It’s been 88 years since the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established overtime pay for anything beyond 40 hours, and 112 years since Henry Ford introduced the eight-hour workday. Since then, we have experienced the digital revolution and, more recently, the emergence of artificial intelligence, bringing transformations in how productivity is achieved. Yet we are still clinging to a workweek designed for a bygone era when physical presence equated to productivity.
Colleges and universities have long been places where new ideas take root. We research, question, innovate and develop solutions to society’s challenges. Reimagining the structure of work is simply another opportunity to apply the same spirit of inquiry to our own institutions. By adopting a 30-hour work week for staff—four 7.5-hour days or five 6-hour days with staggered coverage tailored to each office’s needs—we can reinforce values that strengthen families and communities, improve public health, reduce environmental impact and demonstrate that professional success and personal well-being can coexist.
For more than two decades working as a faculty member, I commuted 75 minutes each way, while raising two kids. The flexibility of academic work allowed me to schedule my classes outside of rush hours and work remotely when possible. That flexibility did not diminish my productivity: It enabled it. During those years, I served as principal or co–principal investigator on several National Science Foundation grants, earned tenure and promotion to full professor, assumed leadership roles at national professional organizations, maintained a routine exercising schedule and remained actively engaged in my family’s life.
Three years ago, I transitioned into an administrative staff role, one that requires 8:30-to-5:00 office presence. In this setting, I frequently find myself questioning the efficacy of such a rigid schedule and wondering how working parents, single parents, caregivers, people needing to hold a second job or anyone interested in work-life balance maintains any quality of life.
Research consistently shows that reduced work hours improve well-being, lower stress and allow for a more balanced life without sacrificing productivity. A large study of four-day-workweek trials, conducted by Boston College researchers across six countries and involving nearly 2,900 employees, found substantial reductions in burnout and improvements in workers’ job satisfaction and mental and physical health.
Critics argue that higher education requires consistent physical presence. They are partly correct. Personal engagement remains one of the most valuable aspects of our work. Faculty, advisers, librarians and student support professionals build relationships that help students succeed academically and personally. A 30-hour workweek does not eliminate those opportunities. There are more than enough hours in a thoughtfully designed workweek to provide meaningful face-to-face support while organizing work more efficiently.
Within higher education, discussions about workplace policies often invoke a fundamental misinterpretation of principles of equity. Too often, equity is interpreted as requiring identical working conditions for everyone. In what can easily become a race to the bottom, this interpretation leads to policies where a reduced workweek is discouraged simply because not every role can benefit from it in exactly the same way. In such a model, equity becomes about ensuring everyone shares the same hardship rather than recognizing that people have different responsibilities and circumstances requiring us to design policies that allow individuals to succeed both professionally and personally across those different contexts.
Some colleges have already demonstrated that shorter work weeks are feasible. In January 2022, D’Youville University in Buffalo, N.Y., became a pioneer when it shifted staff and administrators to a four-day, 32-hour workweek, down from 37.5 hours, without any reduction in pay or benefits. President Lorrie Clemo reported that, during a preliminary trial of sorts in summer 2020, the university experienced “more innovative programming coming forward, greater dedication of our employees and much more collaboration.”
It is important to recognize that expecting employees to sustain intense concentration for nearly eight uninterrupted hours is neither cognitively realistic nor organizationally efficient. Beyond diminishing productivity and decision quality, a recent Mass General Brigham study found that prolonged periods of sedentary work contribute to a host of health issues. These health consequences translate directly into higher health-care costs for individuals and institutions.
The conversation about a shorter workweek intersects directly with broader social and economic concerns. The online “tradwife” movement has gained significant visibility by romanticizing traditional domestic roles as a solution to the rising costs of childcare and the weakening of family and community ties. It capitalizes on the exhaustion and guilt many people feel while trying to balance family needs, personal needs and work obligations. But this perspective overlooks a critical issue. The challenge is not that women participate in the workforce. The challenge is that workplace structures have not adapted to the realities of modern family life.
There are also hidden inefficiencies in this structure. Because millions of workers begin and end their workdays at nearly the same time, highways become congested, public transportation is overcrowded and grocery stores, pharmacies and other essential services experience predictable surges during certain hours. Countless hours are collectively lost each day to commuting and waiting in lines, time that could instead be devoted to family, civic engagement, exercise, education or simply rest.
Ultimately, a 30-hour workweek could benefit the institution as well, by potentially reducing the administrative burden of processing sick leave and paid time off and by minimizing workday interruptions.
The 40-hour workweek was revolutionary in 1938. Today, it is an outdated model that no longer reflects how we work or live. The 30-hour workweek isn’t a radical experiment. It is the logical conclusion of a century of progress. This reality is increasingly recognized beyond academia. The recent reintroduction of a 32-hour workweek bill in the U.S. Senate highlights that rethinking the traditional workweek is no longer a far-fetched idea. It is an overdue conversation about how we can structure work to improve organizational efficiency, support employee well-being and create more sustainable workplaces.
Let’s show the world that we believe in the research we do and value our responsibility to model societal leadership through better institutional policies and practices.
Discussion about this post