Fewer Hours but No Fewer Stresses: What Else Must Change To Make Room For Shorter Working Weeks?

Photo by Eric Rothermel on Unsplash

It’s a common understanding in the workplace that hours worked equals value produced, but is this a misconception? Do more working hours actually produce better outcomes? We toy with the fantasy of the shorter work week, and the reality is that most employers won’t see it as a benefit, but a financial nightmare, to pay people a full wage for fewer hours of work. The real question is, does research support a change to a 30-hour work week, or is it something that is only worthy of an ideology? Are there other factors at play restricting the possibility of a more even work-life balance?

In a panel study, employees reduced their working hours from the traditional full-time schedule to a 30-hour week, with full pay, for a full year. The results? Wellbeing didn’t just shift, it fractured across domains; work-family conflict decreased but general wellbeing didn’t improve reliably and people’s positive work experience tended to decrease. A mixed bag. Time liberated from work doesn’t automatically translate into a better life. It changes where the struggle shows up.

Wellbeing is not one concrete thing. Why did the work-family wellbeing increase? Most likely due to the increase in free time, more time with family, where this may get neglected. The important distinction is that time is not the same as fulfilment.

It’s not just about the number of hours we pour into work, or family time, or anything; it’s about who gets to control those hours. Greater control over a schedule may help mitigate some negative effects of job experience; shorter hours don’t automatically make work better, but autonomy can empower a sense of meaning. Most workplaces reduce flexibility when schedules are tightened, but if autonomy matters more than hours, why is work designed around purpose, rather than presence?

Even if work-family conflict drops, there was no evidence of general or job-related wellbeing rising; if anything, they declined slightly. Removing working hours doesn’t magically elevate subjective happiness; the time freed from work was not universally experienced as restful or meaningful. When a person stops focusing so much on the stressors of their work life, the other pressures in their life can make an appearance. More energy available to worry about other things. Reducing hours may be a starting point to improving wellbeing overall, but it is not a one-size-fits-all template.

An interesting point about this study is that most of the people involved were women, and most of those had practical household responsibilities as well as their full-time jobs. Freeing time for people who already juggle multiple roles is not the same as freeing time for an individual with fewer social expectations. A meaningful work redesign must account for lived social context, not just block schedules. For some, work may be the most freeing aspect of their lives, and liberation amplifies existing burdens, rather than mitigating them.

If cutting hours does not consistently increase wellbeing, what does? Is it quality over quantity? Context? The real workplace change may be a new system design that is adaptable to human flexibility instead.

We like to try to fix wellbeing, but it cannot be fixed, it can only be understood. Understanding begins with the willingness to question assumptions, analyse complexity, and embrace ambiguity. This is not to say that a shorter working week is not of benefit, but the deeper question is why do we work, how do we want to live, and what does freedom actually cost? Reducing hours isn’t just a tactical experiment; it’s philosophical, and philosophy asks more questions than it answers.

Depth psychology offers an alternative lens to this research. On the surface, this looks like a policy puzzle. At depth, it is a psychological revelation. Rooted in the work of Carl Jung, depth psychology would suggest that time is rarely the true protagonist of distress. When hours are reduced, what disappears is structure, and what emerges in its place is the psyche. More free time does not guarantee fulfilment because dissatisfaction is not always caused by busyness; it can stem from disowned ambition, unconscious role expectations, or unresolved identity tensions. If work has been the primary container of meaning, shortening it may expose an existential vacuum rather than relief. The study’s findings subtly confirm this: structural change alone does not transform inner life.

For professionals, this is confronting as it suggests that burnout may not only be overwork, but over-identification; that autonomy matters because it restores agency; and that redesigning work without exploring the unconscious narratives we attach to it will always produce partial results. This is the ever-considered question: to redesign what is external, we must start by interrogating the internal narrative.

For the full paper published in BMC Public Health, 2024, find the link below:

An organizational working time reduction and its impact on three domains of mental well-being of employees: a panel study - PMC

Follow The Heretic for reflections on traditional work practices and alternative systems to improve psychological wellbeing