The new world of work: insights from WEF

I recently watched a fascinating webinar where a group of experts discussed the evolving world of work and new models such as the four-day work week. I wanted to share some of the insights I found particularly interesting.

In essence, the case is strong for reevaluating the static five-day work week we have had for almost a century.?Burnout has been increasing since before COVID, with knock-on mental health effects; and the “never off” work culture enabled by devices is leaving no time for employees to comfortably disconnect. More flexibility and control over ways of working could be effective tools to tackle these issues. Many organisations, our own included, are exploring new ways of working that meet the evolving needs of society, without sacrificing productivity and the accelerated demands of business.?

In terms of the webinar, renowned organisational psychologist, author, and professor, Adam Grant, started by referencing a six-month trial in which 33 companies with employees in six countries decreased their employees' workload to four days, or 32 hours, a week. The pilot study found that burnout reduced, the pace of work increased, revenues increased, and employee wellbeing improved: people slept better, exercised more, and experienced higher levels of productivity. The results are compelling, but as with any structure that entails vast amounts of people in very different industries, with very different kinds of work, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. There are also complicating factors around people’s personal responsibilities outside of work, preferences, career ambitions and even national cultures and norms. In Japan, for example, a 40-hour work week is not in the realm of possibility for most – they have campaigns to get employees to force each other to leave the office after nine hours.

So, while there has been a dramatic shift to more flexible ways of working, and huge demand from younger generations for more flexibility and autonomy, the panel agreed that a four-day work week is in itself inflexible. Christy Hoffman, General Secretary of the UNI Global Union, said that considering total hours worked per week could be a more practical approach. This takes into account the fact that people have different schedules and needs: some prefer to leave work early and resume in the evenings, while others want to leave work behind when they go home.

In addition, one cannot simply decrease hours and expect productivity to increase – work practices need to change. Teams must be empowered to manage themselves. This could be business-cycle specific, for example, at year-end, the finance team often needs to work extra hard, but at other times they could be given greater flexibility or time off. The panel maintained that revising the culture of work should not stop anyone from working harder – people who want to grow their careers or build a business can still work seven days a week; it just doesn’t have to be the norm for everyone.

The panel agreed that generally, everyone wants to work less; when it came to the ‘how’, they identified a few long-hanging fruit in terms of tasks that devour time but don’t necessarily increase productivity. You may have guessed that meetings came in at the top of the list: most managers spend more than 50% of their time in meetings, often without a concomitant increase in productivity. Suggestions for improving meetings included having meetings while standing up (they naturally become 40% shorter with no cost to the quality of discussion); reducing the number of participants; and changing the timings of meetings from 30- and 60-minute meetings to 25-and 55-minute meetings. Another tactic is being very disciplined about the purpose of the meeting: meetings are either to decide, to do, to learn, or to create – if it doesn’t fall into one of those buckets, cancel the meeting.

Adam concluded by saying that in some trials, four-day work weeks were not a perk, but an incentive – if employees could prove they could successfully fulfil obligations in a four-day week, they could keep it. We know from behavioural science that a potential loss is a much more powerful motivator than a potential gain, so this could be an effective strategy.

At Discovery, our hybrid approach is based on a structure whereby work archetypes or roles determine the number of days in office. It is constantly evolving and we continue to learn and adjust based on the data. Broadly our principles include:

1. Balancing productivity and fulfilment:?We embrace the new world of work in a responsible and progressive way that promotes both output and engagement.
2. Nurturing culture in-office:?Our offices remain the base or default place of work and collaboration for our people, given that culture and values manifest and sustain most effectively when people are physically together.
3. Seeking improvement in productivity:?Our new way of working should deliver greater output and productivity than what we had in the past, with greater flexibility demanding greater personal discipline.
4. Leading from the front:?Our leaders need to be where their people are – in the office at the same time as their teams.
5. Executing in a structured and fair way:?In our work model, hybrid will be implemented with equity and consistency across job families and business units unless there is a clear business logic to justify a different approach.
6. Adapting as we learn:?We are continuously striving to understand what works and what doesn’t; and we must be prepared to evolve as data and insights emerge.

Let me know if any of the points raised in this discussion resonated with you, or what the greatest opportunities for disruption are when it comes to the world of work.