Shorter weeks – smarter work?

The recent discussion on the four-day workweek has sparked a lively debate and generated a fair share of misconceptions. Detractors are claiming that Malta cannot sustain shorter working hours without first improving productivity. On the surface, that seems logical: if we already struggle to do more with the hours we have, why should we work fewer of them?

However, global evidence increasingly shows that shorter working weeks, when implemented intelligently, are not the reward for productivity – they can be one of its drivers. Far from being a mirage, the four-day week can act as a powerful catalyst for focus, innovation and well-being that the country is largely lacking in.

Productivity and time: two sides of the same coin

The traditional view says: raise productivity first, reduce hours later. Yet, research from large-scale international pilots shows the sequence can also work the other way around.

In the UK’s 2022–2023 national four-day-week pilot, the largest of its kind, 61 companies and nearly 3,000 employees reduced hours for six months. According to research by the University of Cambridge, Boston College and Autonomy, 92 per cent of firms continued the shorter week afterwards. Among companies that provided data, average revenue rose about 1.4 per cent during the trial and roughly 35 per cent compared with a similar pre-trial period, while resignations fell by around 57 per cent. Employees reported 39 per cent lower stress and 71 per cent less burnout. These gains followed a two-month preparation phase of coaching and workflow redesign – not just a blanket cut in hours.

Iceland’s public-sector trials (2015–2019) reduced the weekly working hours to 35–36 hours with no loss in pay. Independent evaluations found productivity and service levels were maintained or improved, while well-being rose substantially. Afterward, collective bargaining extended shorter hours, or the right to request them, to about 86 per cent of the Icelandic workforce.

In Portugal’s 2023–2024 government pilot, coordinated with Birkbeck (University of London) and Henley Business School, 41 companies took part and 21 completed a six-month trial. The results: 95 per cent of employers rated the experience positively, reporting lower exhaustion and better work–life balance among staff. Across all cases, the common denominator is not simply less time – it is redesign.

When firms capped meetings, clarified priorities and empowered teams to opt for innovative, rather than outdated solutions, productivity held steady or improved.

The trials showed that, when time became a scarce resource, people used it more wisely.

The Maltese context

Malta’s economy might initially appear ill-suited to such experiments.

About 97 per cent of Maltese businesses are micro-enterprises, with fewer than 10 employees, and much of our workforce is concentrated in services – tourism, hospitality, ICT, finance and administration.

Full-time employees work about 41 hours per week on average, while part-timers work roughly 23 hours.

Labour productivity in Malta per hour remains below the average within the EU and recent growth has relied more on foreign workforce expansion than efficiency gains.

Those facts are often cited as reasons to delay any discussion of shorter weeks.  Yet, they are precisely why Malta should explore targeted trials.

The sectors that thrived in foreign four-day week pilots – professional services, ICT, marketing, design and finance – mirror much of Malta’s own economy.

Of course, not every sector can switch overnight. Healthcare, retail and hospitality depend on physical presence and continuous coverage.

However, global pilots demonstrate flexible alternatives through staggered shifts, rotating rest days, or hybrid models.

What the evidence really shows

Across trials on three continents, which were also carried out in EU states like Spain, Portugal, Poland and Germany – a consistent pattern emerges. Output per employee remains stable or improves. Absenteeism falls. Recruitment and retention strengthen. Employees report higher engagement and lower stress.

Shorter hours can also encourage innovation and quality- Anna Borg

The results also showed that shorter hours can also encourage innovation and quality. Rested, motivated staff make fewer mistakes and bring more ideas. These effects may not immediately show up in GDP-per-hour statistics, yet, they translate into tangible organisational gains: lower turnover, reduced sick leave and stronger service outcomes.

A shorter week, then, is not only about comfort or well-being – it is a discipline mechanism: it forces clarity of priorities and rewards efficient work.

A practical path for Malta

Instead of viewing the four-day week as an unattainable luxury, Malta can take a pragmatic, evidence-based approach by launching voluntary, evaluated pilots.  We can begin in sectors most ready for redesign – professional services, ICT, finance and selected government agencies. This calls for independent assessment through university and, possibly, collaboration with MCESD or the National Productivity Board to monitor output, quality, absenteeism, retention and costs.

We can build on the knowledge gained on other pilots that showed that to be successful one must:

• Redesign before reduction.

Every successful trial included six-to-eight weeks of preparation: mapping workflows, limiting meetings, automating routine tasks and training managers. Simply cutting hours without redesign would be counterproductive.

• Support small businesses.

SMEs may need help managing transition costs. Government or EU grants could fund consultancy, training, or digital-tool adoption that boosts efficiency.

• Measure broadly.

GDP per hour is vital but incomplete. Malta should also track qualitative indicators – innovation, customer satisfaction and employee well-being that underpin long-term productivity.

• Stay flexible.

The four-day week need not mean closing every Friday or reducing the services to clients. Furthermore, while some firms may adopt 32-hour weeks at full pay; others may start reducing hours gradually, say opting first to go down to 35 to 36-hour week instead of going down immediately to 32 hours. Others may find tailor-made solutions that work best for their business and their workers.

What matters is evidence of sustained or improved output.

The real question

The real question is not whether Malta can afford a shorter workweek but whether we can afford to keep working in outdated ways that drain our people without adding real value. We are seeing far too many workers – especially parents – stretched to their limits. Malta’s status as the EU country with the lowest fertility rate should be warning enough that our current model isn’t working. Trying innovative approaches, such as shorter workweeks and experimentation, is the least we can do.

If Malta begins with disciplined, data-driven pilots, the evidence will speak for itself. Done right, fewer hours can mean better output, stronger motivation and a healthier, more sustainable future of work.

It is time to move beyond the assumption that long working hours equal hard work. In a modern economy where well-being and innovation drive growth, the four-day week is not productivity’s enemy at all – it is its long-awaited partner.

Anna Borg is a university academic and researcher focusing on work, equality and the evolving labour market at the Centre for Labour Studies, University of Malta.