32-hour workweek – Mindful Explorer

Teaching guitar in a classroom setting comes with unique challenges: mixed skill levels, limited time, varying student motivation, and often large class sizes. One method book frequently recommended for these situations is Contemporary Class Guitar by Will Schmid. But is it actually effective for teachers and students in a group setting?

This article breaks down the strengths, limitations, and best use cases of Contemporary Class Guitar to help music educators decide if it belongs in their classroom.

Overview of Contemporary Class Guitar

Contemporary Class Guitar was written specifically for classroom guitar instruction, not private lessons. Unlike many solo guitar methods, it is designed to function smoothly with:

Large groups Mixed-ability students Short class periods School-based music programs

This focus alone makes it stand out in the crowded field of guitar method books.

Why Teachers Like This Book

1. Built for Group Instruction

The book’s pacing and layout are classroom-friendly. Concepts are introduced gradually, allowing teachers to move an entire class forward together without leaving beginners behind.

Key advantages include:

Clear lesson sequencing Predictable skill progression Ensemble-style exercises that keep everyone playing

This makes it especially useful for public school music programs.

2. Balanced Musical Skill Development

Rather than focusing on just chords or just melodies, the book blends:

Standard music notation Open-position chords Strumming patterns Basic fingerpicking Simple ensemble arrangements

This balance helps students develop real musicianship, not just chord memorization.

3. Accessible for Non-Guitarist Teachers

One of the book’s biggest strengths is how approachable it is for educators who are not guitar specialists.

Teachers benefit from:

Straightforward explanations Logical sequencing of concepts Minimal prep time once familiar with the method

This makes it a strong choice for band, choir, or general music teachers expanding into guitar instruction.

Student Experience: Is It Engaging?

Students typically respond well because:

Early success comes quickly Parts are musically achievable Group playing reduces pressure

However, motivation often increases when teachers supplement the book with:

Student-chosen songs Pop chord charts Small ensemble challenges

On its own, the repertoire is educational but not always exciting.

Limitations to Consider

1. Not Style-Specific

If your program focuses heavily on:

Classical guitar technique Rock lead guitar Advanced fingerstyle pop

You’ll need additional materials.

2. Limited Contemporary Repertoire

Despite the title, the music leans toward:

Folk-style pieces Traditional classroom material Instructional compositions

Pedagogically solid—but not always aligned with modern student listening habits.

Best Teaching Environments for This Book

Contemporary Class Guitar works best in:

🎸 Middle school guitar classes 🎵 High school guitar electives 🏫 Community and after-school programs 🧑‍🏫 Large beginner group classes

It is especially effective when structure and consistency are priorities.

How Teachers Can Enhance the Curriculum

To maximize engagement, many educators pair this book with:

Weekly “choice song” days Pop/rock chord sheets Simple fingerstyle arrangements Small-group rotations (melody, chords, rhythm)

This hybrid approach keeps students motivated while maintaining strong fundamentals.

Final Verdict

Overall Rating: 8.5/10 for group guitar instruction

Contemporary Class Guitar by Will Schmid is a reliable, classroom-tested method that delivers exactly what most group guitar teachers need: structure, clarity, and steady progress. While it benefits from supplemental material, its foundation is strong and practical.

If you’re building or refining a school-based guitar program, this book remains one of the safest and most effective choices available.

Have you used Contemporary Class Guitar in your classroom—or are you considering it for a new program? Share your experience or questions and let’s compare notes to build better guitar classes together 🎸

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.

Tag: 32-hour workweek

Should the World shift to a 32-hour workweek? — pros, cons, real examples, and the evidence