For truly flexible employers, the four-day workweek is unnecessary

The four-day workweek is having a moment. It’s the subject of government trials, employer debates, and workplace wish lists. From the UK to Portugal, and even in notoriously work-centric Japan, the concept of slashing one workday and keeping salaries intact has entered the global conversation.

The pitch revolves around better work-life balance, increased productivity, and a happier, healthier workforce. A two-day weekend rarely feels like enough time to exhale before you have to throw yourself back into work mode all over again.

People are increasingly choosing between work and essential maintenance…like simply feeding yourself, or doing the laundry. So naturally, everyone is thinking there has to be a better way (they’re not wrong).

But if we’re really talking about true flexibility, is mandating a structured four-day workweek actually the answer? For employers that are really flexible , is it even necessary? Or is it time to reframe the discussion?

The global four-day workweek conversation: let’s recap

In recent years, momentum for the four-day workweek has surged. The UK conducted one of the largest trials of the model, with 61 participating companies shifting to a 32-hour workweek while maintaining full pay. 

UK, Iceland, Belgium and Spain net positive results

The experiment to move to a four-day workweek was an overwhelming success, where 92% of companies continued the policy after the six-month trial. Plus, 89% continued at the one year mark, and 51% made the shift permanent. 

Companies sticking to the change cited better employee well-being, reduced burnout, and even revenue growth. Similar results emerged from trials in Iceland, Belgium, and Spain, where shorter workweeks led to greater employee satisfaction and, again, no drop in overall productivity.

A trial in Japan was a big success too

Even corporate behemoths are intrigued and tapping into the experiment. Microsoft Japan tested a four-day week and saw a 40% boost in productivity. Putting it candidly, we’ve long known that people don’t actually work for eight straight hours a day — so what’s the real issue at play here?

The illusion of the 40-hour workweek

First, let’s talk about why we even work five days a week in the first place. The 40-hour workweek dates back to the early 20th century, designed during an era of factory labor when time at the machine directly correlated to output. 

Henry Ford’s 1926 decision to standardize five eight-hour workdays became the norm, but we’re long past the assembly-line era. We’re in a knowledge-based economy now, working longer doesn’t mean working better.

Typically, people are only truly productive for about three to four hours per day. The rest is spent in meetings that could be shorter, or scrapped altogether, and email back-and-forths, endless slack messages, and pretending to look busy while mentally compiling a grocery list.

If productivity peaks in short bursts, why are we still shackled to outdated time blocks instead of focusing on actual output?

Global Employment & Expansion —

11 min

Want your small business to go global? Rethink your meeting culture.

It's a common scenario: teams stuck in a cycle of back-to-back meetings, virtual or in-person, struggling to find time for their actual tasks. The common sentiment? Too many meetings, too little time for real work. But the future of meetings could be about fewer, shorter, better quality meetings, that are easier to schedule across time zones for global teams.

Is a four-day workweek the right fix, or is full flexibility better?

If a four-day workweek is about giving employees more time to “recover”, wouldn’t true flexibility — where people set their own hours (within reason), and work asynchronously  — achieve the same, if not better, results?

For companies that already operate asynchronously, where employees can work when they want as long as tasks get done, a four-day workweek may not even be necessary. The real goal behind the movement isn’t necessarily the number of days worked, but rather the feeling that employees have no time to recoup, run errands, or handle personal matters.

If employees already have autonomy to take an afternoon off without asking for permission, schedule doctor’s appointments freely, and take breaks when they need them, then a set four-day model might not add much value.

In some cases, it might do the opposite by creating pressure to squeeze the same work into fewer days, rather than spreading it out over the most effective, energy-aligned schedule for each individual — in a personalized way. 

A four day workweek option is probably preferable to a standard, rigid five day schedule. The point is, being much more flexible than just these two options should be the norm.

If an employee wants to work four days instead of five, let them go for it. Somebody else might want to work evening hours across five days, they should be able to if async collaboration is standardized across a workforce already.

Maybe work should be task-based, not time-based

Rather than counting hours, why not shift to task-based and project-based work? If an employee finishes their weekly work in 25 hours instead of 40, why should they be forced to log extra hours just for the sake of it? Measuring success by results rather than attendance aligns with how work actually functions now.

A number of tech companies and startups have already embraced this model some of the way. They collaborate asynchronously, letting employees determine when and how they work. Many freelancers and consultants already structure their days this way, prioritizing output over the illusion of being busy.

The rising cost of living and the need for real autonomy

Another pressing reason people are pushing for a shorter workweek is compounding, relentless costs. Life is expensive, and many feel two-day weekends don’t cut it anymore. 

With skyrocketing rent, inflation, and the demands of modern life, the traditional five-day grind leaves workers mentally, physically, and financially exhausted. Parents struggle to balance school pickups, people miss essential medical appointments, and burnout levels have never been higher.

A recent Deloitte study found that 77% of workers have experienced burnout at their current jobs. The demand for a four-day workweek is about reclaiming control over life outside of work. 

That control could be better achieved through full autonomy, rather than shifting the problem from five days to four? Though, it could be an ideal starting point, as full flexibility on hours could spook some employers, seen as too much, too soon.

If four-day workweeks were mandated — what would that mean for companies already offering flexibility?

Countries like the UK and Belgium are (semi) seriously considering four-day workweek legislation, and if adopted, it could change the structure of work for millions. But companies that already let employees dictate their own hours might not feel the impact at all.

For them, the four-day workweek is a non-issue because the freedom to work when it makes the most sense already exists. Rather than a mandated three-day weekend, employees in these companies naturally carve out personal time as needed. They’re not waiting for a policy change to allow them a breather; they already own their schedules.

The real future of work: choice

In the end, people won’t want to only be offered the choice between Monday-Thursday, or Monday-Friday. They want control over their own schedules indefinitely — whether that means working in intense three-hour bursts, spreading work across six shorter days, or structuring their time around personal and family needs.

The four-day workweek is a step in the right direction, but it’s not the final answer. True flexibility — where employees work when they want, as long as they get the job done — is the real future of work.

For companies already embracing that, they’re ahead of the curve. Everyone else is playing catch up.