By: MOHAMMED SHAHEER QADRI
The four-day workweek (4DWW) is an arrangement where employers have their employees come in to work four days a week rather than the more widely adopted fiveday workweek. Reports indicate that 41% of employees are experiencing large amounts of stress at their workplaces (Gallup, 2024), whilst only 23% of workers worldwide are actively engaged in their jobs (Gallup, 2023). These statistics highlight the growing concern regarding employee well-being and workplace satisfaction. To provide a better work-life balance for dissatisfied employees, the 4DWW has emerged as a possible solution. Implementations of the 4DWW take three main forms. The first is the reduced hours approach, otherwise known as the 100-80-100 model, where employees receive 100% of their original pay whilst working 80% of their original hours and maintaining 100% of their productivity. The second is the compressed hours model, where employees work four ten-hour days for 100% of their original pay. The third model has the same reduced hours per week as the first; however, this comes at the cost of reduced pay and the removal of benefits typically afforded to full-time employees. This essay will only be focusing on the first two implementations as the third model is largely rejected by supporters of the 4DWW (Abrams, 2025). This essay considers the implications of the four-day workweek through the themes of productivity, employee wellbeing, and industry specific feasibility. Proponents of the 4DWW cite the many favourable results from test pilots conducted around the world, which show increased productivity, worker contentment, and overall business success. However, critics point out that the underlying assumption behind the 4DWW is that the same amount of work can be completed in a shorter time frame. For industries that require constant availability, such as healthcare, a shorter workweek could negatively impact operations. This prompts the question: Should companies implement a four-day workweek?
To begin, companies benefit from four-day workweeks due to the increase in worker productivity. Since workers are only coming in to work four days a week, with some working fewer hours than before, they tend to eliminate unnecessary meetings and timewasting habits which contributes to greater productivity. In 2019, Microsoft conducted a 4DWW trial in its Japan offices for a month, giving Fridays off for their around 2300 employees, without decreasing pay. The company reported a 40% increase in productivity by the end of the trial, and additionally stated that employees took 25% less time off whilst 92% reported they were happy with the shorter week (Paul, 2019). The results here indicate that not only can employees achieve the required 20% increase in productivity in order to retain the same output, but can even exceed that and generate more output for less time invested. The results here are corroborated by a joint report by independent think tank Autonomy and the Association for Democracy and Sustainability (Alda), an Icelandic organisation. The report analyses two large-scale 4DWW trials held by the Icelandic government from 2014-2019 and 2017-2021. It ultimately concludes that, in both trials (Reykjavík City and the national government), service provision and productivity either remained within the expected variance or increased (Haraldsson and Kellam, 2021). This disputes the claim that the reduction in working hours or days decreases service provision, and therefore substantiates that a 4DWW could be a viable schedule for service based businesses. The findings of this source are reliable since the trial covered a large and diverse sample of workers. Over 2500 workers participated, who collectively represented a large variety of occupations such as office workers and healthcare professionals. Like the Microsoft experiment, the Iceland trials show that a 4DWW increases productivity since workers have better time management and increased focus during the available hours. Thus, because of the gains in productivity attributed to superior time management and focus by employees, companies should adopt the fourday workweek.
Furthermore, adopting a 4DWW improves employee wellbeing and increases staff retention. The world’s largest four week trial took place in the UK from June to December 2022, comprising around 2900 workers from 61 companies. (Lewis et al., 2023). The trial followed the 100-80-100 approach and utilized surveys, interviews, and company metrics in order to evaluate performance. The results showed that 39% of employees were less stressed, and for 54% of employees, it was easier to balance work with household jobs. Moreover, the staff turnover rate was reduced by 57% over the trial period (Lewis et al., 2023). These findings demonstrate that a 4DWW has a substantial impact on employee wellbeing and therefore reduces the rate of staff turnover. These results are backed up by a New Zealand company, Perpetual Guardian, which trialled a 4DWW from March to April 2018. Following the same 100-80-100 structure, the trial concluded with 78% of employees feeling they were able to successfully manage their work-life balance, an increase of 24 percentage points (Roy, 2018). These results again demonstrate the positive impact of a 4DWW on employee wellbeing, and Perpetual Guardian’s decision to continue providing the option to work a 4DWW, now six years after the experiment, also demonstrates its long-term reliability. An issue, however, with Perpetual Guardian’s results is despite their decision to permanently offer a 4DWW, there is no long term follow up of the arrangement’s success beyond the 8-week trial period. This means it is difficult to quantify whether the benefits revealed in the report actually stuck after the 4DWW became permanent. Regardless, Perpetual Guardian’s decision to permanently adopt the 4DWW, along with 91% of the UK trial companies’ agreeing to continue with the 4DWW, support the claim that adopting a 4DWW has long term measurable benefits towards employee wellbeing, therefore reducing the staff turnover rate. This gives companies a substantial incentive to adopt the 4DWW.
