Earlier this year, the founder of New Zealand trust company Perpetual Guardian did something that appears to be without precedent anywhere in the world. In a bid to boost productivity and incentivise his 240 staff to maximise the time spent on meaningful work while in the office, Andrew Barnes announced a six-week trial of a four-day week, in which all full-time staff would be paid for their usual 40 hours while only having to work 32.
The supporting theory, based on reports and studies of worker motivation and productivity, is that giving people more time to spend managing their personal responsibilities will energise them for their professional ones.
As flexible working arrangements (FWAs) go, Perpetual Guardian's is exceptionally bold. In the literature, FWAs can include everything from weekend work to shift work, overtime, annual-hours contracts, part-time work, job sharing, flexitime, temporary/casual work, fixed-term contracts, home-based work, teleworking and compressed working weeks, but there is no example available of another company that has reduced work hours while maintaining full-time pay.
Where there is mounting evidence is that these mutually beneficial agreements between employers and employees (providing alternate options as to when, where and how much a person works) have a real psychological, social and economic impact:
1. FWAs are low-cost. Every benefit a company offers to attract and retain talent comes with a cost – free health insurance, extra leave entitlements, extra retirement fund contributions. FWAs, on the other hand, can cost a company nothing upfront but deliver high rewards in worker engagement, productivity and retention. More than that, FWAs can reduce costs. For instance, allowing people to work offsite some of the time cuts down on office space requirements and potential overhead costs; and an employee who has a sick child can simply work at home while caring for the child, rather than taking a sick day and costing the business.