Blog

The 4-day work week: realistic for SMEs and multinationals?

The 4-day work week has long since ceased to be a niche idea. Whereas a few years ago it seemed mainly a visionary experiment, today hard data are increasingly appearing to support the concept. Pilots in the United Kingdom, Germany, Iceland and New Zealand, among others, show that a shorter work week does not necessarily lead to declining productivity.

On the contrary, many companies report stable or even increasing turnover, combined with lower absenteeism and stronger employee retention. Yet the reality is less black and white. Not every model really means fewer hours and not every sector can simply switch over. So time to take stock: what works, what doesn’t, and how feasible is it for SMEs and multinationals?

The international lesson: shorter is possible, if organized smartly

The numbers are promising. In the United Kingdom, 61 companies participated in a pilot project in which employees worked four days at 100% pay. Turnover remained the same or increased slightly on average, while burnout symptoms dropped significantly. Also in Germany, more than 70% of participating organizations concluded that the 4-day is worth continuing. Iceland, which already conducted a large test between 2015 and 2019, showed that productivity is largely maintained even with a structural reduction in hours.

“Shorter work can be done, but only if companies smartly redesign their processes.”

 

Yet additional hiring has often been necessary there to continue covering crucial services. And large companies are also getting on board: after a successful pilot in New Zealand, Unilever extended its experiments to Australia after the results showed that KPIs were met and absenteeism dropped.

These examples show that the 4-day work week can work, but only if companies dare to critically redesign their processes. Working fewer hours without that redesign rarely leads to the same results.

Belgium: a very different model

Anyone who talks about a 4-day in Belgium should pay close attention to which variant is meant. Since the Labor Deal of 2022, workers have the right to spread their hours over four days. This does not mean working less, but rather compressing the classic 38-hour week to four 10-hour days.

“In Belgium, the 4-day usually means not fewer hours,
but longer days.”

The advantage lies in the extra day off, but the longer workday brings new challenges. For families with young children or for workers in physically intensive professions, this can lead to additional stress rather than more balance. So while international projects often start from the logic of a reduced work week (fewer hours, same pay), Belgium focuses on schedule flexibility. This distinction is crucial in the discussion.

What does this mean for SMEs?

For SMEs, the 4-day work week can be an interesting way to profile themselves as an attractive employer. Because decision lines are short, they can experiment faster and adjust their processes. Moreover, in smaller structures it is often more visible where time is lost, making it easier to eliminate waste. Still, there are important caveats. One illness can put pressure on the operation of an entire team, and because roles in SMEs often overlap, it is not easy to compensate for fewer hours without increasing the workload.

A workable model for SMEs is often not the drastic switch to 32 hours, but rather a gradual approach. Consider team rosters that alternate or a 9-day cycle in which 80 hours are spread over nine days. Cutting out useless meetings or incorporating fixed focus blocks can also quickly save time that makes the move to a shorter work week more realistic.

And what about multinationals?

Multinationals have more resources and often specialized teams that can oversee the transition. They can more easily deploy additional staff to fill gaps and have access to data and KPIs that allow them to measure productivity on output rather than attendance. At the same time, their challenges are more complex. In an international context, “Friday off” is often impossible, especially when customers expect 24/7 support worldwide. Moreover, the difference in legislation between countries creates perception problems: why can an employee in London work effectively 32 hours, while a colleague in Brussels works four ten-hour shifts?

“Multinationals can afford to experiment, but collide with complexity.”

Therefore, multinationals often require a hybrid approach. Regional “follow-the-sun” models, where teams in different time zones relieve each other, can ensure customer coverage. In addition, service level agreements (SLAs) that measure productivity, rather than looking purely at hours, are better used. Large organizations that successfully push the experiment invariably link their pilots to hard business outcomes rather than mere HR goals.

Wanneer loopt het mis?

Een 4-daagse werkweek mislukt wanneer ze verkeerd wordt begrepen of halfslachtig ingevoerd. Bedrijven die compressie verwarren met reductie riskeren dat hun werknemers na een dag van tien uur uitgeput thuiskomen en net méér stress ervaren. Andere organisaties vergeten te kijken naar klantvensters, waardoor wachttijden oplopen en klanttevredenheid daalt.

“Een 4-daagse mislukt zodra men uren verandert zonder naar output en klantdekking te kijken.”

Nog een valkuil is het vasthouden aan urenregistratie in plaats van te sturen op output: wie minder werkt maar evenveel moet vergaderen en rapporteren, wint niets. Tot slot is er geen universele aanpak: wat werkt in een consultancybedrijf, werkt niet noodzakelijk in een productieomgeving.

Two flavors, two realities

In summary, there are two main directions. The compressed work week involves working the same number of hours in fewer days, which is legally simple and can be implemented relatively quickly. The downside is longer workdays and a greater risk of fatigue.

With the reduced work week, the number of hours is effectively reduced, often to 32 per week, with no loss of pay. This model has demonstrable benefits on well-being and retention, but requires a thorough redesign of processes and sometimes additional hiring. Which variant is most appropriate depends heavily on the industry, company size and client expectations.

The future: less about hours, more about outcomes

The main lesson from all the international experiments is that the future of work is less about hours and more about outcomes. Companies that successfully implement the 4-day are organizations that do not blindly scrap a day, but redesign their operation around efficiency, autonomy and output. For some teams this will lead to a shorter work week, for others rather to a more flexible schedule.

The conclusion is clear: the 4-day work week is not a panacea, but a lever for a broader discussion about work, productivity and well-being. Companies willing to make this exercise can distinguish themselves as attractive employers as well as maintain their competitiveness. So the future of work lies not in the calendar, but in how we organize work more intelligently and humanely.

Bekijk onze vacatures