Housing secretary Steve Reed publicly criticised South Cambridgeshire district council after its trial of a four-day working week, citing declines in rent collection, re-letting times and tenant satisfaction with repairs. He pointed to an independent 104‑page report that includes detailed tables and graphs.
That same report, produced by academics from three UK universities, paints a more nuanced picture. Of 24 objective performance indicators examined, 21 were stable or improved during the trial. The three measures Reed highlighted did show downward trends, but the researchers say there is no definitive link between the shorter week and those declines. They note those outcomes may have been driven by wider forces such as the cost‑of‑living crisis, contractor shortages and housing market conditions.
“Criticism appears to be based on the assumption that working more hours automatically achieves better results,” said Daiga Kamerade, professor of work and wellbeing, adding that this premise is not backed by mounting scientific evidence.
Interest in a four-day week has grown, especially since the Covid pandemic. The largest trial to date ran from June to December 2022 with 61 organisations and about 2,900 workers. Fifty-six organisations chose to continue the reduced-hours model after the trial, and 18 made it permanent. Results were not universally positive: some employers found the approach too costly, required extra hires to cover gaps, or put more pressure on staff on the days they worked. But most participating organisations reported lower stress and burnout, better work–life balance, increased revenues (an average rise of 35% compared with previous years) and a 57% fall in staff turnover.
Concerns are understandably sharper where public services are at stake. Rolling out a four-day week across taxpayer-funded services raises questions about continuity and capacity, and ministers argue social housing services must run efficiently to help tackle homelessness.
Still, momentum toward more flexible working is growing, and the evidence of benefits is hard to ignore. Emphasising a few negative data points while dismissing broader positive findings risks obscuring the full picture. As trials and evaluations continue, policymakers will need to weigh trade-offs carefully rather than assuming longer hours always equal better outcomes.