What Happened When 141 Organizations Tried a Four-Day Week

A shorter week sounds attractive, but the important question is what happens after the idea enters a real workplace. A 2025 study in Nature Human Behaviour examined a reduced workweek across 141 organizations in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. [1][2]

The trial included 2,896 employees. Organizations first reorganized work to improve efficiency and collaboration, then tested a four-day schedule for six months without reducing employees' pay. The researchers compared workers' answers before and after the change. [1]

The results showed improvements in several areas of well-being. Employees reported lower burnout, higher job satisfaction and better mental and physical health after the reduced workweek. These changes were not seen in the same pattern at 12 control companies that did not make the change. [1][2]

Working fewer hours appeared to matter. At the individual level, larger reductions in hours were connected with greater improvements in well-being. Reduced sleep problems, less fatigue and a stronger sense of work ability helped explain part of the relationship. [1]

The design is important because a four-day week was not treated as simply closing the office on Friday. Organizations prepared by changing the way work was done. That work reorganization was intended to make the shorter schedule possible without simply squeezing five days of tasks into four. [1]

The study has limits. The participating organizations chose to join this kind of trial, so they may differ from employers that would never consider a shorter week. Different industries also have different staffing needs.

Still, the findings make the discussion more concrete. A reduced workweek is not only a question about how many days appear on a calendar. It is also a question about burnout, job satisfaction and whether organizations can redesign work well enough to give time back.