Brain Farts

The concept of a four-day work week, once considered "too good to be true", has evolved from isolated experiments into an evidence-based practice that is fundamentally reshaping how we perceive work and productivity. A decade of trials, spanning government sectors, large corporations, and rigorous academic studies, has consistently demonstrated a "productivity paradox" – the counterintuitive idea that working less can actually accomplish more.

Here's a breakdown of the key themes that illustrate this transformation:

Pioneering Experiments: Governments and Corporations Lead the Way

The journey began with groundbreaking trials in Iceland starting in 2015. The Reykjavík City Council and national government launched trials involving over 2,500 public sector workers, which constituted about 1% of the country's entire workforce. These trials encompassed essential public services like preschools, offices, social services, and hospitals. Workers' hours were reduced from 40-hour weeks to 35 or 36 hours while maintaining their full salaries. The outcomes were remarkably positive: productivity either stayed the same or improved across most workplaces. Even more significantly, workers reported less stress, reduced risk of burnout, improved health, and better work-life balance, noting more time for family, hobbies, and household chores. Will Stronge of Autonomy hailed it as "the world's largest ever trial of a shorter working week in the public sector was by all measures an overwhelming success". As a result, 86% of Iceland's workforce now has either shorter hours for the same pay or the right to them.

Following Iceland's public sector success, Microsoft Japan provided corporate validation in August 2019. Their "Work Life Choice Challenge 2019 Summer" allowed employees to work four days a week, enjoying a three-day weekend, all while receiving their normal, five-day paycheck. This experiment yielded a surprising 40% productivity boost. This gain wasn't merely from schedule changes; Microsoft also implemented process efficiencieslike slashing meeting times from 60 to 30 minutes, capping attendance at five employees, and encouraging collaborative chat channels over emails. Beyond productivity, the company observed environmental benefits, with electricity costs falling by 23% and printing decreasing by nearly 60%. The positive news resonated widely among Japanese workers, leading to comments like "Here's to hoping my boss reads about this".

Academic Validation: The Rigorous Nature Study

While Iceland and Microsoft provided practical evidence, science demanded more rigorous, peer-reviewed validation. This came in July 2025 with a groundbreaking study published in Nature Human Behaviour. Led by researchers at Boston College, the study tracked nearly 3,000 workers at 141 businesses across six countries(Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) who transitioned to a four-day work week with no pay reduction. These workers were compared to control groups who maintained traditional schedules.

The findings were comprehensive: four-day workers experienced greater job satisfaction, less burnout, improved mental health, and better physical health. Crucially, none of these improvements were observed in the control companies. The study also identified three key mediating factors explaining these benefits: improved self-reported work ability (a proxy for productivity), reduced sleep problems, and decreased fatigue. As co-author Wen Fan explained, workers felt "more capable, and they experienced fewer sleep problems and lower levels of fatigue, all of which contributed to improved well-being".

The Productivity Paradox Explained and The Future of Work

The consistent pattern across these diverse studies reveals a "productivity paradox": working less can make you accomplish more. This isn't magic, but rather a combination of psychology and physiology. The traditional five-day work week often leads to chronic fatigue, which impairs focus, creativity, and problem-solving, and increases mistakes. However, when individuals are given adequate time to recover and rejuvenate, they return to work sharper, more focused, and more creative. This strategic constraint encourages employees to be more intentional about their limited work hours, reducing wasted time in unproductive activities like unnecessary meetings, as perfectly illustrated by Microsoft Japan's experience.

This body of evidence suggests a fundamental rethinking of productivity, challenging the traditional assumption that more hours inherently equal more output. Instead, strategic constraint can drive innovation and efficiency. Juliet Schor, a lead author of the Nature study, views this as "a rare kind of intervention that can make employees much better off without undermining the viability of the organizations they work for," indicating that both companies and employees benefit.

The research strongly suggests that the four-day work week is viable across various sectors, having been proven in essential public services (Iceland), large corporations (Microsoft), and across multiple industries and countries (Nature study). While questions remain regarding its scalability in very large companies, unique industry challenges, and new ways to measure productivity, the fundamental question has been answered: working four days a week isn't just possible—it may be better for everyone involved. The decade of evidence from governments, corporations, and peer-reviewed journals provides substantial proof that "sometimes the most radical ideas are just common sense waiting for proof".

Linked Resources: