The Challenge

Nearly a century ago, Henry Ford revolutionized the workweek by reducing it from six days to five, a move designed to boost worker satisfaction without harming productivity. This shift caught on during the Great Depression, eventually becoming law with the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Today, the conversation is shifting toward a potential four-day workweek. A KPMG survey of 100 large-company CEOs revealed that nearly one in three is considering this change. Pre-pandemic trials in countries like Iceland, Japan, and Sweden suggest that both employees and employers could benefit. Even governments in Belgium and the Dominican Republic have supported four-day workweek trials.

However, many employers remain skeptical, worrying that a shorter week might hurt productivity and revenue. The cultural resistance is particularly strong in the U.S., where a nonstop work culture prevails. Additionally, the logistical challenges of coordinating a condensed workweek across multiple time zones and hybrid work arrangements add to the reluctance. As media executive Barry Diller put it, “You can’t have 17,000 different programs.” With opinions divided, is there a middle ground that could satisfy both sides?

The Case For a Four-Day Workweek

Proponents of a four-day workweek point to successful trials in the UK, U.S., and other countries. In a 2022 experiment, 54 out of 61 companies continued the four-day week a year later, with half making it permanent. These companies reported improved employee well-being, reduced turnover, and enhanced recruitment.

Dale Whelehan, CEO of 4 Day Week Global, highlights that many large organizations are quietly conducting their own trials. For instance, Unilever expanded its four-day workweek trial from New Zealand to Australia. The challenge of maintaining productivity over four days has even spurred innovation, as seen with Medibank Private Ltd., which developed a tool to automate processes, reducing the need for endless back-and-forth communication.

Some companies have long embraced the four-day week. GHT, an engineering firm in Virginia, has operated on a four-day, 10-hour schedule since the 1960s. Despite occasional client hesitation, this approach hasn’t hindered their ability to secure major projects, including work for Amazon’s new headquarters.

The Case Against a Four-Day Workweek

Critics argue that the trials supporting the four-day workweek are not representative, as they involve companies that are already inclined to make it work. Kevin Rockmann, a professor of management, warns that a four-day week won’t gain widespread acceptance without a fundamental shift in corporate culture, particularly in the U.S. Many American workers are constantly connected, even on vacation, and this ingrained behavior won’t change overnight. Simply compressing the workweek into four longer days could lead to increased stress, especially for working parents.

Rockmann suggests that for a four-day week to succeed, companies must first identify and eliminate unproductive activities, like unnecessary meetings. Even long-time advocates like GHT’s Kunze acknowledge that keeping work from spilling into the fifth day can be challenging.

Finding Common Ground

A compromise could be the nine-day fortnight, where employees get every other Friday off, as practiced by companies like Dayforce Inc. and Grant Thornton. Another option is designating a “no meetings” day, which Salesforce-owned Slack calls “Focus Fridays.” Even if a four-day workweek isn’t feasible, reducing unnecessary meetings can lead to lasting improvements.

Successful implementation of a four-day workweek requires thorough preparation. ThredUp Inc., an online resale marketplace, spent three months planning its transition to a four-day week, focusing on cutting meetings and ensuring deadlines were met by Thursday. Companies that fail in these transitions often skip this crucial preparation phase.

Ultimately, companies must develop better ways to measure productivity beyond just time spent at work. Even if a four-day workweek isn’t adopted, these measures can still lead to significant improvements in workplace efficiency.