In the last four years, an interesting narrative has been quietly developing in the knowledge sector: an increasing curiosity regarding the feasibility of a four-day workweek.
Iceland initiated this movement through a series of government-funded trials that took place between 2015 and 2019. This initiative eventually involved over 2,500 workers, which represents roughly 1% of Iceland's total workforce. Participants were selected from various types of workplaces, particularly offices and social service organizations. While not everyone completely eliminated a workday, the majority reduced their hours from forty to a maximum of thirty-six hours a week.
The UK followed suit with a six-month trial that included more than sixty companies and nearly 3,000 employees, which concluded in 2023. A year later, forty-five companies in Germany engaged in a similar half-year experiment with a shortened workweek. These are not the only experiments of their kind being undertaken. A 2024 KPMG survey indicated that nearly a third of large US companies are also at least contemplating this idea.
For now, let's set aside the debate on whether a shorter workweek is a beneficial idea (we'll address that later). I want to emphasize a consistent finding across these studies that points to an essential lesson about enhancing work to make it deeper and more sustainable.
Every study I've encountered maintains that shortening the workweek does not lead to significant declines in productivity.
From the Icelandic study: "Productivity remained the same or improved in the majority of workplaces."
From the UK study: “Across various sectors, staff wellbeing has shown dramatic improvements; and business productivity has been either maintained or enhanced in nearly every instance.”
From the German study: "Employees generally felt better with fewer hours and maintained the same productivity levels as during a five-day workweek, and in some cases, even demonstrated greater productivity. Participants reported notable improvements in both mental and physical health… and exhibited lower stress and burnout symptoms, as confirmed by data from smartwatches monitoring daily stress levels."
Take a moment to reflect on these findings. They are remarkable! How can working significantly fewer hours not reduce the overall output?
A significant part of the answer, I believe, lies in a key concept from my book, Slow Productivity: workload management.
Most knowledge workers enjoy considerable independence in managing their workload. It is essentially up to them to decide when to accept or decline requests, and they face no direct oversight regarding their current task and project load, nor is there any guidance on what this load should ideally entail.
Many employees navigate this complexity by subscribing to what I sometimes refer to as the workload fairy tale — the belief that their existing commitments perfectly represent the amount of work needed to succeed in their roles.
However, the findings from the 4-day workweek experiment challenge this notion. The essential tasks—those that truly matter—required less than forty hours of effort each week, enabling participants to complete everything even with a reduced schedule. Contrary to the workload fairy tale, much of our weekly work may be, from a strict value production viewpoint, nonessential.
So, why does everyone seem perpetually busy? In contemporary knowledge work, we tend to equate activity with productivity (a concept I term "pseudo-productivity" in my book), leading us to continually say "yes" or create frenzied digital tasks, ultimately filling every minute of our workweek with activity. We often fail to realize this, instead adhering to the workload fairy tale's claim that our packed schedules accurately reflect what we need to be accomplishing, as if doing less would mean failing in our professional roles.
The findings from the 4-day workweek not only challenge this narrative but also hint at ways to enhance our work experiences. If we took workload management seriously and were open about each person's workload and what is optimal for their role; if we experimented with various configurations and sustainable strategies, we could move closer to a productive knowledge sector (in the traditional economic sense) free from the exhausting busyness that characterizes our current circumstances—a work environment with breathing space and room for priorities that deserve attention, rather than every day devolving into a chaotic rush.
This brings me back to the question of whether a 4-day workweek is a good idea. I have no objections to it in principle, but it also appears to be treating a symptom rather than addressing the core issue. If we genuinely tackle some of the fundamental workload problems, shifting from five to four days may not feel like such a release for many.
####
To explore more of my perspectives on technology and work, refer to my recent books on the subject: Slow Productivity, A World Without Email, and Deep Work.
Occasionally, I compile short videos from casual clips recorded on an outdated phone. Here’s the most recent one: #editorial.
-Cal-Newport.jpg)
A central theme of this newsletter is the pursuit of fostering sustainable and significant work within the digital era. With this aim in mind, it’s ... Read more
In the last four years, an interesting narrative has been gradually developing in the knowledge sector: an increasing curiosity regarding the feasibility of a 4-day ... Read more