In a 1930 essay, British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that within a century, technological advances would reduce human labour to just 15 hours per week. Today, 96 years later, this vision remains unrealised. In Australia, research indicates employees regularly work more than they are paid for, averaging an extra 3.6 hours of unpaid labour each week.
The rise of the four-day work week
The concept of a four-day work week first gained practical traction during the 1970s energy crisis. However, the COVID-19 pandemic reignited global interest in rethinking work patterns. More recently, factors such as the Iran war disrupting fuel supplies, union advocacy for shorter hours, and a call from artificial intelligence (AI) giant OpenAI for employers to experiment with a four-day week have fuelled further momentum. OpenAI suggested this could equitably redistribute productivity gains expected from AI.
New research published in Nature’s Humanities and Social Sciences Communications journal examines the real-world experiences of 15 Australian firms that adopted a four-day work week. All but one chose to continue with the model, and none reported a decline in productivity.
Study methodology and findings
Over two years, researchers interviewed key decision-makers at 15 companies that formally trialled the 100:80:100 version of the four-day work week, where employees receive full pay for 80% of their previous hours while maintaining 100% output. The firms spanned industries including logistics, property management, healthcare, and publishing, with sizes ranging from two to 85 employees.
Motivations for the switch varied. While the four-day week is often promoted for productivity gains, six of the 15 firms cited reducing burnout as their primary goal. A 2025 Beyond Blue survey found that one in two Australian workers experience burnout, with young people and parents most at risk.
A female CEO of a medium-sized health tech firm emphasised work-life balance and burnout prevention, using metrics like attrition, absenteeism, and sick leave to gauge success. Another CEO of a financial firm noted, “We felt that when we encouraged clients to live their good life, it was hypocritical not to do the same ourselves.”
Results and productivity impact
At the time of interviews (early 2023 to late 2024), 14 of the 15 firms were still operating the 100:80:100 model, either extending trials or fully adopting it. One firm had been running the model for nearly eight years. Only one firm abandoned the idea, attributing the decision to concurrent significant organisational changes.
Productivity assessments, based on metrics like revenue, profit, project delivery, and net promoter score, revealed that six firms reported increased productivity, while the rest said it remained stable. Crucially, no firm reported a drop in productivity. Firms gave the model an average success rating of 8.5 out of 10.
Limitations and future research
The study acknowledges limitations, including the small sample size and potential bias from interviewees who championed the four-day week. Researchers plan a follow-up study to assess long-term sustainability. Despite these caveats, the findings suggest that a four-day work week could address workplace burnout and help redistribute productivity gains from AI.
About the author: John L. Hopkins is a Professor of Management at Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