However, there are operational challenges that come with a four-day workweek for certain businesses and industries. The Becker Hospital Review, an American hospital magazine, spoke with Greg Till and Maxine Harrington, executives at two different healthcare providers to examine the feasibility of a 4DWW in the healthcare sector. The health system leaders agreed that an entire organisation adopting a 4DWW may not be appropriate. Till expressed that a 4DWW could create availability issues, as whilst it is feasible at an individual or team level, a blanket implementation could render them unable to always support their communities. (Gooch, 2024). He further expressed that it would be particularly unviable for certain roles, such as management, as they often have to look over multiple departments/clinics. This sentiment is echoed by Lachy Gray, the Managing Director of Yarno, an Australian startup, as he recounted the company’s experiences with the four day workweek in a blog post. They had implemented one in 2016 but decided to quit the two year experiment due to scheduling difficulties. Gray described how, despite the commitment of the company at large to make the new schedule a success, inconsistencies arose as he and a few other higher ups were unable to “switch off” on Fridays as they were always trying to find new clients (Yarno.com.au, 2016). This leads to conflicting schedules as, if one person needs to contact another on an off-day, then that disturbs a person’s rest and makes it more difficult for companies to remain available to their clientele. However, the insight provided by the healthcare executives is limited by its lack of proper data regarding the hospital’s key metrics, such as patient wait times and operational costs. Nonetheless, the expert opinions of healthcare and tech professionals underscore that a 4DWW may not suit sectors requiring near constant availability.
Similarly, squeezing five days of work into four can lead to fewer, more intense workdays that can overall leave employees more mentally drained and physically exhausted. The BBC interviewed companies that had faced significant difficulties during the UK’s 4DWW trials mentioned previously. Mark Roderick, owner of industrial supplies company Allcap which participated in the trials, faced setbacks whilst adjusting to the new schedule. He pointed out that for businesses engaging in project-based work, it was easier to adjust as they had greater flexibility in meeting deadlines. However, for companies like his, who were constantly called upon by customers looking for components, scheduling was difficult as not everyone could take the same rest day. This puts pressure on employees as whenever someone had their rest day, that reduced output had to be made up by the rest (Christian, 2023). However, Allcap’s lack of success with the 4DWW could also be attributed to company-specific factors. Mark acknowledges that the company was operating on a slightly reduced headcount and had rushed the implementation of the schedule. This may explain Allcap’s scheduling difficulties, making their experience an exception, not the norm. Nonetheless, the effects of the increase in work intensity here are detailed by an article in the Industrial Relations Journal, which examines the effects of high work intensity on the health and wellbeing of workers in the UK. The report concludes that working at a high intensity is linked to a higher likelihood of feeling ‘usedup at the end of a workday’ by 23 percentage points, and finding it ‘difficult to unwind at the end of a workday’ by 18 percentage points. This report demonstrates that, even if the amount of hours worked per week are reduced (and with those companies that adopt the compressed schedule the weekly hours remain the same), the intensity of those working hours has a detrimental effect on worker well being. Ultimately, the detrimental effect of higher intensity work on employees would make a 4DWW an unattractive alternate schedule for companies.
