Five-day work week: Why What Once Defined Progress May Now Be Holding It Back

For nearly a century, the five-day work week has been treated as the unquestioned standard of modern life. In the early 20th century, it marked a major labour reform: a shift from six or seven days of grueling work to a schedule that allowed room for rest, family, and personal development. Iconic industrialist Henry Ford introduced the 40-hour work week at Ford Motor Company in the 1920s, not solely out of generosity, but because he recognised that workers with more leisure time could become more productive employees and more active consumers of the very products they made. 

Laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in the United States further cemented the five-day work week as a legal and cultural norm. It became a shorthand for progress, evidence that society could balance economic growth with human dignity. For decades, it worked mostly as intended, where workers were freed from exhausting schedules and weekends became a time for recreation. But as the world changes, the assumptions underpinning this once-revolutionary schedule are beginning to crack under scrutiny and face a profound reappraisal. 

Is the five-day work week still the best way to organise labour in a world transformed by technology, globalised markets, and new understandings of human psychology? Evidence from recent research suggests that the answer is increasingly complex.

The Legacy of the Five-Day Work Week

To understand why this schedule feels so fixed, we must recognize its roots. Before labour reforms, many workers endured six or even seven days of exhausting toil. The introduction of a standardized five-day work week was a hard-won victory of labour movements across the industrialized world, cemented legally in policies like the Fair Labor Standards Act in the United States in 1938.

However, that historical victory is now functioning like a societal default that few question, even when evidence suggests it might no longer serve us well. Simply preserving tradition, even well-intentioned tradition, does not guarantee that it remains optimal in the face of social, economic, and technological evolution.

The Productivity Paradox

A central assumption underpinning the five-day structure is that more hours worked equals more productivity. But contemporary research increasingly challenges this. Studies on shorter work weeks, most prominently models like the four-day work week, show that reimagining how we distribute work can maintain, or even enhance, output while improving overall well-being. For example, a global study of companies that experimented with reduced work hours found that workers were not only happier but also retained productivity levels comparable to traditional weeks.

In fact, research noted that many organisations restructured their workflows to eliminate inefficiencies, such as unnecessary meetings and that this refinement, rather than longer hours, was what preserved output. This insight cuts straight to the heart of the productivity paradox: busyness does not equal productivity. Time spent working longer does not guarantee better results. Focused, purposeful work does.

Well-Being, Burnout, and Hidden Costs

Productivity isn’t the only metric of work time. They shape our physical and mental well-being. Even official surveys by institutions like Gallup show a complex picture. While five-day workers report relatively high engagement, there are clear links between extended work patterns and burnout.

What’s more, cross-national experiments with shorter work weeks, such as Iceland’s trial of reduced hours, demonstrated that productivity and worker satisfaction can co-exist. Results indicated improved work-life balance, a dramatic reduction in stress, and unchanged or increased service levels across many workplaces.

These findings matter because the human cost of unexamined labour norms is rarely visible in headline GDP figures. Stress, sleep deprivation, mental health deterioration, higher rates of sick leave, and weakened family and community ties are often treated as externalities-problems for individuals rather than systems. But when we consider the aggregate social cost of sustained stress across millions of workers, this externality becomes a collective burden.

Technology and Changing Work Patterns

Another reason the five-day work week feels outdated is that technology has radically altered how work happens. Remote work platforms, asynchronous communication tools, and globalised collaboration have blurred the lines between “on” and “off” time. In many sectors, output has become decoupled from physical presence in an office or fixed hours in a cubicle.

Yet the five-day model persists, in part because organisations remain anchored to time-based thinking instead of outcome-based thinking. Reducing the structure to output, what employees produce rather than how long they labour, is a cultural shift, not a logistical one. But it’s a shift that researchers argue is central to progress, focusing on results over hours can unleash creativity and empower workers, rather than reduce them to clock punchers.

The Global Momentum Toward Alternative Work Weeks

Across the world, conversations about work schedules are evolving beyond the five-day norm. Countries such as Japan are actively exploring four-day workweek models to enhance productivity and employee happiness. Similarly, trials in the UK demonstrated that shorter schedules helped reduce work-related stress and improve morale without harming service delivery. These examples suggest that the rigid Monday-Friday structure is not a universal necessity, but rather a social construct that can be reshaped.

Counterarguments: Why Five Days Still Holds Sway

Of course, not everyone agrees that ditching the five-day work week is a good idea. Some argue that it provides necessary structure to economic activity, synchronizes labour markets, and stabilises industries that rely on continuous engagement. In countries with rigid service schedules or sectors that require daily coverage, reducing work days can create challenges around continuity, customer expectations, and coordination across markets.

Additionally, a Gallup poll revealed that employees on a five-day schedule reported relatively high engagement compared to those on six-day schedules, and workers’ thriving well-being did not differ significantly in some key metrics between four-day and five-day schedules.

This suggests that simply shortening workdays without addressing deeper workplace culture, such as meeting bloat, managerial oversight, and task prioritisation, may not yield the benefits we hope for.

Conclusion

Personally, I don’t believe the question should be binary. It’s not about replacing one rigid norm with another. The real challenge for our era is to rethink why we work the way we do, and whether the goals that the five-day work week once served are still aligned with human flourishing in the 21st century.

We should ask:

• What kinds of work actually benefit from a time-based schedule, and which benefit from outcome-based frameworks?
• How can labour policies acknowledge the diversity of modern jobs- from knowledge work to frontline service work- in ways that respect both productivity and well-being?
• Are we clinging too tightly to the traditional establishment simply because it feels like success?

Pilots of alternative schedules show that it is possible to uphold productivity while allowing workers more agency over their time. But equally, the evidence warns us against simplistic assumptions that fewer days alone will magically resolve deep organisational and cultural issues.

The five-day work week, once a beacon of progress, now stands at a crossroads. It no longer guarantees productivity, and in many cases may hinder innovation, exacerbate stress, and fail to reflect how work actually gets done in a digitally connected world.

Yet abandoning it without thoughtful alternatives would be just as unwise as clinging to it without question.

Progress, both social and economic, cannot be measured by tradition alone. If we are to redefine what meaningful work looks like in this century, we must rethink not just how many days we work, but why we work the way we do. The five-day work week may not be obsolete yet, but its unquestioned supremacy is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.

FAQs