Iceland’s bold move to trial a shorter workweek has sent ripples around the world, igniting debates on employee wellness, productivity, and work-life balance. Often viewed as a progressive nation when it comes to labor and social policies, Iceland’s experiment with a four-day workweek was closely monitored for its potential to revolutionize how modern societies approach employment. With workers clocking in fewer hours while maintaining full pay, the question remains—did fewer hours lead to better results, or did the dream outpace reality?
Over the span of several years, about 2,500 Icelandic workers—roughly 1% of the country’s workforce—participated in these nationally sponsored trials. They came from diverse sectors including hospitals, offices, preschools, and government departments, offering a broad and reliable insight into real-world applicability. The stunning findings? Productivity not only remained steady in most sectors but in some cases even saw improvement. Worker well-being improved dramatically, with sharp increases in perceived health, work satisfaction, and even time spent with family and friends.
Key highlights of the Iceland four-day workweek experiment
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Country | Iceland |
| Trial Period | 2015 – 2019 |
| Participants | 2,500 workers across various sectors |
| Work Hours | 35-36 hours/week without pay cut |
| Outcomes | Higher well-being, equal or improved productivity |
| Current Usage | 86% of workforce enjoys flexible hours or reduced schedules |
What led Iceland to explore a shorter workweek
Iceland’s journey toward a four-day workweek wasn’t born in a vacuum. The country has long struggled with burnout rates and growing concerns about employee stress. Coupled with existing evidence that longer hours don’t necessarily equate to better output, Iceland’s government partnered with trade unions and researchers to explore the feasibility of a reduced-hours model. The aim was to test if fewer hours could lead to not just better mental health outcomes but also equal or better work contributions.
Guided by growing international interest and domestic feedback, the trials were lauded as amongst the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken globally regarding reduced-hour schedules. Backed by continuous monitoring and feedback loops, the program received regular adjustments to better understand its impact on both institutional performance and individual satisfaction levels.
How the experiment was structured
The four-day workweek trial didn’t abide by a one-size-fits-all template. Different departments and institutions customized their reduced hour frameworks according to operational needs. For instance, city council staff might adopt compressed schedules, while hospital units implemented careful shift balancing to not disrupt patient care. The key priority in all setups was to protect productivity while minimizing weekly hours and preserving income levels.
Some workers were brought down from traditional 40-hour schedules to 35 or 36 hours weekly. Managers were trained to identify low-impact meetings, redundant workflows, and distractions to carve out meaningful efficiency improvements. Employees, in turn, were encouraged to suggest changes that could maintain output within the shorter week.
Outcomes for workers and employers
Results of the trials were overwhelmingly positive. Surveys and interviews conducted with participating employees revealed improved mental health, reduced burnout, and better life satisfaction. Parents cited more meaningful engagement with their children. Many employees reported greater focus during working hours, interpreting the reduced schedule not as a free pass, but as an incentive to cut the fluff and get straight to the point.
We saw staff take more initiative, collaborate better, and stress levels dropped significantly. It redefined what effective work actually means.
— Maria Jónsdóttir, Reykjavik City Department Head
On the employer side, the initial skepticism turned into cautious optimism, especially as KPIs and output levels remained stable. Shifting to a quality-over-quantity mindset helped foster innovation in many linear workflows, thereby illustrating that streamlined operations can coexist with better worker morale.
Winners and losers from the new work model
| Winners | Losers |
|---|---|
| Office and administrative workers, government staff, social service providers | Sectors with rigid schedules like healthcare and emergency services faced adoption challenges |
| Parents and caregivers who gained valuable home time | Businesses without workflow flexibility or funding mechanisms to support transition |
| Unions and labor rights activists who found proof points for their advocacy | Workers in multitasking roles where interruptions are frequent |
Adoption beyond the initial pilot
Following the success of the trials, Iceland began broadening the availability of reduced-hour contracts and flexible work structures. As of the most recent data, around 86% of the workforce has either moved to a shorter workweek or is eligible to negotiate flexibility in hours. Public sector agencies were the fastest adopters, followed closely by unionized operations that had frameworks in place to support such reforms.
This isn’t just about leisure—it’s about redefining productivity for the era we’re living in.
— Björn Einarsson, Labor Market Analyst
Challenges still facing a national rollout
Despite the success stories, rolling out a four-day workweek across all sectors continues to face hurdles. Industries with rigid structures, such as healthcare, logistics, and emergency services, require more extensive planning and resources. These sectors can’t simply scale down hours without affecting public safety or essential service delivery.
Budget limitations and lack of staffing flexibility have been identified as significant roadblocks. Additionally, small businesses may struggle to afford full-time pay for reduced hours unless accompanied by proportional cost efficiencies. This brings a need for policy support, potentially in the form of subsidies or public-private collaboration, to facilitate broader adoption.
Global implications
Iceland’s successful implementation provides a functional blueprint for other countries looking to revamp their labor policies. Several governments and private companies across Europe and North America have already expressed interest in similar trials, citing Iceland as a real-world proof of concept. More importantly, it shifts the conversation from theoretical models to applied social and business case studies that can inform legislation and workplace reform globally.
Iceland has shown that work-life balance doesn’t have to come at the cost of results. It’s time the rest of the world caught up.
— Elín Kristjánsdóttir, Labor Rights Campaigner
What’s next for Iceland’s workforce
Momentum continues to build in favor of rethinking the 40-hour week. Discussions are underway in Iceland’s Parliament regarding formalizing reduced-hour contracts as a default option in government roles. Private industries are also conducting their own exploratory projects to align with shifting expectations from the modern workforce. The public seems universally in favor, and with data in hand, larger institutional adoption seems not just possible, but likely inevitable.
Short FAQs about Iceland’s four-day workweek
Was the four-day workweek mandatory?
No, participation in the trials was voluntary, with institutions applying to be part of the pilot program.
Did workers lose salary during the trials?
Absolutely not. Workers retained their full salaries despite having their weekly hours reduced.
How were essential services affected?
In sectors like hospitals, shifts were adjusted spread across different teams to maintain uninterrupted services.”
Will Iceland make this permanent?
There’s growing political will and public pressure, with many institutions already adopting it long-term.
Can other countries adopt a similar model?
Yes, but they need to tailor implementations to their unique workforce, infrastructure, and legal frameworks.
Did productivity drop as hours reduced?
No. Most workplaces saw either consistent or better productivity levels thanks to improved focus and tools.
What sectors benefited most?
Government roles, office jobs, and social services all saw the highest benefits in flexibility and morale.
How were the trials monitored?
Researchers monitored productivity metrics, employee feedback, and well-being indicators throughout the trials.
About the Author
