Short answer: a 32-hour (typically four 8-hour days) workweek can improve employee wellbeing and — in many trials — sustain or even raise productivity, but it’s not a universal fix. Industries, job types, and implementation details matter a lot. Below I lay out the main pros and cons, show concrete examples of countries and companies that have tried shorter weeks, and link to the studies and reports that support each claim so you can judge the evidence yourself.
What people mean by “32-hour week”
Most pilots and proposals refer to working 32 hours while keeping pay the same (i.e., no pay cut), often implemented as four 8-hour days or compressed/reshaped hours across the week. Sometimes “shorter weeks” refers to reduced hours with pro-rata pay cuts; the outcomes differ depending on which model is used.
Pros (what the evidence shows)
1. Better wellbeing, less burnout
Multiple large pilots report improvements in stress, burnout, mental health and work-life balance for employees who moved to shorter weeks. Iceland’s public-sector trials (2015–2019) showed large gains in wellbeing and broad satisfaction. The UK large pilot (2022) also found lower stress and higher life satisfaction among participants.
2. Productivity is often maintained or increased
Real-world trials repeatedly show that shorter weeks do not automatically reduce output — and in many cases output rose or stayed the same. Microsoft Japan’s August 2019 trial reported a ~40% increase in productivity (measured by sales per employee/time savings from meetings), attributed to fewer meetings, clearer priorities, and focus time. The UK pilot companies overall reported stable or increased revenue.
3. Recruitment, retention, and lower absenteeism
Companies that shorten hours commonly report easier hiring, lower turnover, and fewer sick days—important cost offsets for employers. The UK trial and several company case studies noted reduced resignations and improved recruitment metrics.
4. Environmental and operational benefits
Fewer commuting days and lower office usage can reduce electricity and carbon use (Microsoft Japan reported energy savings during its trial) and—depending on industry—operational costs.
Cons and caveats (what can go wrong or limit benefits)
1. Not equally feasible across all industries
Customer-facing services, healthcare, retail, and any 24/7 operation can’t simply close a weekday without hiring more staff or changing shift patterns—both of which can increase costs. Some firms in the UK pilot found sectoral limits and difficulty matching client expectations.
2. Risk of “work intensification”
If employers compress 40 hours of work into 32, employees may face higher intensity and longer workdays or be “on call” during the off day, which can increase stress rather than reduce it. Outcomes depend on whether productivity gains come from real efficiency improvements (fewer meetings, better processes) or simply pushing more work into fewer hours. Mixed evidence exists: some surveys show reductions in burnout but others (a Gallup-cited finding) note higher burnout in some 4-day configurations. Implementation details matter.
3. Uneven benefits across income levels and job types
White-collar knowledge workers often see big wellbeing/productivity gains; lower-paid shift workers may see smaller effects or need different protections (shift premiums, guaranteed hours). Trials with no pay cut are politically and financially easier to propose for salaried roles than for hourly roles unless employers adjust staffing or pricing.
4. Transition costs & client/customer expectations
Reorganizing workflows, training managers in output-focused performance, and communicating with customers takes time and money. Some firms decide not to continue after a short pilot because the change management was underestimated, or clients resisted the shift.
Concrete examples & evidence (who tried it and what happened)
Microsoft Japan (August 2019) — 5-week “Work-Life Choice Challenge”: offices closed on Fridays; Microsoft reported a ~40% rise in productivity (sales per employee) and big drops in meeting time and electricity usage. Employee surveys showed improved work–life balance. Critics note measures were short-term and context-specific. Iceland public-sector trials (2015–2019) — ~2,500 public-sector workers participated in trials that reduced hours (often to about 35–36 hours) with preserved pay; results showed maintained or increased productivity and large gains in wellbeing. This led to wide union agreements guaranteeing shorter hours for many workers. The Autonomy reports summarize the robust evidence. 4 Day Week Global pilots (UK, US, Ireland, others; 2022 onward) — coordinated multi-company trials (dozens to hundreds of companies) where most participants implemented a 4-day week with no reduction in pay. Reports show high rates of companies choosing to continue the schedule, improvements in employee wellbeing, and broadly neutral-to-positive effects on revenue and productivity. (See 4dayweek.com research hub and the UK pilot report.) Perpetual Guardian (New Zealand, 2018) — 240 staff ran a two-month 4-day trial and reported improved work–life balance and productivity—an early high-profile corporate test that helped popularize the idea. Government & city pilots — several governments/cities have trialed shorter weeks or four-day options (examples include Dubai; Tokyo has experimented with options to encourage workforce participation). National-level policy discussion is ongoing in many countries, with politicians and unions proposing 32-hour policies in some jurisdictions.
What the evidence means in practice — guidance for employers & policymakers
Design matters — keep pay the same if the goal is wellbeing and recruitment/retention; otherwise clarify trade-offs for staff. Many successful pilots used “no pay cut” as a baseline. Measure output, not hours — firms that shifted to output KPIs (clear goals, deadlines, fewer meetings) saw the best productivity outcomes. Training managers to judge results instead of face time is crucial. Pilot, evaluate, iterate — run sector-specific pilots with robust measurement (revenue, customer satisfaction, sick days, turnover, wellbeing metrics). The UK and US/Ireland pilots used rigorous before/after comparisons that other organizations can copy. Protect vulnerable worker groups — hourly, shift, and frontline workers need protections (e.g., guaranteed hours, shift premiums, cross-training) so reduced weeks don’t amplify precarity. Be realistic about sector limits — healthcare, emergency services, hospitality and retail may require staffing model changes (more hires or staggered shifts) that change the financial calculus.
Bottom line
Evidence from multiple countries and large coordinated trials suggests a well-designed 32-hour (four-day) workweek can improve employee wellbeing while maintaining or improving productivity — but success depends on how it’s implemented and the industry. It’s not an automatic panacea: without thoughtful redesign of work, there’s a risk of work intensification, higher costs in certain sectors, or uneven benefits across worker groups.
Check out the link below for an internal memo pdf you can give to your companies management team.
📄 Download the Internal Memo:
https://mindfulexplorer.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/32_hour_workweek_internal_memo.pdf
This memo outlines the key benefits, risks, and recommendations for organizations considering a 32-hour workweek.
Mindful Explorer 