Credit: Ris and Ry, Unsplash

In 2018, a New Zealand-based entrepreneur named Andrew Barnes began an eight-week experiment at his finance company, Perpetual Guardian. He offered all employees a four-day, thirty-two-hour week with no reduction in pay, on the condition that they completed as much work as they had been doing in five days. Andrew had read an article claiming that office workers were actually working only a few hours a day and thought there might be a bargain that would make everyone better off. His hunch paid off. People loved the new schedule, and their productivity did not decline. He had achieved a costless worktime reduction. Although hourly pay increased, because productivity did not fall it was a financially neutral change.¹

Of course, Barnes was not the first person to envision the four-day week. A century ago, John Maynard Keynes famously explained we could have a fifteen-hour workweek by today. In 1956, Richard Nixon predicted that a four-day week would come to fruition in the “not too distant future.”² In the 1970s, there was a flurry of four-day week talk. The 1980s were a period of retrenchment and austerity, with a lull in attention to working time that lasted for decades. Fast forward to 2015, when Iceland began a successful four-year process in which public employees’ hours were reduced to 35. That effort, which involved about 2,500 employees, spread to the private sector. Microsoft Japan ran a similarly successful and widely reported four-day week experiment designed to last a month in 2019. But the movement really took off during the pandemic. Employers, governments, labor unions, and other groups in many countries began advocating for shorter hours. And the most popular form of worktime reduction has been, and continues to be, the four-day week.

After a year on the four-day schedule, fewer than 10 percent of companies have reverted to the five-day workweek.

In 2019, Barnes and his partner Charlotte Lockhart founded an organization called 4 Day Week Global (4DWG). In 2021, they began planning a series of trials of private sector companies who were interested in trying out the model that Barnes had implemented at his company. They soon joined forces with Joe O’Connor, a union campaigner from Ireland who was organizing an Irish trial. I joined the effort and led the research for 4DWG. (I had a longstanding interest in reduced worktime.) Beginning in 2022, 4DWG started running trials in Anglophone countries around the world (Ireland, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia) and later began collaborating with partners in non-English speaking countries. Trials are continuing in countries around the world, and my research team is collecting data or collaborating with researchers in non-English speaking countries. At this writing, more than 300 organizations have gone through a trial, with more than 10,000 participating employees. The organized trials are composed of two months of coaching and training by 4DWG in how to successfully reduce worktime without sacrificing productivity or performance, followed by a six-month pilot period with a four-day schedule. My team fields employee surveys at baseline, three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months. We have also been collecting data from other companies that are not part of organized trials but are implementing a four-day week on their own. We have found that employee well-being increases dramatically and company performance is either stable or improved. After a year on the four-day schedule, fewer than ten percent of companies have reverted to the five-day workweek.

As these efforts proceeded, governments began to show interest in the four-day week. In 2021, the Spanish national government announced a three-year pilot, with subsidies to employers for the fifth day’s wages. That year, the UAE instituted a four-day week for all government employees. The Portuguese, Scottish, and Belgian national governments also have run or begun pilot programs. In 2024, the Dominican Republic announced a four-day, thirty-six-hour workweek for companies that wanted to participate. A number of Eastern European governments have been considering workweek reforms. Interest is also growing among regional and local governments. In late 2024, the city government of Tokyo announced its staff was moving to a four-day workweek. In 2025, one of the most significant fights to watch is taking place in Spain, the first mover in the shift to four days. The government has been completing negotiations with stakeholders on legislation to reduce the workweek to 37.5 hours (from 40) with no reduction in pay. However, business opposition has led to a rift in the governing coalition, so the fate of the measure is still unknown.³

Unions are also getting more interested in the four-day week. The United Auto Workers included a demand for a thirty-two-hour week in its historic 2023 strike. While they didn’t win it, it remains a demand the union is interested in pushing. The AFL-CIO and member unions have endorsed an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act to reduce the standard workweek to thirty-two hours. European unions are also getting more interested in the four-day week. When I discussed the issue with a staffer from the collective bargaining unit at IG Metall in May of 2022, they were confident that there was no four-day interest among their German units. About a year later, the union won a demand for thirty-two-hours in negotiations for 68,000 workers.⁴

The combination of pandemic hangover and the looming disruption of . . . AI . . . suggest the power of this [four-day workweek] movement is real.

