ArticlePDF Available


Work four days a week, but get paid for five? It sounds too good to be true, but this debate is front and center within numerous European economies, not only because of a culture shift toward accommodating flexible working but also because some evidence suggests it's good for business. Many organizations in Europe are cutting workweeks, though not wages, from 36 hours (five days) to 28 hours (four days) to reduce burnout and make workers happier, more productive, and more committed to their employers.
Will the 4-Day Workweek Take
Hold in Europe?
by Ben Laker and Thomas Roulet
AUGUST 05, 2019
Work four days a week, but get paid for five? It sounds too good to be true, but this debate is front
and center within numerous European economies, not only because of a culture shift toward
accommodating flexible working but also because some evidence suggests it’s good for business.
Many organizations in Europe are cutting workweeks, though not wages, from 36 hours (five
days) to 28 hours (four days) to reduce burnout and make workers happier, more productive, and
more committed to their employers.
The four-day workweek is not a new idea: France implemented a reduction of working hours (les
35 heures) almost 20 years ago to create better work-life balance for the nation. The measure is
still heavily debated, with proponents saying it created jobs and preserves work-life balance and
critics saying it reduces the competitiveness of French firms.
Leading today’s trend is the Netherlands, where the average weekly working time (taking into
account both full-time and part-time workers) is about 29 hours — the lowest of any
industrialized nation, according to the OECD. Dutch laws passed in 2000 to protect and promote
work-life balance entitle all workers to fully paid vacation days and maternity and paternity
Many UK organizations are also playing with the idea. Last month, one of us (Ben) worked with
colleagues at Henley Business School to survey 505 business leaders and more than 2,000
employees in the UK to better understand the impact of the four-day week on Britain’s modern
workforce. The results show a mixed bag of benefits and costs.
Half of the UK business leaders we surveyed reported that they’ve enabled a four-day workweek
for some or all of their full-time employees, noting that employee satisfaction has improved,
employee sickness has reduced, and savings of almost £92 billion (around 2% of total turnover)
are being made each year.
Among workers, 77% identified a clear link between the four-day week and better quality of life.
The practice is judged particularly attractive by 75% of the Gen Z and Gen X people we surveyed
— and rather than relaxing, they’re using their additional time to upskill, volunteer, and build
side hustles. Two-thirds (67%) of Gen Z respondents said a four-day workweek influences who
they want to work for.
In organizations in which a shorter workweek has been implemented, nearly two-thirds (64%) of
leaders reported increases in staff productivity and work quality due to a reduction of sick days
and overall increased well-being. Another benefit to well-being, respondents noted, was the
reduction of commutes. One less day at work helps make the weekly commute more bearable.
How have most firms implemented a shorter week? Respondents often said the practice is
adopted by splitting employees into a rotating schedule, in which half do not work Mondays and
the other half do not work Fridays. This allows firms to meet their customers’ demands by
keeping premises open all week.
But the four-day workweek is not yet a silver bullet. While it enables firms to build competitive
advantages with regards to their employer brand, the survey found that nearly three-quarters
(73%) of leaders cited concerns: regulations regarding work contracts, and the associated
bureaucracy to implement the four-day week, as well as challenges around staffing. All these
elements make it unlikely, from our point of view, that the practice will spread en masse in the
near future.
Some organizations have also scrapped efforts toward a four-day week. In 2019 the London-
based Wellcome Trust, the world’s second-biggest research donor, ended a four-day week for its
800 head office staff; it was “too operationally complex to implement.” In the U.S., Treehouse, a
large tech HR firm, implemented a four-day week in 2016, but as the firm failed to keep up with
competition, it reverted to a five-day week.
Since the Wellcome Trust backtracking, business groups including the Confederation of British
Industry havewarnedthat mandating shorter workweeks weakens industry while hurting
employment by increasing the cost of labor. Take Swedish health care,for example: The city of
Gothenburg needed to hire more nurses to cover hours lost when implementing a six-hour
workday in 2015, costing the city $1.3 million. Critics filed a motion that called on the city
council to kill the plan, arguing it was unfair to continue investing taxpayers’ money in a scheme
that was not economically sustainable. The plan was subsequently scrapped in 2017, and Daniel
Bernmar, the councilor responsible for running Gothenburg’s elderly care said, “Could we do this
[again]? The answer is no, it will be too expensive.
Workers too have reservations. Nearly half (45%) of those we surveyed worried that spending less
time at work would make colleagues think they’re lazy. This suggests there is a paradox in how
employees perceive the practice: They want it implemented but are afraid to engage with it as
first movers.
The recent attempts in the UK suggest the debate around the four-day workweek is only starting.
While it can bring clear benefits with regards to employees’ well-being and ability to focus,
implementation across organizations is made difficult by competitive and structural pressures in
some sectors. In addition, there are still some negativeperceptions of the practice, as well as
concerns among workers regarding the way they will be seen by their peers and superiors.
Still, the idea requires proper consideration, and the potential benefits suggest a trial-and-error
approach is the best way forward. Such a path would help us understand under which conditions
a shorter workweek might succeed and when the benefits can outweigh the costs. The countries
and organizations that can crack the code of the four-day week first could build a competitive
advantage, if they can implement it in a way that maximizes the well-being benefit on the longer
term while minimizing the short-term rise in labor and operational costs.
