invest in it yet.


If you’d like more content like this to arrive in your email box weekly, you can subscribe to this blog by clicking here.

Sign up for our free video series Igniting Employee Engagement. Make impact in your organization with fresh insights from more than 25 thought leaders and experts that you won’t hear anywhere else.

The Wellness Obstacle – The Leader’s Health
The Wellness Obstacle – The Leader’s Health 150 150 Jason Lauritsen

In my last post, I shared my thoughts about why I think Wellness programs are becoming an increasingly important part of our work in HR.  I’m relatively new to the field.  It wasn’t until I joined my current organization that I become really familiar with this notion of wellness within the organization.  

Aside from all of the corporate benefits of wellness programs done right, I have experienced some very personal and specific benefits.  Since the corporate wellness function exists within HR at my organization, I am the executive champion for wellness by default.  For me, that meant that I had better start acting the part.  After all, who would want to hear about wellness from an overweight, out-of-shape HR guy–hardly a credible source on the subject (it’s like getting medical advice from an unhealthy doctor).  Since taking on this role, I’ve started eating better, exercising more and generally being far more conscientious about my health because I feel that it’s a requirement of the job. I love this pressure because it’s a great motivator to stay in shape.  However, I suspect that not everyone would feel the same way.

As I have thought about this circumstance and the personal changes implied by being associated with leading a wellness strategy, it occurred to me that this might be why wellness is such a challenging thing to get right or to get adopted.  An unhealthy leader might consider that wellness is an intriguing program for their organization until they realize that the act of putting in a program like this might mean that they must personally change.  I suspect that many a wellness program has died before even starting due to this factor.  Generally, it’s been my experience that people won’t voluntarily put themselves into a position where they knowingly take on significant accountability for personal change.  Instead, it’s just easier to argue that wellness programs haven’t been proven to work or that company’s have no business telling people how to manage their health.  All surface arguments that are hiding a more complicated truth, many of us are insecure about our own health and our ability to manage it successfully.

So, if you are considering presenting a wellness initiative or strategy for your organization, take time to consider the implications on yourself and the other leaders within the organization.  In order for your program to work, you (as the champion) and the key leaders in your organization must not only support the strategy but they must also walk the talk by modeling healthy lifestyles.  Don’t overlook the very personal impact this has on each individual leader.  By acknowledging this in the process, you are more likely to get a clear picture of the obstacles that must be overcome on your way to implementing a successful program.  
Why Wellness Matters
Why Wellness Matters 150 150 Jason Lauritsen

I have a confession to make.  I used to think that corporate wellness programs were ridiculous.  I’d hear about weight watchers programs and health fairs and, frankly, it felt like the typical busywork kind of stuff HR departments are known for.  Then, I went to work for an organization that invests heavily in wellness and has for 15 years and I found out that I was wrong.

As I’ve studied wellness and the impact that well executed wellness programs can have on an organization, I’ve changed my tune.  I have become a wellness champion.  I believe in wellness programs within organizations and I think that every organization should be investing in it.  It seems so obvious to me that there is benefit to having a wellness program that it’s hard to understand why companies wouldn’t embrace them, particularly in today’s world of health care expenses that continue to spiral out of control.

The general argument against corporate wellness is that companies have no business mandating anything to do with employee health.  It is argued that requiring employees to get in better shape or care for their general health and well being better is an intrusion of their privacy.  I’ve this coming from some pretty smart HR pros and I find this objection to wellness to be silly and short-sighted.  The fact is, we mandate things to employees every day.  We tell them how to dress.  We give them standards for their hygeine.  We require them to attend training classes.  We give expectations on how to execute their job. We tell when they can and can’t take personal phone calls.  We tell them what they can and can’t say to who and when.  And we do all of this because the specific behaviors that employees chose relative to these issues has direct financial impact on the organization.

But, when it comes to wellness, we get squeamish about setting the same kind of standards despite the fact that employer paid health insurance benefits has become the second largest expense line item for many companies behind salary.  And the research tells us that 75% of healthcare expenses in America come from chronic diseases that are largely preventable through behavior modification.  So, to extrapolate, it can be assumed also that approximately 75% of our health insurance expense at the organization level is being caused by the behaviors of our employees and that if they changed these behaviors, there could be a dramatic decrease in healthcare expenses for the employee and the organization. This doesn’t even take into consideration that people are doing real damage to themselves and their families through these unhealthy choices.

With this much at stake, why wouldn’t a responsible organization get invested in wellness?  It almost feels like an imperative to create healthy organizations that proactively help employees make healthier decisions.  In fact, if we are willing to dictate how employees dress when their’s so little at stake, why wouldn’t we dictate what they eat or how much they exercise when there’s so much at stake?