What are we to make of all this activity? Is the momentum for a four-day week that has been building over the past four years significant enough to finally break the logjam that the five-day week has become? The combination of pandemic hangover and the looming disruption of artificial intelligence (AI) are factors that suggest the power of this movement is real. On the other hand, a breakthrough of this magnitude is difficult to achieve on a nationwide, or global scale. And there have been flurries of interest in the four-day week for seventy years with no real progress. Will this time be different?

Why Now?
While there was a movement for a four-day week before the pandemic, it was having difficulty gaining traction. The media was quick to run stories about the few companies that were trying it, but press attention didn’t seem to be moving the needle. Indeed, some of the early moves by the Spanish, the UAE and others seemed unconnected to ongoing campaigning. The exception was the United Kingdom. John McDonnell, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer under Jeremy Corbyn, was a strong voice for the thirty-two-hour week, and in 2019, he announced it would be a part of Labour’s platform should they return to power. During the Corbyn years, there was growing civil society campaigning on the issue. When 4DWG began its first U.K. trial in June 2022—a collaboration with the U.K Four Day Week Campaign and the Autonomy Institute—the trial was almost twice as large as any of the others we had run. Elsewhere, the issue wasn’t really on the radar.

Then the pandemic arrived and turned the four-day week from an aspirational but unattainable reform into common sense. As the Overton window (a term that describes a range of ideas that shift from being unacceptable to mainstream) widened, the four-day week slipped in. Three factors help explain why. First, employers had just gone through a transformational experience with remote work. Remote work was something that had been technologically feasible for many years, but management’s opposition had kept its uptake marginal. As millions of employees shifted successfully to this modality, it led many employers to be more open to changes they had previously felt were not viable. Anecdotally, I have had a number of them tell me that their experience with work-from-home is what made them willing to try the four-day week. The pandemic led to more open-mindedness.

This would likely not have been sufficient to create as much interest and momentum as there has been without the fact that workers everywhere were struggling. The pandemic resulted in levels of stress and burnout that were far beyond what people had been experiencing beforehand. Gallup’s annual State of the Global Workplace reported record high levels of stress in 2020, which increased again the next year and did not decline until 2023.⁵ Gallup’s other metrics, such as employee engagement and disengagement, quiet (and loud) quitting also showed spikes in employee distress. Other surveys and qualitative studies had similar results. Reasons differed across demographic and age groups, and by work modality (in-person versus remote). However, the existence of stress and burnout was common. A 2021 global survey by Microsoft of more than 30,000 employees⁶ found that with one exception, in all the groups they surveyed, more than half the respondents were “struggling.” (The lone exception was “business leaders.”) This study also found that 17 percent of respondents reported that they had cried with a coworker.

[M]ost respondents would require significantly higher pay to go back to five. More than ten percent say that “no amount of money” would induce them to take a five-day job.

The third factor is growing tightness in the labor market. While a number of countries were experiencing austerity and downturns, in the United States, the long period of labor surplus had come to an end. A combination of factors—demographic, pandemic illness, and the freedom that stimulus checks gave to low income workers—meant that employers were having difficulty attracting and retaining people. By 2022, the Great Resignation was in full swing, with 50.5 million Americans, representing nearly a third of all workers, leaving their positions. At its height, monthly quits were running at 4.5 million. Of course, most of these people found other jobs. But on the employer side, finding people had become a more serious problem. Unfilled vacancies were running at almost double their pre-pandemic levels,⁷ although those numbers may be inflated by growing inaccuracy in the standard measures. As the pandemic eased, labor market conditions remained substantially similar. Despite double-digit inflation, the Federal Reserve had little stomach for raising interest rates and creating the kind of severe recession it had engineered in the past. Neither political party seemed inclined to stop the significant rise in wages at the low end of the market or to curb the growth in labor power. This is a secondary impact of the pandemic. In periods of war, economic hardship, and other adverse events, elites are generally loathe to inflict more pain on working people. As a result, employers needed new ways to attract employees and keep them working productively. The four-day week is a game-changer in that respect. Our ongoing research finds that applications for positions rise at four-day week organizations. Quits decline markedly. Employees are mostly grateful and loyal. Anecdotally, as the trials have continued, we are hearing more from employers about labor market conditions.

