The latest four-day-week study screams “Look beyond averages!” to employers

Every company and every individual is different. That's stating the obvious. But it needs stating, nonetheless. But far too often you hear blanket comments about the working preferences of generations, industries, or people with specific characteristics—as well as claiming that rigid working rules for all are best for their organization. Naturally, there are overarching statistics and trends which deserve consideration—but to discount the individuality of each person or firm within large data sets and increasingly volatile and unruly markets, is both a questionable business plan, and a terrible way to treat your employees.

What may be a consensus in an industry or across business as a whole will almost certainly not be best for any one individual organization. It might be disastrously far off. I found that a recent four-day-week study illustrated perfectly the benefits of prioritizing both employees and what an organization needs to succeed.

People and organizations require more than an average amount of thought

To be precise, averages and general trends cannot be too heavily relied upon. This is perfectly illustrated when considering the merits of a four-day working week. Specifically, in a recent study from social scientists at the University of Cambridge, working with academics from Boston College in the US and the think tank Autonomy (which follows an increasingly long list of research on the matter).

The study looked at 61 organizations in the UK that committed to a 20% reduction in working hours for all staff for six months with no reduction in wages. The 4-day week significantly reduced stress and illness across the workforces and improved retention. 71% of employees reported lower levels of “burnout,” and 39% said they were less stressed. There was a 65% reduction in sick days and a 57% fall in resignations. Revenues hardly changed during the trial (they actually increased marginally by 1.4%). 92% of the companies said they intend to continue with a four-day week. 18 of the 61 confirmed the change as permanent.

But there’s plenty in the study—despite the overall positivity towards a four-day week—to show why tailoring a working structure to the people, firm, and environment is a must. (Again it's a painful statement of the obvious.) A few companies attached strings to their reduced hours, like fewer holiday days, an agreement that staff could be called in at short notice, or a “conditional” four-day week that only continued while performance met certain benchmarks. Furthermore, several staff at one large company worried about intensifying workloads, while some at creative companies weren’t enthusiastic about high levels of forced "focus time," as unstructured conversations and environments often generated their newest and best ideas.

Other similar studies range from local and national governments to consumer goods giant Unilever. One Wall Street Journal collection of written-in comments shows some trials have seemingly failed to address the balance between what’s best for employees and the employer when trying out new working patterns. Some ended up cramming the same work into four far longer days, rather than trying to either improve productivity by, for example, removing unnecessary meetings and new workflow processes—or considering that hiring more and distributing work in a better manner to cover all demands might be something worthwhile…

The black-and-white dogmatic discussion of four-day versus five-day weeks should end

Discussion around the four-day week, rather than aiming to prove whether four days are better than five in every case, should focus on helping individuals and their employers find the best work-life balance tailored, where possible, for every individual person (including giving those people the trust and flexibility to find the balance that works for them) but also for the firm. For some, four days working and three totally off may be better. For others, six days working at a low to medium level would be best. Another potential approach to reforming working patterns is by hours worked per week: say, 30-32 rather than the typical 37-40. In those instances, working time can be spent best by those in that scenario. On a cautionary note, however, employers should remember the importance of outcomes, not only hours worked, when it comes to employee performance. All manner of factors could determine what, from an employee perspective, is the best working structure, for example, childcare, hobbies, what times a person is most productive or creative, and so much more.

Employers should use generalizations with caution. What’s best for managers or your competitors is likely not best for your business or people

The clue is in the name. Averages are averages for a reason. Averages are not applicable to every member in a data sample. Often, there are large deviations in a sample that make up an average or trend. Even if deviations are small, it’s unlikely there will be many instances where a single point in a sample is exactly average.

Whether considering the four-day week, other reforms to working patterns, or quite honestly anything, employers should look to give individuals the trust, flexibility, and freedom they need to succeed for themselves and the firm—within whatever frameworks the specific organization or industry might require.