Australian Four‑Day Work Week Trial Shows No Drop in Output, Some Gains

The companies and the problem they tackled

Across property management, publishing, health‑tech and other sectors, a group of Australian firms faced a familiar dilemma: long hours, rising burnout, and the question of whether a shorter week could coexist with stable or growing output. The four‑day work week, when presented as a simple cut of a day, often meets scepticism because it seems to ignore the reality of how work is actually organised.

How the trial was run

The study, published in Nature Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, followed 15 companies that tried the 100:80:100 model between 2022 and 2024. Workers kept 100 % of their salary, reduced scheduled hours to roughly 80 % of the previous total, and were asked to sustain 100 % of the output they had delivered before the change.

Researchers from Deakin University, led by Prof. John Hopkins, conducted in‑depth interviews over two years. Each firm defined its own productivity metrics – revenue, profit, project delivery dates, staff turnover, absenteeism, or Net Promoter Score – allowing the data to reflect what mattered most to each business.

What the data actually says

• No loss of productivity – all 15 firms reported that output did not fall.
• Six firms recorded higher productivity – measured by revenue per hour, faster project completion or improved NPS.
• Nine firms saw stable output – their key metrics remained within the pre‑trial range.
• Fourteen of the fifteen companies kept the four‑day schedule after the trial ended.
• Burnout fell sharply – six firms highlighted reduced employee exhaustion as the primary win, citing lower sick‑day usage and lower attrition.

The numbers may look modest, but the implication is clear: if a business can give staff a full extra day off while keeping pay and output steady, the traditional argument that longer hours equal higher output no longer holds.

Why the model works – beyond the headline

The 100:80:100 approach forces organisations to audit how time is spent. Typical outcomes include:

1. Culling unnecessary meetings – teams schedule only essential syncs, often moving to async updates.
2. Automating or delegating low‑value tasks – repetitive work is handed to software bots or junior staff.
3. Eliminating work that adds little value – projects that never moved beyond the idea stage are dropped.

The result is not a compressed five‑day workload squeezed into four days, but a genuine shift to higher‑quality, focused effort.

Real‑world adjustments

Client‑facing firms in the study did not all give the same day off to every employee. Many staggered the day off across teams so that client coverage remained uninterrupted. This flexibility proved crucial for maintaining service levels while still granting staff a longer weekend.

How the findings compare internationally

• In Germany, 45 companies trialled a similar model in 2024; financial results were flat year‑over‑year, suggesting that output was maintained with fewer hours.
• Over 200 British firms have now adopted a four‑day week permanently, spanning tech startups, charities and other sectors.

These parallel experiments reinforce the Australian data, indicating that the model is not limited to a niche set of businesses.

The AI angle

Prof. Hopkins points out that AI tools are already automating routine tasks, raising the question of what to do with the freed‑up capacity. The four‑day week offers a concrete way to redistribute that capacity back to workers rather than piling more work onto the same schedule.

Criticisms that merit attention

• Novelty effect – employees may push harder simply because the change is new and being observed.
• Industry constraints – sectors such as emergency services, logistics and hospitality rely on continuous coverage and may find a uniform four‑day schedule impractical.
• Metric heterogeneity – because each firm chose its own productivity definition, direct cross‑company comparison is limited.

These points do not invalidate the results, but they suggest that long‑term studies and sector‑specific pilots are still needed.

What managers can take away

1. Start with a workflow audit – identify meetings, hand‑offs and low‑value tasks that can be trimmed.
2. Co‑design the schedule – involve employees in deciding which day(s) to take off and how to stagger coverage.
3. Define clear metrics – agree on the indicators that will signal success for your business.
4. Pilot and iterate – a short‑term trial can surface hidden bottlenecks before committing to a permanent change.

The broader implication

The five‑day, 40‑hour week was a hard‑won standard for an industrial era. Knowledge work, remote collaboration and AI‑assisted productivity have shifted what a productive hour looks like. The Australian study provides empirical evidence that the old schedule is not immutable; it can be reshaped without sacrificing output.

Further reading

• Nature article on the Australian four‑day week study
• Deakin University press release
• Beyond Blue 2025 burnout survey

---

The data suggest that a well‑planned reduction in hours can deliver stable or higher output while easing employee stress. The next step for any organisation is to test the model in its own context, measure the right outcomes, and decide whether the trade‑off makes sense for its customers and staff.