The five-day working week has been normal for many years. However, some companies and governments are now testing a four-day week.
For many years, the five-day, forty-hour week has been the normal pattern for full-time work. However, some companies and governments are now testing a four-day working week.
Supporters often describe the model as “100–80–100”. Employees receive 100 per cent of their salary, work about 80 per cent of their previous hours and still aim to produce 100 per cent of the expected results.
This is different from compression. In a compressed week, an employee may still work forty hours but complete them across four ten-hour days. A true four-day week usually means working fewer total hours without losing pay.
Different workplaces use different systems. Some close every Friday, while others give employees different days off so services remain available. Some companies use a nine-day fortnight instead.
Recent trials have produced encouraging results. A large international study published in 2025 examined almost 2,900 employees in 141 organisations across several countries.
After six-month trials, workers reported less burnout, better mental and physical health, and greater job satisfaction. They also felt less tired and experienced fewer sleep problems.
These results suggest that fewer hours can sometimes improve performance. An exhausted employee may be present for forty hours without working effectively throughout them. More rest can improve concentration, creativity and decision-making.
However, companies usually need to reorganise work. They may shorten meetings, remove unnecessary reports, automate simple tasks and set clearer priorities.
A major UK trial in 2022 also showed positive results. Sixty-one companies took part, and 56 continued with the model afterwards. Seventy-one per cent of employees reported less burnout, while 39 per cent said they felt less stressed.
Company income remained broadly stable and increased by an average of 1.4 per cent. The number of employees leaving participating companies also fell by 57 per cent.
Lower attrition can save employers money. Recruiting and training new workers is expensive. A four-day week may therefore help companies attract and keep skilled employees.
Portugal tested the model with 41 companies and more than 1,000 workers. Average weekly hours, including overtime, fell from 41.6 to 36.5.
Before the trial, 50 per cent of employees found it difficult to balance work and personal life. Afterwards, this fell to 16 per cent. Ninety-three per cent wanted the shorter week to continue.
Public organisations have also tested the idea. Scotland introduced a 32-hour week with full pay in two public bodies. Staff wellbeing improved while services and performance targets were maintained.
South Cambridgeshire District Council later made its four-day week permanent. Most services improved or stayed stable, job applications rose by more than 120 per cent and fewer employees left.
Iceland is often described as a leader in shorter working hours. Trials involving more than 2,500 public-sector employees reduced many working weeks from forty hours to 35 or 36 without cutting salaries. Productivity generally remained stable or improved.
Other countries use different systems. Government workers in the United Arab Emirates follow a four-and-a-half-day week. Belgium allows some employees to complete their normal hours over four longer days. Tokyo has also introduced flexible arrangements that can make four-day schedules possible.
For workers, the main advantage is more free time. An extra day can be used for childcare, appointments, education, exercise, household tasks or rest. It may give employees greater autonomy over their lives.
Reduced commuting is another benefit. Travelling to work four days instead of five can save time and money. Workers may also feel more rested and motivated.
However, there are disadvantages. The main danger is work intensification. Employees may be expected to complete five days of work in only four days.
This can lead to shorter breaks, faster working and greater pressure. Some workers may answer emails or complete tasks on their day off. In this situation, working hours have not really been reduced.
The model is also easier to introduce in some industries than others. Office teams may reduce meetings and organise projects more efficiently. Hospitals, schools, restaurants, factories and emergency services must provide continuous coverage.
These organisations may need extra staff or more complicated rotas. This creates an asymmetry between workers with flexible jobs and those who must be present at fixed times.
Productivity can also be difficult to measure. It is easier to count sales or completed reports than to measure teaching, caring, mentoring or creative thinking.
The evidence is promising, but many trials are short and involve companies that volunteer to participate. These organisations may already have supportive managers and flexible working systems.
The four-day week is therefore not a perfect solution for every workplace. It works best when employers remove unnecessary tasks, set realistic goals and prevent hidden overtime.
For many employees, it offers better health, more free time and a healthier balance between work and personal life. For employers, it may improve recruitment, motivation and staff retention.
The main question is how society uses higher productivity. If technology allows people to complete work more efficiently, the benefit could be more than higher profits. It could also give workers more control over their time.
Available levels: A1 · A2 · B1 · B2 · C1 · C2