Ben Laker is a Professor of Leadership at Henley Business School and a Global Affairs Commentator for Bloomberg
and Sky News. He specialises in Brexit and advises Governments and Global Corporations around the world. Follow him
Thomas Roulet is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Theory at the Judge Business School and a Fellow of Girton
College, both at the University of Cambridge. He has provided sociological analyses on different aspects of Brexit in
various media outlets (the Telegraph, l’Humanite, Die Zeit). Follow him @thomroulet.
Related Topics: Personnel Policies | Generational Issues
This article is about WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Follow This Topic
Leave a Comment
Post Comment
James (JT) Turner 2 months ago
The full white paper can be downloaded from
Reply 0 0
We hope the conversations that take place on will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or
register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and
relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become
the property of Harvard Business Publishing.
Join The Conversation
... Moreover, when UK business pioneers authorized a four-day of work for some of their full-time representatives, they witnessed that employees' satisfaction was enhanced. They also witnessed an increase in staff efficiency/productivity and lower turnover (Laker and Roulet, 2019). Unmistakably, there is a connection between the four-day workweek and better personal satisfaction (Laker and Roulet, 2019). ...
... They also witnessed an increase in staff efficiency/productivity and lower turnover (Laker and Roulet, 2019). Unmistakably, there is a connection between the four-day workweek and better personal satisfaction (Laker and Roulet, 2019). However, the notion is not yet universally accepted or adhered to as the needs of individual institutes must be considered and studied further. ...
Purpose To give insight into human resource (HR) policy makers of the impact of the abrupt change in working conditions as reported from their primary stakeholders – the employees. Design/methodology/approach Reported from a first-person point of view, 192 employees from Kuwait who are currently working from home were surveyed as to how the lockdown circumstances have impacted their conventional work expectations. The study compares the old working conditions (OWC) to the current working conditions (CWC) to give insight into the overall sentiments of the abrupt changes to the workplace. Findings It was found that most employees agreed that OWC need to be reviewed, and that the general sentiment was almost equally split on the efficiency of CWC in comparison to OWC, yet the majority was enjoying the flexible conditions. Moreover, the majority of respondents found that overall conventional work elements either remained the same or had been impacted positively rather than negatively. Also, if given an option of a hybrid model inclusive of partly working remotely and partly working on-site, a considerable majority reported that they are able to efficiently conduct atleast 80% of their work expectation. Finally, it was found that employee expectation is changing as they consider post COVID-19 conditions. Research limitations/implications This research was conducted using virtual crowd-sourcing methods to administer the survey and may have been enhanced should other methods have been integrated for data gathering. Also, a more comprehensive phenomenological approach could have been incorporated to add a qualitative method to the investigation. This could have freed the results of answer limitation and experience bias. Moreover, it is good practice to involve both quantitative and qualitative elements to any research when possible. Finally, future research can benefit from a bigger pool of participants so as to gain a clearer picture. Originality/value This research will give policy makers a look at what needs to be reviewed/changed for a successful roll-out of remote work in accordance with their original strategies.
... Millennial and Generation Z workers list work schedule flexibility as a major influence in considering potential employers. 11 The Flex Jobs 2019 Annual Survey found that 30% of workers reported leaving a position because of non-flexible work options. 12 One potential mechanism to create work flexibility is to adopt a four-day work week, as one 2020 Harris Poll found that 82% of US employees surveyed said they preferred a reduced work week, even if they had to work longer days. ...
Full-text available
Objective. To explore methods that pharmacy programs can use to redefine their work environment to reduce stress, improve well-being, and increase productivity. Findings. To demonstrate a culture of support, organizations should consider a five-fold approach to enhancing and maintaining faculty well-being including, optimizing faculty and staff support, establishing a faculty development and mentoring program, permitting flexibility in work schedules, improving productivity of meetings, and managing communication tools. Individuals can also take measures to improve their well-being including controlling email, giving attention to faculty citizenship, implementing stress reduction and coping techniques, and maintaining boundaries between work and home. Summary. This article discusses approaches that have been shown to reduce burnout and provides strategies organizations and individuals can implement to improve productivity and faculty well-being. While certain areas such as faculty wellness and productivity are well studied in the pharmacy and health professions literature, significant gaps were identified in other areas, including alternate work arrangements. In some cases, data from the business sector can be extrapolated to pharmacy education; however, inferences from effect ive corporate strategies may not be transferable to the culture and expectations of academia. While there is significant overlap between institutional and individual strategies, a culture of communication, collaboration, support and citizenship is foundational. There is no one strategy that will work for everyone and flexibility is important to develop an individualized approach.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The global outbreak of Covid-19 led to a government ‘lockdown’ in the UK requiring people to stay in their homes, except for necessary visits to shops and for exercise immediate communities, for three months. All universities were forced into a rapid shift to on-line teaching and assessment. We use research from a representative sample of 2,287 business, management and economics academics in the UK to examine how prior on-line experience, learning during the ‘lockdown’, and work engagement, impacted academics’ views of teaching delivery and assessment. The data shows that: 1. experience of on-line activity prior to the lockdown is positively related to perceptions of working virtually, though perceptions differed by seniority; 2. experience of on-line activity during the lockdown does not impact academic’s views of on-line delivery, but increases positive attitudes to on-line marking; 3. online activity is considered as more time consuming than face to face delivery. Those able to maintain mental resilience and energy are considerably more likely to perceive on-line activity positively. Perceived job insecurity affects how academics assess on-line activity.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.