What would a four-day work week actually look like?

Debate over Malta’s potential adoption of a four-day work week reignited last week after Opposition Leader Alex Borg floated the idea of piloting the concept within the public sector.

Dr Borg’s proposal – to trial a shorter work week in select Government departments before considering wider implementation – was met with swift criticism from the Malta Employers Association (MEA), which dismissed it as an “unrealistic populist proposal” in light of the country’s ongoing labour shortages.

Finance Minister Clyde Caruana has also repeatedly cautioned that such a reform can only be justified if productivity levels improve, warning against measures that risk undermining Malta’s economic output. However, international examples, including the United Kingdom’s landmark four-day week trial, continue to fuel discussion about the potential benefits and drawbacks of the model.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry also weighed in on the debate, warning on Wednesday (yesterday) that introducing a four-day work week without detailed analysis could harm Malta’s productivity and competitiveness.

While acknowledging that shorter work weeks are being explored internationally, the Chamber urged policymakers to avoid “brief statements that raise more questions rather than give answers and sustainable solutions,” emphasising that any such reform must be grounded in evidence-based assessment rather than political rhetoric.

But what would a four-day work week actually look like? Is it just a long weekend?

Not exactly.

Between June and December 2022, 61 companies across the United Kingdom took part in the world’s largest coordinated trial of a four-day workweek. The six-month pilot, organised by 4 Day Week Global, Autonomy, and researchers from the University of Cambridge and Boston College, involved around 2,900 employees.

Participants maintained 100 per cent of pay while reducing working hours by 20 per cent, testing whether shorter weeks could deliver the same output with improved work-life balance. Instead of adopting a single formula, each organisation designed a model suited to its structure, industry, and culture.

No one-size-fits-all approach

Unlike traditional trials, businesses were not required to follow one rigid pattern of reduced hours. What mattered was maintaining full pay and providing a meaningful reduction in working time. This flexibility gave rise to several distinct models – each with its own rationale and benefits.

1. Fifth-day stoppage

One of the most common strategies involved shutting down operations entirely for an extra day each week. This approach worked particularly well for companies that valued teamwork and in-person collaboration.

For example, a video game studio decided to close every Friday after consulting its staff. This collective day off allowed everyone to rest simultaneously, maintaining cohesion while ensuring no one was left working alone to cover gaps.

2. Staggered schedules

In sectors that required continuous coverage, some businesses opted for staggered days off. Employees were divided into teams, each taking different days off to keep operations running smoothly.

A digital marketing agency implemented a “buddy system”, pairing colleagues with similar skill sets. One would take Mondays off, the other Fridays – ensuring that essential work never stalled, while still enjoying reduced hours.

3. Decentralised models

In more complex organisations, departments had the freedom to design their own four-day systems. This decentralised approach suited companies with diverse functions, such as housing associations balancing administration, outreach, and maintenance work.

Each department developed a model tailored to its responsibilities – from rotating shifts to shorter daily hours – creating a blend of flexibility and autonomy.

4. Annualised hours

Some businesses, particularly those affected by seasonal demand, trialled annualised hours. Employees averaged a 32-hour week over the course of a year, working longer in busy months and shorter in quieter periods.

A restaurant, for example, extended its summer hours to meet demand, then compensated staff with shorter weeks during the off-season.

5. Conditional models

In a few cases, companies tied the four-day week to performance targets. Employees or departments had to meet agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to retain the shorter schedule.

This arrangement created an incentive to maintain productivity but also introduced variability – some staff entered the pilot later than others, while others temporarily reverted to five-day weeks when targets were missed.

Different levels of protection

Even among those that successfully adopted the shorter week, the “protection” of the fifth day off varied. Researchers identified three general categories:

• Highly protected: The extra day off was treated like a weekend. One consulting firm went as far as updating staff contracts and rehearsing Friday closures before the trial began.
• Protected: Employees were generally off-duty, but expected to be reachable in exceptional circumstances. A manufacturing firm temporarily suspended the four-day week following a power outage to make up for lost time – with staff broadly supportive.
• Weakly protected: Some conditional models allowed for frequent changes to the designated day off, leaving workers uncertain about their schedules.

Policies around leave and part-time workers

The pilot also required companies to reconsider HR policies. Annual leave allowances, for example, were handled differently: Some organisations kept them unchanged, while others reduced bookable days proportionally. Despite this adjustment, staff still enjoyed substantially more rest days than under a five-day system.

Bank holidays also sparked debate. Some firms treated them as additional days off; others counted them as part of the four-day week.

Part-time staff presented another challenge. Companies took varied approaches – from pro rata reductions in hours to proportional pay increases. One non-profit organisation devised a particularly thoughtful solution: It calculated reduced hours on a monthly rather than weekly basis, allowing part-time employees to enjoy an extra full day off at regular intervals.

Early results

Out of 44 companies that provided feedback, 32 switched to a four-day week for all employees, while 12 applied it only to full-time staff. Around a third chose to take Fridays off collectively, while a quarter allowed staff to choose their own day. A small number rotated days weekly.

Overall, the pilot showed that flexibility, communication, and trust were key to success. Businesses that involved staff in decision-making and treated the four-day week as a collaborative experiment were best placed to make it sustainable.

In essence, the UK’s four-day workweek trial demonstrated that productivity doesn’t depend solely on hours worked – but on how thoughtfully time is structured. Whether through synchronised Fridays off or department-led flexibility, companies that embraced innovation found new ways to balance efficiency with employee well-being.