15 công ty Úc chuyển sang làm việc 4 ngày một tuần và kết quả thật bất ngờ

In a 1930 essay, British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that in 100 years time, technological advances would have displaced so much human labour that people would be working 15-hour weeks – if they worked at all.

Today, 96 years later, that vision hasn’t exactly materialised. In Australia, research actually suggests we’re regularly doing more than we’re being paid for – performing an extra 3.6 hours of unpaid work each week on average.

The practical reality of a four–day work week first emerged during the energy crisis of the 1970s. But the idea gained momentum again when COVID forced a global rethink of how and where we work.

Now, interest in the idea is growing for other reasons. There have been calls for people to travel less as the Iran war disrupts fuel supplies. Unions are pushing for shorter working hours. And just last month, artificial intelligence (AI) giant OpenAI called for employers to experiment with a four–day work week as a way to equitably redistribute the productivity gains firms are predicted to get from AI.

Our new research, published in Nature’s Humanities and Social Sciences Communications journal, explores the practical experiences of 15 Australian firms that have tried switching to this model.

All but one of them decided to continue with the four–day work week. And none reported a loss of productivity.

What we did and what we found

Over two years, we interviewed 15 firms that had formally trialled the 100:80:100 version of the four–day work week.

This is where workers get 100% of their normal pay, but work 80% of their previous hours, in exchange for maintaining 100% of their previous output.

We interviewed key decision makers at these companies who had championed the idea of a four–day week and had a key role in its design and implementation.

We wanted to know why they were motivated to make this switch, the benefits and challenges they experienced, and what overall impact it had on productivity and company success.

The companies we studied operated across a wide range of industries, from logistics and property management to health care and publishing. About half were small firms, ranging from two to 18 employees, while the other half were medium–sized companies of up to 85 staff.

What motivated the switch

Often, the four–day work week is promoted as a way to improve productivity. But interestingly, six of the 15 companies we interviewed expressly said their primary motivation was to reduce burnout.

A 2025 survey by Beyond Blue found one in two Australian workers face burnout, with the country’s young people and parents most at risk.

In our research, one female chief executive of a medium–sized health tech firm underlined the importance of work–life balance and having burnout prevention strategies for employees.

She said levels of “attrition”, “absenteeism” and “people taking sick days and mental health days because they’re burnt out” were the key measurements she used to gauge the four–day work week’s success.

Another female chief executive at a medium–sized financial firm said:

We felt that when we sat down with clients every day, and we were encouraging them to live their good life, that it was a little rich if we didn’t do the same.

The overall verdict

At the time of our interviews – between early 2023 and late 2024 – 14 of the 15 participating firms were still operating the 100:80:100 model, either extending their original trials or moving to full adoption.

Some admitted they were still in the “early days”. But one firm had already been operating the model for nearly eight years.

One firm abandoned the idea, but admitted timing was a big factor in that decision, as it was already undergoing a period of significant change at the time of its trial.

In terms of productivity, six of the participating organisations indicated productivity had actually increased since the introduction of the four–day work week. The remaining firms said it had stayed “about the same”. Notably, none of the firms reported a drop in productivity as a result of the four–day work week.

Firms made these assessments about productivity based on their own chosen measures, which ranged from revenue and profit to projects delivered on time and “net promoter score” (a measure of customer loyalty and satisfaction) .

When asked for their overall evaluation, firms awarded the 100:80:100 four–day work week model an average success rating of 8.5 out of 10.

Limitations and lessons

Our research does have limitations. For one, the specific model we studied is still relatively new, so the number of organisations we are able to study in Australia is small. We plan to conduct a follow–up study with the same firms within the next few years, testing how sustainable the changes were in the long term.

It’s also worth noting that the people we interviewed often had a key role in deciding to trial a four–day work week, so their responses could potentially be biased.

But as we grapple with high workplace burnout, and societal challenges about what to do with the productivity gains we’re predicted to get from AI, a four–day work week could be an interesting part of both those conversations.

John L. Hopkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.