Time well spent: equitable implementation of the 32-hour work week

It’s Friday, 4:00, and your brain has turned to mush. You make an effort to concentrate during this final hour of your work week, but after staring at your computer screen with blurry eyes, the best you can muster is sending one last email, which requires all your remaining energy, and you still catch a typo after you hit send. The journey home becomes a battle through rush-hour traffic. Cooking dinner feels like a daunting task, so you opt for takeout, and prepare to squeeze all of your personal errands and recreation into two days. Your dentist and bank are closed on the weekends, so you scramble to find time in your already hectic workdays, dipping into your PTO hours for appointments. You're feeling burnt out, stretched thin, and your ever-expanding to-do list remains unchecked.

We know that the 40 hour work week is outdated. It was designed expecting that a household has two adults, one handling domestic tasks while the other is at work. Research has shown that a 40 hour work week is not ideal for productivity, and leads to high rates of burnout and turnover. More and more I’m hearing rumblings about organizations considering a shift to a 32 hour work week. My last full-time job was at an organization that was in the process of implementing such a work week. The change was “in process” for at least two years, because it’s not as straightforward as it sounds. Or can it be?

Thanks to research from Stanford University , we know that a 32 hour work week is actually better for worker productivity, and encourages better time-management, focus, and more efficient work days. Furthermore, implementing shorter workweeks serves as a powerful competitive advantage in recruiting top-tier talent. It also cultivates trust between employers and employees, trust that staff can manage their own time and workloads, which reduces employee turnover. But beyond the benefits to employers’ bottom lines, it’s better for our people. 

(Just so we have a shared understanding of a 32 hour work week, I’m referring to salaried jobs that were set at 40 hours, being paid the SAME salary for 32 hours instead, or increasing rates for hourly employees so they are making the equivalent of a 40 hr week. I don’t mean cutting staff pay to the equivalent of 32 hours.)

A 32 hour work week encourages dedicated time for self-care, whether that means spending time with family and friends in recreation, or simply having the time to shower and eat a nourishing dinner every day. Shorter days, shorter weeks, and flexible hours allow space for people to meet their needs by accessing resources that are often only available during office hours, such as doctors’ appointments. Parents can utilize shorter work days to ensure their kids get home safely from school, and save thousands on childcare. Our community thrives when its members are healthy, rested, and trusted to manage their time and meet their needs. Thus, our organizations and the communities they serve also flourish. 

So, implementing a 32 hour work week should be a no-brainer, right? Through first-hand experience, and tales from the sector, I have noticed several common challenges associated with its implementation. These pitfalls can exacerbate inequity within organizations and hinder the potential benefits of shorter working hours.

I often see 32 hour weeks implemented as optional, and to be spread through the work week at each staff member's discretion. While this is great when simply taking Fridays off, or ending each day at 3:30 doesn’t serve everyone on a team, this unstructured flexibility can also lead to disparities if not everyone adheres to the 32-hour limit. When 32 hours isn’t mandatory for everyone on the team, it will only be accessible to some, especially when leaders aren’t setting the example and are overworking themselves. I have noticed busyness being used as currency in the organizations I’ve worked with, and a scarcity model encouraging staff to feel the need to justify their time spent, to prove how hard they are working by constantly being busy. When someone in leadership uses their overtime hours as a reason to gain respect, that becomes embedded in the DNA of an organization. Employees taking advantage of the 32-hour workweek may be seen as privileged and less dedicated compared to those working 40 or more hours per week. This perception can create divisions and affect team dynamics. 

Now before you jump to making the hours mandatory and considering the problem solved, it’s important to understand that this is not a choice that individual staff are making or at-fault for. It is the responsibility of the organization to ensure workloads are reduced and the necessary work can happen in 32 hours each week. Some staff aren’t able to enjoy a 32 hour work week, because they still have 40+ hours worth of work to do. I see this most commonly in HR/Finance/Operations. And you know why? Because that is often just one person, doing the job of three people (I could write a whole separate piece on this phenomenon, and I probably will). We overwork our administrators and in small shop orgs, often having individuals doing the work of 2 or 3 people. How can they be expected to “time manage” their way to 32 hours/ week?

While it’s important to build trust with your staff and give them the autonomy to manage their own project time, it is still the responsibility of an organization to provide staff with the project and time management tools they need to work efficiently and effectively in fewer hours. Does your organization have consistent project management tools that cut down on redundancies and miscommunications? Are there accountability structures in place to ensure work is getting done and time isn’t spent tracking down a task that should have been completed weeks ago? Are there policies around meeting structures and frequencies? If an organization hasn’t implemented consistent processes and policies for how a team works together, wasted time is almost guaranteed. And if leadership isn’t regularly evaluating the 32 hour week practice, inequities in its implementation will persist and resentment will build between staff and leadership. 

While the benefits of a 32 hour work week are innumerable, it’s important to tackle these challenges to ensure equitable implementation and accessibility. Begin with assessing current workloads and staffing levels. Redistribute tasks and hire more staff if necessary (the benefits outweigh the expense in the long run, trust me), and make sure that everyone has a work plan that is clear and manageable. Develop org-wide processes and consistencies in meeting frequency, communication standards, and project management, and equip staff with project and time management tools and provide training so that they can make the most out of fewer hours. 

Leaders should lead by example by sticking to the 32 hour limit whenever possible and create a culture that values work-life balance, instead of glorifying busyness. Leaders can reinforce a core value of self-care and well-being by communicating the benefits of a shorter week and dispel any perceptions of “privilege” that could be causing a cultural divide. Regular check-ins and evaluation of the 32-hour week's progress from leadership will ensure a level playing field, identify pain-points, and keep everyone on the same page. 

The shift towards a 32-hour workweek is more than just a trend; it's an actionable step towards redefining how we value team care and prioritize well-being. With research supporting its benefits for productivity, work-life balance, and talent retention, organizations have a unique opportunity to reshape their culture and support their staff's holistic needs. However, successful implementation requires careful planning, equitable policies, and a commitment to changing the 'busy' mindset. By embracing the 32-hour workweek, we are acknowledging our staff’s humanity, prioritizing individual and team well-being, and fostering thriving communities and organizations where everyone can be their full selves and succeed.

*shakes fist at capitalism*