Blog Layout

Could COVID bring working weeks to a better balance?

Elizabeth Gracie
The novel coronavirus has dramatically shifted workers’ relationships with their workplaces as many employees have been forced to transition to working from home, even altering the days and length of time they spend working. 

Overwhelmingly it seems, this rapid shift to a new workplace culture and home office environment has seen a surge in popularity for a four-day working week as the flexibility of working from a home office either in part of full has provided a welcoming respite from the traditional five day, 40-hour working week. 

According to Australia’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), the proportion of Australian organisations with flexible working strategies and policies now stands at over 70%. 

Research demonstrates that the 40-hour working week is not always the most productive use of resources and that people's satisfaction and happiness are stimulated after 8 hours of work a week, holding steady until 48 hours.

A UK Household Longitudinal Study conducted between 2009 and 2018 collated dated from 156,734 individuals and found that there is no single optimum number of working hours at which well being and mental health are at their highest. 

The research also indicated that there was scope for the traditional working week to be radically reduced. 

Australian digital agency Versa has trialled four-day working weeks for its employees over a 20 month period and the results have borne fruitful results both for the company and workplace productivity. 

By implementing a ‘No Work Wednesday” Versa cut their office hours to 37.5 per week over four days. 

When speaking with the ABC, Kathryn Blackham, Chief Executive of Versa said that the company over the 20 month trial period had not only grown their profits threefold but had also grown their revenue by 30 to 40 per cent as a result of staff who are happier and subsequently, much more productive. 

“So all of the factors that you would have thought would have gone own because we’re working 20 per cent less - in theory, we’re working one day less, although we are doing longer days on the other days - actually we’ve seen them increase dramatically”. 

“By the time we get to Thursday, it’s like a Monday again. You get a new feeling of enthusiasm and cracking on with work, collaboration”. 

Professor Peter Gahan from the University of Melbourne argues that shorter working hours does not equate to a significant lapse in productivity for employees, but there were positives to be gained.
 
By looking at international examples in both France and Sweden where shorter working weeks have been instigated in an effort to better support the mental health and wellbeing of its employees, Gahan says that the employees who worked fewer hours had higher levels of productivity and general wellbeing. 

“They were able to maintain productivity levels by and large, and there were some benefits for workers in terms of wellbeing and other types of outcomes”.

Another international success story was showcased in Japan, which has a workplace culture that is notorious for excessive overworking in corporate environments. 

In 2019, Microsoft trialled a four-day working week for the 2,300 employees in its Japan office.

Across the month of August, the staff were given five consecutive Friday’s off without a decrease in pay as well as a holiday subsidy plan for family vacations up to $920 AUD. 

The move not only boosted workplace productivity by an incredible 40% but led to happier workers and more efficient meetings. 

“Work a short time, rest well and learn a lot,” said Microsoft Japan president and CEO Takuya Hirano in a statement on the Microsoft Japan website. 

“I want employees to think about and experience how they can achieve the same results with 20% less working time”. 

When asked about the trial, 92 per cent of employees said they liked the shorter working week. 

Another twist to the flexible working week could see the five working days remain, but their hours reduced. 

A study published by the Harvard Business Review shows that a decrease from the average eight-hour-long working day to a six-hour working day significantly increased productivity. 

These findings were echoed by a 2018 survey of 3,000 employees by the Workforce Institute at Kronos who found that more than fifty per cent of full-time workers believed they could complete their work in just five hours per day.

The four-day working week has been mentioned as a possible economic bounce back measure by New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern in May, allowing for a better work-life balance while sharing job opportunities across a broader population. 

Karen Foster, Associate Professor, Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, argued in The Conversation that, “A four-day workweek must not be confused with a compressed schedule that has workers squeeze 37.5 to 40 hours of work into four days instead of five.

“A shorter workweek could allow parents to cobble together child care, allow workplaces to stagger attendance and, theoretically, allow the available work to be divided among more people who need employment.”

It is difficult to gauge the productivity benefits of workplace-week changes during a global pandemic, where many employees have to turn their homes into quasi-offices. Nicholas Bloom, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a proponent of working-from-home flexibility, notes that “Many people I have been interviewing are now working in their bedrooms or shared common rooms, with noise from their partners, family or roommates.”

Similarly, “Working from home with your children is a productivity disaster,” Bloom says. “My 4-year-old regularly bursts into the room hoping to find me in a playful mood shouting “doodoo!” – her nickname for me – in the middle of conference calls.

Whether it be a reduction to the days at work or the time spent per day, it is evident that a flexible working employment model is here to stay, but the real question is for how long?
By By Harley Paroulaksis, CEO Paspalis, CEO Darwin Innovation Hub 20 May, 2023
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
20 May, 2023
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
By By Shiv Meka 20 May, 2023
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
28 Mar, 2023
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
By Gillian Cumming 28 Mar, 2023
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
By Dr Saraid Billiards - CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. 27 Mar, 2023
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
27 Jan, 2023
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
27 Jan, 2023
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
By Andrew Downs 27 Jan, 2023
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
By By Ben Kehoe 27 Jan, 2023
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
More Posts
Share by: