A four-day workweek could work for some American employers, according to early international trial findings described by Boston College. The evidence points to a specific approach: reducing working time without cutting pay while changing how work gets done. It does not establish that every workplace could adopt the same schedule successfully.
The university’s account describes a pilot program organized by 4 Day Week Global, a nonprofit supporting the model. More than 100 companies across the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Ireland participated in a series of six-month trials. Participating organizations received coaching and other assistance in establishing and operating shorter weeks.
The findings discussed in the account came from the first two trials, involving roughly 33 companies. Employers reported improved productivity and revenue growth. Employees reported less stress and burnout, alongside positive effects on mental and physical health. When companies were asked whether they would continue the arrangement, none answered no or likely no, according to Boston College sociology professor Juliet Schor.
The research team included Schor, Boston College associate professor Wen Fan and University College Dublin researcher Orla Kelly. Employees supplied information through surveys and interviews, while companies provided administrative data. The researchers examined changes before and after the trials and differences across countries, organizations, employee demographics and job types.
A central explanation offered by Schor and Fan was the removal of activities with limited value. Meetings became a particular target, with some communication moving to telephone calls, messaging applications or other channels. In this account, maintaining output depended on reorganizing work rather than simply expecting employees to complete an unchanged schedule in fewer days.
Fan reported that reduced hours, improved well-being and sustained organizational performance occurred without employees needing to intensify their work demands. Workers also used their additional day off for appointments and personal errands that otherwise might have interrupted a working day. Other reported uses included hobbies, household work and leisure.
Those findings are relevant to the United States because American companies participated. However, the excerpt reports results across an international group and does not isolate outcomes for U.S. employers. It also does not establish how the model would affect staffing costs, service coverage or output in every sector. The participating organizations had adopted the model or expressed interest in doing so, which limits how broadly their experience can be applied.
The researchers identified potential employer benefits including recruitment and retention, and Schor highlighted the value of preventing burnout among trained workers. Her reference to health care and teaching expresses a possible benefit rather than proof that the trial established workable schedules throughout those fields.
The evidence supports further workplace experimentation with clear measures of hours, pay, output and employee experience. Its strongest lesson is that the practical question extends beyond choosing a day off: employers must examine which activities can change while the work that matters continues to get done.