The five-day week has shaped modern jobs for a century, but a shorter schedule is moving from experiment to mainstream discussion. From London to Tokyo, employers are testing whether fewer days can deliver the same results. The promise is simple to understand and powerful to market: the same pay, four days of work, and productivity that holds steady or even improves. What looked radical a few years ago now sits at the center of the global conversation about work.
From Idea to Experiment
The concept existed long before the pandemic, but it was the shift to flexible and remote work that made leaders take it seriously. Companies battling burnout and turnover began piloting shorter weeks without cutting pay, focusing on better prioritization and fewer low-value meetings. 4 Day Week Global helped coordinate large trials, giving executives comparable data across sectors rather than isolated case studies.
The Productivity Question
The largest modern test came in the United Kingdom in 2022 with 61 companies and about 2,900 workers. The results were striking. Most firms reported stable or higher output, and 92 percent chose to continue after the trial, with many making the change permanent. Revenues rose slightly on average during the six months, while resignations fell. Microsoft’s earlier test in Japan told a similar story, with a notable jump in measured productivity when offices closed on Fridays. The lesson is less about cramming five days into four and more about redesigning how time is used.
The Human Factor
Employee responses have been consistent across pilots. Workers report lower stress, fewer sick days, and better work-life balance. The extra day is used for family, exercise, errands, and rest, which often feeds back into motivation and focus. When teams are trusted to manage results rather than hours, morale improves and attrition declines. In surveys, the vast majority of participants say they want to keep the shorter week.
The Business Perspective
Executives worry about coverage, client expectations, and coordination across time zones. Successful adopters solve this with staggered schedules, clear service windows, and tighter meeting rules. In the UK trial, companies reported lower absenteeism and stronger retention alongside steady performance. Some saw revenue growth compared with prior periods. For many leaders, the calculus is shifting from whether a shorter week is possible to whether they can afford not to offer it in competitive labor markets.
The Global Trend
Several governments are now studying or supporting pilots. Iceland’s public-sector trials demonstrated that services could be maintained with shorter hours and that worker well-being improved. Spain launched a national pilot for small and medium-size industrial firms with public funding to help cover transition costs. Belgium passed rules allowing employees to compress their usual hours into four days, a flexibility measure rather than a reduction in total time. In Japan, national guidance has encouraged companies to consider shorter weeks as part of a broader push for better life balance, and local initiatives have continued to test new models.
The Limits and Unanswered Questions
The shift to a four-day week is not without complications. Some sectors, such as healthcare, retail, and hospitality, rely on continuous service and may find it difficult to reorganize schedules without raising costs. There are also open questions about how shorter weeks would affect holiday schedules, sick leave, or part-time roles. In some cases, compressed hours could increase intensity rather than reduce it, especially in client-facing or deadline-driven environments. Most existing pilots involved willing companies with strong internal organization, which may not reflect every workplace. More research is needed to understand how different models perform across industries and how lasting their effects are on pay, hiring, and customer service.
