A Six-Hour Work Day… How About it?

I read an article recently that an experiment is to be carried out in the Swedish city of Gothenburg in which council workers will try outa six-hour working day for one year. According to the mayor, Mats Pilhem, changing to a six-hour working day across the country could “create more jobs, increase productivity and reduce sick leave — thereby saving the country money in the long term”.

The concept of a shorter working day is extremely appealing and, on the face of it, makes sense. After all, happy employees are healthy and productive, right? These days, working an eight hour day really translates to far longer, with many people facing long commutes at the beginning and end of each day. We live in a time where economic pressures are such that dual income families have become the norm, and both parents are required to work full-time just to make ends meet. As such, it is hardly rare for the parents of young children to arrive home during the early evening hours and still have to squeeze in any family responsibilities such as homework, dinner, housework etc. into  a mere 2-3 hours. It is no wonder there is an upward trend in learning difficulties, children with behavioural problems, broken families and mental health issues in the workplace. In light of these issues, the shorter working day seems like an ideal solution…and in many ways it is.

But what about the problematic aspects of adopting this change? In many roles, such as those in senior management, it is already difficult to manage the work-life balance of employees who work an eight hour day. As it is, employees often take work home that they cannot squeeze into an eight hour day to try and meet deadlines– is shortening the day to 6 hours, not an excuse for employers to expect more from their staff in less time, on less pay?

Then, there is the question of productivity and remuneration. Most organisations simply cannot afford to lose 10 working hours per employee each week. In a company employing 100 employees, that equates to 1000 hours of lost productivity…the potential impact for the economy is enormous. As with the Gothenburg experiment, the solution would appear to be job-sharing. While this means more employed people, it also means more employed people on lower, pro-rata incomes…again, organisations are unlikely to be able to employ people for fewer hours and remain on the same pay scale. Yet it is by financial necessity already that many people work full-time jobs and take overtime hours. Does this mean people will need to find alternative ways to supplement their incomes, thereby undermining any gains from having a shorter working day? Practically, they may end up away from home even longer as additional jobs may require minimum hours to be worked and extra commutes would be required. So shortening the working day could simply exacerbate the problems it is trying to address.

Questions also emerge about the impact this would have on workplace culture. Employees who are juggling different work roles are unlikely to feel the same level of commitment and loyalty they would for a single employer – they simply do not have the sense of belonging and singular focus. In addition, one of the recognised problems associated with job-sharing is a diminished sense of individual accountability and job satisfaction. For instance, employees may experience diminished satisfaction if unable to work autonomously, taking full ownership and recognition for projects.

Perhaps a better alternative to a blanket policy of shortening the working day is for organisations to more readily embrace flexible work practices and options for telecommuting. These practices are not without their own pitfalls but, managed effectively, are far more likely to promote a high degree of employee commitment and strong organisational culture.

At HR Business Direction we can assist with developing and leading a flexible workplace.

Trish Cloete MA (Org. Psyc), Assoc MAPS; CMI
Workplace Psychologist
trish.cloete@hrbd.com.au
07 3890 2066
www.hrbd.com.au