I’ve been following four-day workweek pilots for years now, and when companies ask whether the model can boost productivity, my answer is inevitably careful: yes — but only when it’s designed and measured properly. I’ve read the data, spoken to managers and employees involved in trials, and watched common mistakes play out. In this piece I’ll share what the evidence shows, practical lessons from pilots around the world, and concrete steps you can take if you want to test a shorter week in your own organisation.
What do we mean by "four-day workweek"?
There are different interpretations. Some organisations compress 40 hours into four 10-hour days. Others reduce weekly paid hours to 32 hours while keeping full-time pay. Then there’s the hybrid model where teams rotate days off. The important distinction is whether the change reduces paid hours (and potentially time spent working) or simply rearranges them. The productivity outcomes differ markedly depending on that choice.
What the research and pilots tell us
Several high-profile pilots have produced measurable results:
- Iceland (2015–2019): Large-scale trials with nearly 1% of the workforce showed productivity stayed the same or improved, while wellbeing rose substantially. Most organisations reduced paid hours without cutting pay.
- Microsoft Japan (2019): The "Work-Life Choice Challenge" gave employees five Fridays off and reported a 40% productivity increase — though the trial also included meeting limits and encouraged tech use to streamline tasks.
- Perpetual Guardian, New Zealand (2018): A privately-run trial with a 20% reduction in hours and no pay change found improved job satisfaction, reduced stress, and maintained productivity.
- UK and US pilots (2022–2024): Trials coordinated by organisations like 4 Day Week Global found roughly 80% of participating companies maintained or improved productivity while employees experienced better wellbeing.
The common threads are not magic: trials that paired reduced hours with explicit productivity measures, meeting discipline, and management support did better. Trials that simply told staff to take Fridays off without systems to focus work tended to see mixed results.
How do companies measure productivity?
Productivity can be a slippery metric. Output differs by role: for a coder, it might be features delivered; for salespeople, closed deals; for support teams, response times. I advise companies to set multiple, role-appropriate metrics before a pilot begins.
- Quantitative KPIs — e.g., tickets closed, revenue per employee, deliverable counts.
- Qualitative measures — customer satisfaction scores, peer reviews, quality audits.
- Process metrics — meeting hours per week, time spent on deep work vs. shallow tasks.
- Wellbeing indicators — absenteeism, self-reported stress, employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS).
Without baseline metrics across these areas, you risk interpreting lost time as lost value when the reality may be that teams are working smarter, not harder.
Key design choices and trade-offs
When designing a pilot, you’ll face choices. Here’s how each tends to play out.
- Reduced hours with same pay — Strongest for morale and retention. Requires careful prioritisation of work; can demand efficiency gains.
- Compressed hours (40 hours in 4 days) — Easier for budgeting but can increase fatigue and reduce meeting-free deep work time.
- Staggered days off — Keeps coverage but complicates collaboration and scheduling.
- Company-wide vs team-by-team — Piloting at team level helps troubleshoot before a full roll-out but can create perceptions of inequality if some teams keep the old schedule.
Operational moves that actually move the needle
From the pilots I’ve studied and the managers I’ve interviewed, certain operational practices consistently mattered more than the calendar change itself:
- Meeting discipline: Set strict agendas, cap meeting length, and block no-meeting time for deep work. Microsoft Japan limited meetings during its trial.
- Clear prioritisation: Encourage teams to separate "must-do" outputs from low-value busywork. Use frameworks like RICE or Eisenhower to prioritise work.
- Delegation and async-first culture: Promote asynchronous collaboration tools (Slack with status etiquette, Loom, Notion) to reduce synchronous time sinks.
- Manager training: Managers must learn to measure outcomes rather than presenteeism and to coach teams on productivity habits.
- Customer communication: If service hours change, be transparent with clients. Rotating on-call or core hours can keep customers happy.
Pitfalls I’ve seen—and how to avoid them
Not every pilot succeeds. Here are common failure modes and fixes I’d recommend:
- Failure to measure properly: Fix: define KPIs and gather baseline data before launching.
- Assuming people will self-manage: Fix: provide structure, training, and management check-ins in the early weeks.
- One-size-fits-all rollouts: Fix: tailor the approach by function—customer-facing teams may need staggered days; product teams might adapt better to compressed weeks.
- Ignoring burnout: Fix: monitor workload—reduced days should not translate into hidden overtime on days off.
Practical step-by-step pilot plan
If you want to test a four-day week, I recommend this pragmatic sequence:
- Month −2: Leadership alignment. Decide goals (productivity, wellbeing, retention) and budget for the pilot.
- Month −1: Baseline metrics. Collect quantitative and qualitative KPIs across teams involved.
- Week 0: Design. Choose the model (reduced hours vs compressed), set meeting rules, and train managers.
- Months 1–3: Pilot. Run with weekly check-ins, anonymous pulse surveys, and a mid-pilot review at 6 weeks.
- Month 4: Evaluate. Compare KPIs to baseline, review customer feedback, and decide to scale, tweak, or revert.
Tools and policies that help
Certain tools make the transition easier. From experience I recommend:
- Async communication: Slack with pinned guidelines, Loom for recorded updates.
- Project tracking: Asana, Jira, or Trello to visualise progress and priorities.
- Time tracking for a short baseline period: Use tools like Toggl for initial measurement, but avoid long-term time surveillance.
- Wellbeing checks: Pulse tools like Officevibe or Culture Amp for ongoing employee feedback.
Who benefits most (and who might struggle)
Knowledge workers focused on deliverables tend to see the clearest gains: software teams, creative agencies, product managers. Roles with rigid coverage needs—emergency services, some retail or frontline operations—face structural constraints that require creative solutions like staggered schedules or job sharing.
| Likely Benefit | Potential Challenge |
|---|---|
| Higher engagement and retention | Coordination and coverage for customer-facing roles |
| Improved focus and fewer meetings | Risk of compressed stress if hours are not reduced |
| Competitive employer brand | Compensation and legal impacts depending on local labour laws |
Final tips from pilots that worked
If I had to give three immediate pieces of advice based on pilots I trust, they would be:
- Start small and measure: A team-level pilot with robust KPIs beats a company-wide leap-of-faith.
- Pair the schedule change with process change: Meeting rules, clearer priorities, and async expectations are the real levers.
- Listen and iterate: Use pulse surveys, customer feedback, and manager observations to refine the model—don’t pretend the first draft is final.
There’s no guaranteed formula that turns shorter weeks into productivity wins overnight. But when companies treat the four-day week as an organisational experiment—not a gimmick—and rewire how they work around it, the evidence suggests they can maintain or improve output while delivering meaningful gains in wellbeing and retention. If you’re considering a pilot, plan deliberately, measure rigorously, and be ready to change how work happens—not just when it happens.
