Better wellbeing, higher productivity and lower stress: Findings from Scottish Government's four-day week pilot

The Scottish Government has this week published the results of a pilot four-day working week at two of its public bodies.

The year-long pilot took place at the Accountant in Bankruptcy and South of Scotland Enterprise, where staff were given the opportunity to work a 32-hour, four-day week.

An independent evaluation of the trials by the Autonomy Institute has found a wide range of benefits from the switch to a shorter working week, including productivity and wellbeing improvements.

The Automony Institute also shared a series of lessons for other organisations considering moving to a four-day week – although the Scottish Government has already given short shrift to the idea.

The institute also analysed the Scottish Government's separate – permanent – move to a 35-hour week.

Here are some of the key findings from the report. 

‘Significant’ increase in productivity

To assess productivity, AiB monitored the time taken to complete processes for its three main areas, comparing it to the year before the trial. It found no detriment in all three areas – and some elements of improvement – despite staff reducing their hours by five hours each week.

The evaluation said this means that the pilot “was associated with a significant increase in productivity, with work performance remaining stable in spite of a significant reduction in working time across the organisation”.

It added: “Furthermore, viewed on a quarterly basis, there are many cases of improvements in processing times, when the pilot period is compared with the previous year.”

AiB also told researchers that the increase in productivity was not associated with a rise in errors or issues, and reported a perception that several further areas of the organisation had experienced no loss of efficiency.

The increase in productivity was also achieved despite a decrease in staff headcount, prior to and during the pilot period.

The Autonomy Institute said it is therefore “possible to conclude with confidence that the reduction of the standard working week from 37 to 32 hours (including pro rata working time reductions for part-time staff) had no negative impact on service delivery within AiB”.

SOSE’s productivity assessment focused on process time for responding to client enquiries, comparing it to the year before. It found a small decrease the percentage of client enquiries that received an initial response from staff within three working days – from 94% to 92% – but an increase in the total number of enquiries responded to within the target period, as staff had to deal with more enquiries in total.

The Autonomy Institute said it is “fair to report that the reduction of working time to 32 hours over four days did not cause any significant disruption in the area of client response times”.

“The fact that client response times were not significantly disrupted by the reduction in working time is instead suggestive of a productivity increase during the pilot period,” it added.

The report notes that SOSE had a small increase in headcount over the pilot period – rising from 138 to 141.

 

‘Life changing’: The impact on wellbeing 

The evaluation also found significant wellbeing benefits.

At AiB, self-assessment of mental health improved by 18% and average scores for work stress dropped by 18%, with improvements also documented in areas of fatigue, burnout and sleep.

There was also a 47% increase in average scores in the area of “satisfaction with time” – the amount of time staff have "to do the things they like doing", and participants were on average significantly more satisfied with their jobs and their lives in general.

At SOSE, the percentage of staff feeling "very satisfied" with their work-life balance rose very sharply, from 4% pre-pilot to 84% nine months in.

The evaluation also found that 83% of staff reported a "very positive" or "positive" impact on stress (meaning a reduction in stress) and 98% believed the pilot had led to a "very positive" or "positive" improvement in motivation and morale.

The Autonomy Institute said: “In general, the pilot was also extremely popular with staff. Staff who were interviewed often gave highly enthusiastic accounts of their experiences and almost unanimously hoped the policy would be continued beyond the pilot.”

It added that staff with care responsibilities seemed to be particularly supportive of the pilot, often using emotive phrases such as “life changing”.

‘Positive picture’ on sickness absence

Both organisations also assessed the pilot’s impact on sickness absence.

The evaluation found “a positive picture” at AiB, with short-term absences remaining stable and long-term absences decreasing.

At SOSE, the evaluation found there was a small increase in working days lost (0.6%) when looking at days lost as a percentage of total available working days. However, when looking at overall instances of sickness, it found a modest decrease (from 122 to 119 instances). It also found a 26% drop in sick days taken for psychological reasons, from 357 in the year before the pilot period to 265 days during the pilot period.

SOSE also found that the pilot had caused no disruption in staff turnover. There was a small decrease in the number of staff leaving SOSE during the pilot period, compared to the previous year. The number of leavers dropped from 11 (a turnover rate of 8%) to seven (a turnover rate of 5%). Monitoring the recorded reasons for leaving, a HR representative at SOSE reported that there was no relationship between reasons for leaving and the 32-hour pilot.

Lessons for other organisations

The Autonomy Institute evaluation also found that the pilot was a good example of “social partnership working”. It said the two organisations “showed a strong commitment to principles such as consent and staff collaboration in the setting up and running of the pilot” and added that the process “may provide a useful model for other national governments considering pilots”.

The evaluation report also contains a series of “good practice lessons” identified by AiB and SOSE for organisations considering introducing a four-day week.

These include:  

• Ensuring a strong level of staff consultation before introducing the policy, in order to anticipate problems, gauge approval, and gather ideas for the successful transition to the new working pattern
• Providing staff with comprehensive FAQ documents, answering any and all questions about the terms and conditions of a shorter working week
• Preserving existing flexibility arrangements
• Including part-time workers in the shorter working week policy using pro-rata (proportional) working time reductions
• Staggering the day off for the sake of maintaining a five-day service, and schedule inter-team tasks within the ‘core week’ (when all staff are working)
• Thinking carefully about what kind of 32-hour rota is right for different work teams and their organisational challenges, as well as providing a transparent process for allocating days off among staff
• Asking staff to be flexible about working on their day off as a contingency measure in exceptional circumstances – but not undermining the policy’s value by relying on this too greatly
• Ensuring that staff can easily reclaim any time worked on days off as TOIL
• Developing robust conventions for handing over work and covering staff on their day off, including more interdependent working
• Paying special attention to the impact of changing work schedules on staff with school-age children or health conditions

‘Promising signs’: Assessment of move to 35-hour week

The evaluation also looked at the impact of the contractual change to a 35-hour week for the 73 public bodies covered by the Scottish Government Public Sector Pay Policy.

All but one of the 73 bodies had either implemented or expected to implement a 35-hour working week by April 2025, according to the report.

The Autonomy Institute surveyed staff at five of the 73 bodies, all of which had reduced their working week from 37 to 35 hours, and found “promising signs of success”.

It found that 79% of survey respondents felt they had been able to consistently adhere to the new schedule. Two-thirds (65%) of staff deemed their overall experience of the 35-hour work week as very positive, and 83% noted a positive impact on their personal life. Some 86% of respondents expressed satisfaction with their work-life balance.

The survey also found performance benefits, with 71% of respondents indicating that the transition positively affected their productivity and focus, and less than 4% reporting a negative impact. The Autonomy Institute said this “reflects the potential for a reduced work week to maintain, or even enhance, performance standards”.

Some staff, however, reported difficulties with the move to the 35-hour week. For example, 20% of respondents from two of the participating organisations said they struggled to consistently maintain the hours due to time management and workload expectations. Concerns were also raised about being expected to deliver “the same volume of work using the same processes under reduced hours”.

The Autonomy Institute said these “minor difficulties… can be expected in the early phases of transition” and recommended further monitoring of staff perceptions “to smooth practices as part of a ‘new normal’”.