The four-day work week has shifted from a fringe concept to one of the most widely studied workplace reforms of the 21st century. The standard model—32 hours of work over four days with no reduction in salary—aims to deliver 100% productivity in 80% of the time, in exchange for a guaranteed additional day of rest. Global trials suggest it can boost focus, well-being, and retention—but would it work in Georgia?
The UK’s landmark 2022 pilot, covering 61 companies and nearly 3,000 employees, found that 92% chose to continue the four-day model, reporting steady or improved productivity, lower turnover, fewer sick days, and stronger employee wellbeing. Iceland’s multi-year public sector trials reached similar results, with productivity maintained or increased and reduced-hour arrangements extended to most of the workforce without affecting national output—showing that shorter weeks can work at scale when workflows are redesigned.
The standard model—32 hours of work over four days with no reduction in salary—aims to deliver 100% productivity in 80% of the time
Corporate trials point in the same direction. Microsoft Japan compressed the work week and cut meeting time, reporting a 40% productivity boost and higher employee satisfaction. Panasonic introduced an optional four-day structure and saw reduced burnout and stronger talent attraction, while Kickstarter adopted a 32-hour week without pay cuts and recorded lower voluntary turnover and sharper focus among staff.
Although far less common, Georgia has had its own early adopters. FlowMaster, a training and educational services company, introduced a four-day week in 2022 and shifted to a Tuesday–Friday schedule. The company retained full salaries and expectations under the 100–80–100 model, and—according to Ani Kharshiladze, a board member of FlowMaster—saw increased productivity, improved morale, easier recruitment, and a stronger reputation among clients and candidates.
For Georgia, the most realistic pathway lies in selective implementation, gradual experimentation, and evidence-based adaptation
“Our clients were initially confused when we informed them that our team doesn’t work on Mondays,” says Kharshiladze, “but they quickly adjusted to the idea.”
One of the most unlikely places to meet this type of work model would be journalism, but iFact, a Georgian media organization specializing in investigative journalism, has established itself as a pioneer of the concept within the local field. Investigative journalism is famously high-pressure, high-stakes, and mentally demanding. In 2022, iFact introduced a four-day work week—choosing Wednesdays as their weekly rest day. The idea came after global success stories but ultimately grew from a very personal insight: the organization’s leadership wanted to prevent burnout in a field where it is too often overlooked.
The team was initially skeptical but agreed to test it, and within months, they were in consensus that it worked better than expected. The chosen day of rest is meant to serve as a strategic pause: two days of work, a break, and then two more workdays, followed by the weekend. “It’s like a mini weekend in the middle of the work week,” shares editor and co-founder of iFact Nino Bakradze.
Their workload remained unchanged, and salaries stayed the same. When deadlines are unusually intense, some staff do work on Wednesdays—but are compensated with an additional day off later. Most weeks, however, Wednesday is a guaranteed day of rest. Bakradze notes that the model fits them because they focus on long-term investigations, not real-time news. They aren’t tied to the traditional news cycle, which Bakradze notes is a critical distinction.
Where the model works—and where it doesn’t
Just as Bakradze notes that the nuanced nature of their journalistic work allows her team to strategically pause mid-week, Georgian labor expert Ana Diakonidze contends that this model isn’t suited for all sectors—or economies.
“Globally, we see that the four-day model works best in knowledge-based sectors where productivity depends on focus, creativity, and mental clarity,” she explains. “When people feel burnt out, their cognitive performance dips.” In this case, “value is produced in periods of focus, and a shorter week forces companies to design their workflows intentionally.”
However, she notes, the model is not “universally applicable” across all industries. Sectors that require continuous presence—such as healthcare, hospitality, retail, logistics, call centers, and real-time media—face operational constraints that cannot be solved simply by compressing work time. Implementing a four-day week in these environments would demand larger staffing pools, tighter schedules, and more sophisticated human-resource planning. These adjustments are expensive and complex, particularly in a labor market like Georgia’s, which already struggles with high turnover and limited employee retention in many service-oriented fields.
