Reading: Multiple Choice: Question 7

Business commentators have debated compressed working schedules for decades, but only in the past few years have a substantial number of companies tested a four-day week with no reduction in pay, rather than simply compressing the same hours into fewer days. In the most closely documented trial, a coordinating body recruited several dozen firms across sectors as varied as software development, marine engineering, and hospitality, each agreeing to cut the working week from five days to four for a fixed six-month period while maintaining full salaries for staff.

Independent evaluators tracked a range of measures before, during, and after the trial. Self-reported staff stress levels fell by nearly a third over the six months, and the proportion of employees describing themselves as burnt out dropped by a similar margin. Company-level revenue, measured against the same period in the previous year, was essentially unchanged across the group as a whole, though the evaluators noted considerable variation: a handful of firms recorded a modest decline, while several others reported revenue growth that they attributed partly to improved staff retention rather than to the schedule change itself.

Not every firm found the transition straightforward. Managers at several client-facing companies reported early difficulty maintaining coverage on the day off, and two organisations in the trial reverted to a five-day pattern before the six months were complete, citing scheduling conflicts with external partners who continued to operate a conventional week. The evaluators were careful to note that firms that abandoned the trial were excluded from the aggregate productivity figures, a methodological choice that later drew criticism from some economists, who argued it likely inflated the reported success rate.

Beyond the immediate results, the trial has prompted a wider discussion among labour economists about whether measured productivity, output per hour worked, is a sufficient basis for judging such schemes, or whether long-term measures such as staff turnover, recruitment costs, and sick-leave rates deserve equal weight. Advocates of the four-day model argue that even a marginal loss in weekly output can be offset by lower recruitment and training costs if fewer employees resign, while sceptics counter that industries with tight margins or continuous shift coverage may find the model far harder to sustain than the trial's software and services-heavy sample suggests.

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

1. What made the trial described in the passage different from previous compressed-schedule arrangements? A. Employees worked the same total hours across fewer days. B. Staff worked one fewer day per week without a cut in pay. C. Only software companies were permitted to take part. D. Employees were required to take a pay cut in exchange for the extra day off.

2. What happened to self-reported staff stress during the trial? A. It increased slightly among client-facing staff. B. It remained roughly the same as before the trial. C. It fell by close to a third. D. It was not measured by the evaluators.

3. According to the passage, overall company revenue during the trial A. fell sharply across almost every participating firm. B. rose significantly for the group as a whole. C. was essentially unchanged for the group, though individual firms varied. D. could not be compared with the previous year's figures.

4. Why did two organisations leave the trial before it finished? A. Their staff voted to return to a five-day week. B. They experienced scheduling conflicts with partners still working five days. C. Their revenue dropped too sharply to continue. D. The evaluators removed them for poor data quality.

5. What criticism did some economists make of the trial's methodology? A. The trial period was too long to produce meaningful results. B. Excluding firms that abandoned the trial may have inflated the reported success rate. C. The evaluators failed to measure staff stress at all. D. Only firms with declining revenue were included in the final figures.

6. According to the passage, advocates of the four-day model argue that A. weekly output always increases once the schedule changes. B. lower recruitment and training costs can offset a small loss in weekly output. C. the model works equally well in every industry, including continuous shift work. D. sick-leave rates are irrelevant to judging the scheme's success.