The Threat of Change on Identity: Organisational Limitations of Implementing the Four Day Work Week

Photo by Craig Whitehead on Unsplash

The ‘normality’ of the five day work week has existed for over a century, a schedule that many organisations stand by, expecting it to increase output and reduce costs. What is underacknowledged, however, is the reinforcement of the belief that value equals time spent, and commitment can be measured through ‘visible’ effort. While the four day work week is generally well received as a concept, when applying to real life scenarios, there are fundamental structures within organisations that restrict the potential freedom and efficiency. Some would view one less working day as less opportunity to complete work, where others may be concerned that it is not a reduction of work, but a compression of it. If that extra day off is a psychological buffer to enables efficiency, instead of restricting it, what has to change first to make it a possibility?

In a recent study, people were asked about their opinion on the four day work week. Some saw the extra day off as breathing space, as a chance to re-balance life, family, play and rest, others considered more time with family and reconnecting work with lived life and not obligation. On the other hand, some feared the quantity of workload spread over less time, potentially resulting longer days and more stress, acting as a counterargument to the intended wellbeing goals of the four day work week discussion. When approaching from a psychological stance, the opinion can be shaped by our conceptualisation of work, worth and identity, equating busyness with value, and the ‘shrinking’ of time triggers deep rooted fear about productivity, identity and legitimacy.

Adopting a four day work week is not simply a question of preference, it depends on organisational context, leadership capabilities, and whether or not systems exist to support the implementation. Many industries may view this working structure as logistically complex, mainly due to the current working systems not being designed to support it without the loss of productivity or client satisfaction. The structure of businesses is the biggest threat to the evolution of the working timetable; there is a core unconscious belief in workplaces, employees understand that if they are not busy then they therefore are not valuable.

Work historically served both as a financial necessity and as something that cultivated identity, meaning and social legitimacy. Reducing the work week threatens this identity unless it’s accompanied by a deeper shift in the root of the definition of contribution, success and worth.

The four day work week exposes what a lot of organisational research avoids; the unconscious assumptions in work culture. Much of this type of research treats work arrangements as neutral mechanics e.g. the reduction of hours will improve wellbeing. It doesn’t appear to be the only aspect at play, work is not simply the hours, it’s a symbolic contract between the individual and the organization, a narrative about identity and worth and a system of mutual expectations, fear and desire. The fear is not just of workload, but of falling behind, losing status or being judged as less committed. Is the idea of work-life balance masked by a fear of inadequacy?

 What determines whether or not a shorter working week would work? It may be the management and understanding of expectations, leadership that supports the change, the trust between teams being maintained and clients that remain engaged. These concerns are not technical, they are psychological and relational, with focus on trust, meaning and shared norms. The success of a four day work week lies less in policy and more in shared commitments, trust cultures and emotional intelligence within organisations.

The consideration of this type of drastic change offers a mirror on how people define themselves; as workers, or part of a community, or in their own identities. Work does not have to define people, but the future of change in the workplace requires a reckoning of assumptions about why we allow it in the first place.

From a depth psychology perspective, the five day week also functions as a collective symbol. It structures not only time, but identity. A four day work week threatens not just hours, but the unconscious belief that productivity equals worth. Work becomes the organising principle of adulthood, where competence, worth, and belonging are a performance. To question the five day norm can therefore stir anxiety: if we loosen our attachment to work as the primary measure of value, what fills the space? Beneath debates about productivity lie unconscious fears about irrelevance, loss of status, and confronting parts of ourselves that are not defined by output. In this sense, the strain of the five-day week is not only physical or logistical; it is existential. To rethink work is to question the stories we tell ourselves about who we are when we are not working.

For the full paper, published in Administrative Sciences, 2025, find the link here: From Five to Four: Examining Employee Perspectives Towards the Four-Day Workweek | MDPI

Follow The Heretic for discussions about working practices that go against social norms and what may be needed to achieve them