The feasibility of a four-day work week also appears closely tied to a country’s productivity base and stage of economic development. International labor research from the International Labor Organization (ILO) and OECD indicates that economies with higher productivity per hour and larger knowledge-based sectors are far better positioned to shorten hours without reducing output.
Due to the nature of Georgia’s labor market, which remains dominated by low-skill, low-wage service roles and characterized by rapid employee turnover and limited managerial capacity, the transition could prove particularly challenging. These features, typical of developing and transition economies, are characterized by employers that prioritize basic operational coverage over efficiency redesign.
By contrast, Georgia’s growing high-skill sectors—including IT, finance, analytics, and parts of the creative and digital economy—more closely mirror the conditions found in countries where four-day models have succeeded. In these industries, flexibility could strengthen competitiveness, especially in attracting and retaining skilled workers.
Globally, we see that the four-day model works best in knowledge-based sectors where productivity depends on focus, creativity, and mental clarity
Diakonidze warns, however, that uneven adoption could deepen labor-market inequality, with privileged sectors gaining well-being, productivity, and retention advantages while others fall further behind.
When good intentions meet hard reality
At both the global and Georgian level, several pilots of the four-day work week have not succeeded—emphasizing that the model can quickly unravel when customer demands, growth pressures, or uneven workloads are not carefully managed.
In 2015, the U.S.-headquartered online coding school Treehouse enthusiastically adopted a permanent 32-hour week, only to abruptly end it in late 2016 during a round of layoffs, admitting the reduced hours were incompatible with the intense demands of rapid growth. Similarly, UK software firm Krystal launched a high-profile six-week trial in mid-2016, extended it once, then quietly cancelled the policy after four months when employees reported a rise in stress and blurred boundaries between work and personal time.
Major retailers also walked back their policies. In 2023, British supermarket chain Morrisons scrapped its trial as it was revealed that the trial had required head-office staff to work one extra Saturday every four weeks, concluding that the forced weekend shifts destroyed the very work-life balance improvements the new policy was meant to deliver.
Similar dynamics have appeared in Georgia, where some firms, like the International Sales Institute, reverted to a five-day schedule after finding the model incompatible with their operational realities. This suggests that managerial readiness and workflow maturity—not enthusiasm alone—determine sustainability.
A selective pathway for Georgia, with broader implications
Taken together, the evidence suggests that the four-day week succeeds where productivity is driven by focus and autonomy and struggles where output depends on physical presence or unpredictable demand. For Georgia, the most viable opportunities lie in high-productivity, knowledge-based sectors already competing internationally for talent.
At the same time, global trials also highlight secondary effects that may resonate locally. A pilot of the reduced working hours model in Valencia found reduced traffic congestion and lower pollution. UK studies observed more balanced distribution of childcare responsibilities, with men increasing their share during four-day work week periods. Some pilots recorded fewer stress-related absences, hinting at public health benefits. Longer weekends were associated with increased cultural participation and short-distance leisure travel, suggesting that reduced-hour models influence not only workplaces, but also urban life and household dynamics.
With burnout rising, shifting expectations among younger workers, and stronger competition for skilled employees, carefully designed pilots may offer meaningful benefits. Broader adoption, however, will require higher productivity, stronger management capability, and more resilient labor-market fundamentals. “The key is not rigid implementation,” asserts labor expert Ana Diakonidze. “It’s flexibility. You can rotate days, mix remote work, or reduce meetings. It’s not one formula for success—it’s a spectrum.”
The four-day work week is not a universal solution nor a guaranteed productivity tool. But the experiences of FlowMaster and iFact, combined with international results, demonstrate that with intentional design, the model can deliver measurable benefits in the right conditions. For Georgia, the most realistic pathway lies in selective implementation, gradual experimentation, and evidence-based adaptation.
If global experience suggests one important insight, it is this: shorter weeks do not reduce productivity — inefficiency does.
By Giga Beruashvili for Investor.ge