The claim that the four-day workweek benefits companies is supported by evidence linking it to increased productivity and wellbeing. The former benefit is substantiated by results from large-scale trials, such as the Microsoft Japan program and Iceland’s national trial. Both of these showed equivalent or increased productivity as compared to before despite reduced hours. The latter benefit is validated by the UK and New Zealand trials, which link shorter weeks to lower stress levels and higher staff retention. However, this argument does not fully consider the potential for increased work intensity. The case against the 4DWW is built on concerns regarding operational difficulties and increased employee fatigue. The former disadvantage is limited by its reliance on anecdotal examples, while the latter takes into account long-term health implications, making it the more holistic concern. This argument better reflects the nuances and complexities of different industries.
Prior to my research, I believed that a 4DWW would be an easy solution towards bringing about a greater work/life balance at companies around the world, not considering how different industries, different sized businesses, and even different departments within the same company would be impacted by the change. I began to doubt my viewpoint as I researched how a 4DWW can be detrimental in terms of work intensity in many situations, and comes with its own set of operational difficulties that can entirely mitigate the positive effects it yields. However, I also found research that affirmed my previous beliefs and further demonstrated that a 4DWW can even be implemented in service based sectors which was thought to be unsuitable. I now believe that a 4DWW should be carefully considered by all companies, but should not be treated as a one size fits all solution. It is crucial that further investigation be conducted in order to determine how a reduced work week impacts employees who are compensated on an hourly basis. My research did not make any distinction between salaried employees and hourly workers. Further investigation into how a reduced workweek impacts hourly employees, who rely on consistent hours for income, would offer a more complete picture of the policy’s implications. This should include whether hourly workers experience reduced earnings and/or benefits as compared to their salaried counterparts, using a combination of employee surveys, payroll data, and interviews across industries that have adopted the policy. Including this perspective would help determine whether the four-day workweek is an equitable solution for all types of employees, not just salaried staff.
Bibliography
- Abrams, Z. (2025), ‘The rise of the 4-day workweek’, Monitor On Psychology,
vol. 56, num.1, viewed 7th April, 2025,
(https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/01/rise-of-4-day-workweek). - Christian, A. (2023). Four-day workweek trial: The firms where it didn’t work.
[online] BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20230319-
four-day-workweek-trial-the-firms-where-it-didnt-work. - Gallup (2023). Indicator Employee Engagement. [online] Gallup.com, viewed
11th April, 2025. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/394373/indicatoremployee-engagement.aspx. - Gallup (2024). State of the Global Workplace Report. [online] Gallup.com,
viewed 11th April, 2025. Available at:
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-globalworkplace.aspx?thank-you-report-form=1. - Gooch, K. (2024). What the 4-day workweek looks like in healthcare. [online]
Becker’s Hospital Review | Healthcare News & Analysis. Available at:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/what-the-4-day-workweeklooks-like-in-healthcare/. - Haraldsson, G. and Kellam, J. (2021). Going Public: Iceland’s journey to a
shorter working week. [online] autonomy.work, p.82. Available at:
https://autonomy.work/portfolio/icelandsww/. - Hunt, T. and Pickard, H. (2022). Harder, better, faster, stronger? Work
intensity and ‘good work’ in the United Kingdom. Industrial Relations Journal.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12364. - Lewis, K., Stronge, W., Kellam, J. and Kikuchi, L. (2023). THE RESULTS ARE
IN: THE UK’S FOUR-DAY WEEK PILOT. [online] Autonomy. Available at:
https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-results-are-in-TheUKs-four-day-week-pilot.pdf. - Paul, K. (2019). Microsoft Japan tested a four-day work week and productivity
jumped by 40%. [online] The Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-fourday-work-week-productivity. - Roy, E.A. (2018). Work less, get more: New Zealand firm’s four-day week an
‘unmitigated success’. The Guardian. [online] 18 Jul. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/work-less-get-more-newzealand-firms-four-day-week-an-unmitigated-success - Yarno.com.au. (2016). Blog: How our 4-day work week turned into a 2 year
failed experiment. [online] Available at: https://www.yarno.com.au/blog/4-daywork-week-failure