At present, there is an ongoing debate about which measures could be adopted to improve employees’ working conditions. This is due to the fact that there is increasing evidence of the psychological impact that mounting workloads and a lack of tools to manage various workplace-related situations have on staff members: these situations include work peaks, difficult customer relations and mental and emotional health, which inevitably also form part of the elements that characterize the involvement of the human factor in the performance of a profession. As such, there have been many studies dedicated to analyzing the elements of conflict at work and needs of workers, which could have a positive impact on their performance were they fulfilled. Of course, this is not something new, since for several decades we have seen several measures being implemented by employers so that employees can have access to a number of benefits that allow them to pursue their profession more comfortably, especially in terms of work-life balance. These include maternity/paternity leave (a break from work due to childbirth, as well as in cases of adoption, guardianship and foster care), reduced working hours (reducing the number of hours a staff member works per day, week or month in order to combine their work with other activities, such as studies, caring for relatives, childcare, etc.) and leave of absence from work. In this way, many employees who did not have the possibility of juggling their professional obligations and their personal affairs are now able to find their own way of attending to both.
In more recent times, during which optimization has been a developing issue for both employees and employers, a question that has acquired relevance is that of 100% remote work, or specifically, its viability in certain sectors. This is a matter that became practically compulsory at the start of the coronavirus pandemic crisis in 2020, in which a large segment of the workforce had to keep working from their homes. This was a smooth transition for many businesses. It was observed that performance levels remained the same or even improved, which led to the debate about installing remote work as a permanent fixture, whether completely or partially, at a time when this was already a reality for many businesses.
All of these considerations called into question the well-known 8-hour workday schedule, the so-called 9 to 5and the relevance of working to fulfil a contractual schedule instead of working towards targets, which, oftentimes, could be reached much earlier than with the current model. The thought process went one step further and began questioning the possibility of compressing conventional production efforts to the point of reaching the targets projected for five days into just four days, leading to the four-day workweek proposal.
Needless to say, the allure of a four-day workweek which allows a full three-day rest is strong for those employees who are feeling stressed out, disengaged or who cannot meet their personal commitments as well as they would wish. Therefore, given the growing interest in this theory, numerous studies have been carried out across many companies to draw out the main benefits that this measure could entail. Essentially, the research mentions an increase in productivity, caused by the simple fact that employees feel a sense of urgency when they have to concentrate all their efforts into a short weekly period (the argument here being that there are unproductive gaps in the 5-day workweek). It also highlights the possibility of achieving a better work-life balance, since there is an additional day that can be devoted to personal matters, spending time with loved ones or enjoying outdoor activities to give the mind a rest, which is unequivocally associated to a reduction in stress. Regarding other matters, additional benefits such as cutting both fuel costs and consumption are mentioned.
This begs the question: would it be possible to implement a four-day workweek in the translation industry? As with any other business, language service providers operate on a target basis, so at first glance, concentrating the preparation of translation assignments into four days a week could seem feasible. However, the main drawback is that the production in translation agencies depends directly on their clients’ requirements, which cannot be restricted to four days a week, as these are constantly developing. In other words, even if translators were to work four days a week, their clients would still require assistance on Fridays or even weekends, meaning that, to attend these needs, the agencies would be short-staffed or would have to hire new replacement staff on the other days, which would be very costly and would in fact work against the interests of both employees and employers. A popular example of this scenario in Spain is the case of this model’s implementation at Telefónica, where the employees opted out of the model as it included a corresponding pay cut. All of this means that, even though we work according to targets in the translation industry, the work volume is defined by the needs of our clients. These needs can arise at any time and the agency must have the relevant human resources to meet them, which is why this working model does not seem feasible in the near future of the sector.
Image reference: https://www.callcentrehelper.com/productivity-4-day-working-week-202236.htm
