Employers that have implemented a four-day workweek or an equivalent reduced-hours model are reporting improved employee productivity along with sharp reductions in turnover and overtime costs, according to a report by 4-day Week Global.
It argued among organizations that implemented reduced-hours models — including four-day workweeks, six-hour shifts and 32-hour workweeks — work wasn’t compressed into fewer days; rather, work itself was redesigned, with low-value tasks eliminated, internal meetings reduced, handovers clarified and deep work protected.
Improved retention emerged as a consistent global outcome, with some organizations reporting resignations falling by as much as 50 per cent after redesigning working time.
Read: More Canadian employers implementing four-day workweek: study
The report featured multiple case studies. In the City of Golden, Colorado, the local police department shifted to a 32-hour workweek. Emergency response times improved, resignations fell by 50 per cent and overtime costs dropped by nearly 80 per cent, generating annual savings of more than US$155,000.
At The Glebe Retirement Community in Virginia, shorter daily shifts reduced staff turnover from 128 per cent to 44 per cent, alongside a $120,000 reduction in overtime, recruitment and agency staffing costs.
Globally, reduced-hours models were also associated with lower overtime use and staffing costs across public-sector, health-care and service-based organizations.
As employers reassert return-to-office mandates, the findings challenge a long-held assumption about what drives performance in modern workplaces. For Joe O’Connor, chief executive officer of Work Time Revolution, productivity isn’t a function of presence or hours worked, but of how work is designed.
“Using availability as a proxy for performance is deeply misguided. Modern productivity is a holistic equation shaped by focus, recovery, well-being and motivation — not just time spent at a desk. These organizations treated time as a performance lever, not a perk. They focused on output, not optics.
The data also complicates the narrative behind return-to-office policies, often framed as necessary to restore collaboration and productivity. O’Connor argues the real challenge isn’t location, but fragmented attention. “We have a crisis of divided focus. Knowledge workers are interrupted constantly, and every interruption erodes the ability to do high-quality work — whether you’re at home or in an office.”
For organizations with genuine in-person service requirements, the report’s case studies suggest reduced-hours models can still be effective. O’Connor notes flexibility in when people work can be just as valuable as flexibility in where work happens. “Where location requirements are driven by service needs, time flexibility can be a powerful trade-off,” he says.
Trust remains a critical differentiator. O’Connor notes that small- and medium-sized enterprises — which make up much of the Canadian economy — face greater risk from rigid policies that drive attrition. “Large firms may be able to absorb turnover [but] most organizations cannot. Losing institutional knowledge, skills and customer relationships is far more costly than rethinking how work is structured.”
Rather than framing the future of work as a choice between flexibility and control, O’Connor urges employers to reassess how time is currently used and rewarded. “If eight hours a week had to be reclaimed, what work would stop?” he asks. “That question alone can change how leaders think about productivity.”
Read: Four-day workweek improves employee well-being, retention: expert