The pandemic reshaped how we work, live, and prioritize our time. It forced many of us to reconsider what truly matters: not just how much we are paid, but the quality of life, flexibility, and overall work-life balance we can achieve.
The transition from fully office-based work to remote* work, and now to a hybrid** model, has been a whirlwind. The days of us all being totally office bound now seem like a long distant memory, which meant that when companies like Google and major banks started to bringing employees back to the office, they got a lot of pushback from employees who valued their newfound flexibility—no more long commutes, more time for personal activities like yoga, and the convenience of working from home.
We are now settling on a middle ground, where employees split their time between home and office, it balances the autonomy and flexibility of remote work with the collaboration and structure of in-office time, though it still sparks debates about productivity and work-life balance.
This shift has now led to new conversations around working patterns—particularly the four-day workweek. But is it really fit for purpose?
You’ve heard of a ‘candidate-driven market’, or an ‘employee-driven market’, but I’ve always hated those terms because to me, it’s always been about people. Employers need something, employees need something and both sides have to be happy. The idea that one should dominate the other is flawed. Employers will always have the power because they pay the wages, but it’s the employees who drive conversational change. This is the same for working patterns; they must benefit both parties.
One of the things I’ve banged the drum about for years is moving away from hours worked as a measure of productivity. The badge of honour for working 60-hour weeks? That’s outdated. If you’re doing that, either you’re not doing your job properly or your boss isn’t managing you well. Productivity should be measured by output, not time on the clock.
But where does the four-day week fit in? The key issue lies in understanding what this actually means. Compressed hours, which involve cramming a full week’s work into four days, isn’t a true four-day week —it’s just a reallocation of the same problem. It doesn’t reduce the workload; it just shifts the burden around. In fact, compressed hours often exacerbate stress because employees are still expected to deliver the same output in less time.
Earlier this year, I conducted a series of polls on Linked in and over 800 people voted. The polls revealed that when working from home, most people didn’t take a full lunch break, they continued to work when ill, they worked later and also started earlier; how does this equate to work/life balance?
If you’re asking someone to complete ten tasks in five days, and now you are expecting the same ten tasks in four days, where’s the gain? Either they weren’t busy enough before, or now they’re working under added pressure. Compressed hours simply repackage the 40-hour workweek, and in an industry like ours, that doesn’t solve the problem.
A true four-day workweek should mean a reduction in workload—doing 80% of the previous work for 100% of the pay. But how many businesses are willing or able to make that shift? It would mean either lowering expectations or hiring more people to pick up the slack. That’s where the system starts to fall apart, particularly for smaller companies that don’t have the headcount or resources to spread the workload across more employees.
The real solution might lie somewhere between flexible*** and hybrid working. If compressed hours are the route companies choose, flexibility must be part of the equation. Commuting is a massive time drain, so the ability to work from home or from wherever you’re most productive becomes essential. For many, the idea of clocking in 10-hour days at the office is impractical if you’re also then spending hours on the commute.
Also, I’d like to throw this into the mix: should flexibility extend beyond the traditional Monday-to-Friday schedule? For some people, working on weekends might be preferable. People without children or empty nesters, for instance, might appreciate the option to spread their hours across non-traditional working days to take advantage of a few hours in the week when shops and recreational activities aren’t so busy. If we’re talking about truly flexible working, why not offer people the chance to work Wednesday to Saturday, or even swap a weekday off for a weekend shift?
Ultimately, the four-day workweek as we envision it—fewer hours, same pay—won’t work across our industry. Compressed hours might be a stopgap solution, but without true flexibility, it risks adding more stress and decreasing overall employee well-being.
The key will be finding a balance where output, flexibility, and realistic expectations meet. Until then, it’s clear that the four-day workweek, at least in its current form, just isn’t feasible in the events industry.
*Remote = never needed in an office
**Hybrid = fixed days in an office and WFH
***Flexible = set number of days but no set pattern
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
About the author.
I’m Robert Kenward, Chief Talent Officer and creator of FitabilityⓇ.
I’ve been working in thehttps://www.yousas.co.uk/fitability/ recruitment, Live Events, Brand Experience, and Experiential Marketing space for over two decades. I’ve been a candidate, a client, and a recruiter.
This makes me well acquainted with the challenges you face and enables me to cover the entire talent spectrum above £60k.
I care deeply about my work and I’m generous with my time.
Get in touch if you’d like a new perspective on solving classic hiring problems.
07710 681980
Or book directly into my diary HERE to see how I can help you attract, select and retain your next senior hire.