A final part of the “why now” question is artificial intelligence. After the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022, the job-killing potential of AI became an increasing subject of interest. An obvious alternative to job loss is to reduce hours per job. Of course, whether this kind of intentional job preservation strategy is enacted depends on multiple factors, most importantly the power of labor and the state of national politics. While many aspects of how the United States responds to AI remain unsettled, it is possible that worktime reduction will be an important part of that response. One hopeful sign is that a number of high profile individuals, such as Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Jamie Dimon, and Steve Cohen have publicly stated that they believe AI will lead us to a four, or even a three-and-a-half-day week. Their support brings credibility to the movement.

Findings from the Four-Day Trials
The 4DWG trials have yielded very positive results. We have been tracking twenty well-being measures—stress and burnout, physical and mental health, anxiety, fatigue, sleep, work-family balance, and others. On all of them, in every trial, we have statistically significant improvements after six months.⁸ These results persist at twelve and twenty-four months as well. What we hear from employees is that the new schedule is “life-changing,” “amazing,” and “the best thing that ever happened to me.” We ask about the monetary value of four days and find that most respondents would require significantly higher pay to go back to five. More than ten percent say that “no amount of money” would induce them to take a five-day job. There is little doubt that for employees, this is a highly valuable benefit that makes a big difference in their quality of life and happiness. These results are not especially surprising.

What is less expected, and more complicated to explain is why the companies are also very positive. We have roughly ninety percent success, as measured by retention of the four-day week after one year. Our finding counters the commonly held view that employers resist worktime reduction because it is costly and that gains in free time are forced on them by workers. In the trials we have studied, the impetus is coming from management, and the idea is that both labor and capital can benefit. It does not alter the balance of power between the two sides but offers a new way to think about time. How does that happen?

[O]rganizations are counselled not to focus on individual productivity, but to implement organizational change. Most do this by figuring out where they are wasting time.

The 4DWG model is based on the premise that the organization will figure out how to maintain productivity with one less day at work, thereby providing a well-being benefit to workers at no cost to the company. During the two-month training period in our trials, organizations are counselled not to focus on individual productivity, but to implement organizational change. Most do this by figuring out where they are wasting time. Common changes are to reduce the time people spend in meetings, create more focused, uninterrupted time, and to introduce new software to help with those goals. Some companies go through more rigorous exercises. Success with these measures suggests that time-wasting is a widespread phenomenon. The companies in this group tend to be white collar organizations, including professional service and marketing firms, which is the largest group in our sample. However, not all the companies take this route. Some are responding to staff burnout, in situations where time-wasting is minimal. These are more likely to be social service organizations, non-profits, healthcare companies, and restaurants. They do not ask individuals to do more in four days. They just give more time off. Yet they are also successful, because they reduce stress and burnout, which yields higher quality service and fewer quits. Of course, many organizations are hybrids, maintaining productivity to a large extent but also benefiting from fewer quits and less burnout. Another dynamic we have seen is that workers see the four-day week as a “gift,” and appreciate that their employers care about them. Employers are glad that their employees are happier, more loyal, and less likely to quit. They are also pleased with the larger and better quality of applicant pools they get for open positions.

Employers are glad that their employees are happier . . . and less likely to quit. They are also pleased with the larger and better quality of applicant pools . . .

While there are many kinds of companies in the trials, our sample is not representative. It is disproportionately comprised of small entities. Sixty percent have twenty-five or fewer employees. And although we have a few with 1,000 or more, only twenty percent have more than fifty employees. (Almost half of Americans work in small firms.) This is partly because larger firms can implement a four-day week schedule without help from outside expertise, but it is also because the very largest companies are still less likely to make these changes. However, we have learned about a few that have begun the process in the last year.

A second issue is that the participating firms do not have large numbers of low-wage workers. Most of the employees in our sample are salaried, and only a quarter of them lack college degrees. These are also mostly not low-road employers; humane management is over-represented in our sample. Most are not unionized firms, although unionization is compatible with this model.

In terms of feasibility, a big question is whether this model can work beyond the white- collar settings which dominate our sample. Professional services is the largest group. We also have banks, tech companies, non-profits, healthcare organizations, restaurants, and local governments. We do have a few manufacturing concerns who have been very successful with it. But they are small, niche producers. White collar settings are more conducive, because they have more inefficient work processes. However, that is not something inherent in their operations. It has to do with the fact that manufacturing has faced so much global competition that the sector has less scope for costless worktime reduction. At the same time, if the four-day week spreads, there will likely be labor market pressure to adopt it, even in sectors and industries where it is not possible to maintain productivity with one fewer day on the job.

