Evaluating a Compressed Workweek

The notion of the four-day workweek has captured global attention as organizations search for ways to balance employee wellbeing with business performance. This calculator helps quantify the tangible outcomes of adopting a compressed schedule. By accepting the number of employees, hours worked under traditional and condensed arrangements, output per hour, and expected changes in productivity, the tool estimates total weekly output for each arrangement. It also multiplies the cost per office day and commute to highlight potential savings. The goal is to support evidence-based decisions rather than relying solely on anecdotes or intuition.

Moving from a five-day routine to four longer days reshapes how both labor and infrastructure are utilized. Fewer days in the office reduce energy consumption, cleaning requirements, and commuting emissions. Yet stakeholders often worry about lost output or employee burnout due to extended days. Research from pilot programs in Iceland, New Zealand, and Japan suggests that with focused planning, output can remain steady or even increase. The productivity multiplier parameter lets users model scenarios where employees maintain, exceed, or fall short of their typical hourly effectiveness during the compressed schedule. By experimenting with values such as 90%, 100%, or 110%, managers can understand the sensitivity of results to productivity assumptions.

The calculator implements a straightforward arithmetic framework. Weekly output under the five-day schedule $O\_5$ equals the number of employees $N$ times hours per day $h\_5$, times five days, times productivity per hour $p$. The four-day output $O\_4$ substitutes the four-day hours $h\_4$, multiplies by four, and scales by the productivity multiplier $m$ expressed as a percentage. The relative change appears as

$\frac{O}{\_}O\_5\times 100\%$, which yields a percentage that can be positive or negative depending on the inputs.

Energy and commute savings rely on a simple difference in days. Because employees spend one fewer day in the office and on the road, the calculator multiplies energy and commute cost per day by the number of employees to display weekly savings. To offer perspective, consider a midsize firm with 50 workers, each consuming $15 of electricity and $8 of commuting costs daily. Transitioning to a four-day week would save $750 in energy and $400 in commuting every week, or roughly $59,800 annually, without yet accounting for productivity impacts.

Interpreting Results

The output area provides a concise summary of findings. It reports total weekly output under both schedules, the percentage change, and cost savings. Managers may find that slight productivity gains offset reduced working days, leading to nearly equivalent output with lower overhead. Even if productivity dips, savings on energy and commuting might justify the trade-off, especially when intangible benefits such as improved morale and reduced absenteeism are considered. Organizations should complement these quantitative assessments with qualitative feedback from employees to design policies that fit their culture.

A decision about the four-day workweek should not hinge on a single metric. Instead, it is useful to evaluate a constellation of outcomes. The following table summarizes example scenarios to illustrate how results respond to different assumptions:

Scenario	Productivity Multiplier	Weekly Output Change	Weekly Savings
Conservative	95%	-5%	Energy & commute savings offset lost output
Neutral	100%	0%	Pure cost savings, equal output
Optimistic	110%	+10%	Higher output and cost savings

These examples demonstrate how even modest productivity improvements can transform the cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, reductions in turnover and recruitment expenses are not explicitly modeled but often cited by companies experimenting with shorter weeks. Although the calculator simplifies complex dynamics, it offers a transparent framework for exploring what-if questions and developing an initial business case.

Beyond economics, a four-day workweek touches environmental and social dimensions. Fewer commutes reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urban congestion. Extra personal time can enable volunteering, skill development, or caregiving, contributing to more resilient communities. From an equity perspective, condensed schedules may benefit caregivers who struggle with traditional weekday constraints. However, critics caution that longer daily hours could worsen fatigue or limit flexibility for appointments. The productivity multiplier enables exploration of these potential drawbacks.

When presenting the concept to stakeholders, many organizations conduct pilots. This calculator can serve as a planning aid to set expectations and measurement targets. For example, if a team expects output to remain constant while energy costs drop by 20%, those benchmarks can be tracked during the trial. The transparent equations also facilitate adjustment for localized conditions such as higher electricity rates or longer commutes. The key is to combine quantitative analysis with thoughtful policy design that involves employees in decision-making.

In conclusion, transitioning to a four-day workweek is more than a scheduling tweak; it is a systemic shift affecting productivity, costs, employee satisfaction, and sustainability. By modeling the interplay of these factors, this tool supports informed experimentation. Use the calculator to compare baseline and proposed scenarios, then iterate with real-world data to refine your approach. The four-day workweek may not suit every organization, but with a solid analytical foundation, leaders can move beyond speculation and evaluate the concept through the lens of data-driven strategy.