Analyzing feasibility reveals a paradox. The 4DWG model currently works best at the two ends of the intensity spectrum—that is, for low and high intensity organizations. Low intensity companies waste time and can find efficiencies. High intensity organizations have already reduced inefficiency, but they have ratcheted up the pace and stress of work so far that reducing it yields benefits in terms of retention, attraction, service quality, and employee health. The companies in the middle will likely be later adopters. Organizations which are unable to offer high enough salaries to compete with other employers are another category for whom the model is viable now. The South Cambridgeshire District Council government in the United Kingdom was able to achieve considerable savings for this reason, while maintaining or improving constituent service. Non-profits and small firms are also often in this situation. A final point is that in a period of transition, the kinds of organizations for whom a worktime reduction is viable will shift over time, as the labor market adapts to shorter schedules.

[W]e have tried to be attentive to negative features [of the four-day workweek] for workers. The most obvious was work intensity.

In addition to feasibility, there is also the question of desirability. While it’s clear that employees like this model, at the moment it is largely an employer-driven innovation. Are there aspects that undermine its usefulness for labor? In our research, we have tried to be attentive to negative features for workers. The most obvious was work intensity. Perhaps this is just a speed-up, because of the expectation to do five days’ work in four days. If work re-organization doesn’t yield true efficiencies, intensity would have to rise. We began our research with two survey questions to measure intensity. When they showed no increase from the pre-trial measurement to six months later, we were suspicious. We added a number of additional measures and did find a very small, although inconsistent increase in metrics such as pace of work and workload. But we also found another effect, which is positive: People’s sense of their own performance and work ability rises. They feel more efficient and better about their work. This in turn has a robust impact on the well-being measures.⁹ This has led us to conclude that while for some people there is a bit of increased intensity, overall we are not seeing a classic case of employer speed-up. Our interview data supports that interpretation.

The Future for the Four-Day Week?
Given current high levels of political instability it is hard to predict the future of the four-day week. Its status varies considerably by region. In Europe, there is considerable momentum and it seems likely that progress will continue, given openness by governments, union support, and the fact that some larger employers have already begun the process of shifting to four days. In the Middle East, it seems likely that there will be increased adoption in some of the small oil-producing states. With the exception of Japan, which has been on a path of worktime reduction for decades, there has not been much uptake in East Asia. In Africa and Latin America, there is some interest, but to date governmental action has been absent. Europe seems likely to be the global leader, with other regions following.

What of the United States and Canada? Conservative political rule and weak unions suggest that we cannot expect much statutory or contractually driven momentum in the near future. There may be some activity at the state level. Roughly ten states have had some legislative activity—either for state-sponsored pilots or amendments to state level standard workweeks, although no bills have yet passed. However, it is likely that four-day week schedules will continue to proliferate in the next few years. As evidence of their viability for employers builds, opposition to legislation will likely be reduced. A 2024 KPMG survey of CEOs found that thirty percent were “exploring organization-wide work schedule shifts such as the 4-day and 4.5 day week.”¹⁰ Variants such as four ten-hour days or alternate Fridays off are growing faster than the thirty-two-hour week, and they may also be a first step toward a full four-day week.

One of the most interesting things about the current movement in the United States is how similar it is to what happened with the five-day week.¹¹ In contrast to the popular understanding, which credits labor for creating the weekend, pressure originally came, in the 1910s, from Orthodox rabbis and Jewish employers in the garment trades who wanted to observe the Sabbath. Like today, the first firms to adopt the schedule were small, and many found that the shift did not reduce production or raise costs. The practice spread through the following years. A big breakthrough came in 1926 when Henry Ford shifted to five work days in 1926. (The company had already announced its intention to end Saturday work in 1922.) In the early days, the AFL was opposed, as it feared wages would be cut, but by the mid-1920s, unions were becoming more supportive. After 1929, support for worktime reduction was widespread, as a means of promoting employment. But it would still not be until 1940 that a forty-hour standard workweek would become law. The movement today is uncannily similar, in terms of the actors, the debates, and the findings. It may again take a galvanizing event, such as a depression, or another pandemic to get over the finish line. But it does seem that finally, eighty-five years after the United States shifted to five days, the four-day week is on the table.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank members of the Boston College research team—Wen Fan, Guolin Gu, and Ami Campbell—and other collaborators, Joe O’Connor and staff at Four Day Week Global as well as the many companies who participated in our research.