In 1926, pioneering automaker Henry Ford demonstrated that shortening the workweek would not result in economic catastrophe. Through research and experimentation, the industrialist recognized the importance of rest and decided to operate his factories for only five days a week, down from six. He also limited workdays to eight hours without reducing employee pay.

As one of the largest manufacturers of his time, Ford’s decision influenced many other companies to adopt the 40-hour workweek format. Before this innovation, workers typically endured 12-hour days, six days a week — totaling over 70 hours. Sundays were reserved for rest and religious obligations. The new approach represented a significant shift in labor practices.

Ford believed that overworking employees caused fatigue and diminished productivity. A shorter workweek, he argued, would allow workers to rest and recover, making them more efficient during their working hours. Additionally, he anticipated that more leisure time would encourage higher consumer spending, including on Ford products. He saw this balance between work and leisure as essential for sustained economic growth.

Ford implemented the five-day workweek unilaterally, without waiting for government mandates or union pressure. Importantly, he maintained wages despite reducing hours. This ensured employees did not suffer financially and, instead, enjoyed an improved quality of life.

The “Ford format” has endured for nearly a century, but as technology transforms the workplace, it may be time to revisit the idea of a shorter workweek. If productivity and efficiency can be maintained, and workers assured of fair pay, a shorter workweek could be a win-win for both employers and employees.

Globally, governments and companies have begun experimenting with flexible work arrangements, including shorter workweeks, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) introduced a 4.5-day workweek in 2022 to improve work-life balance and align with global markets. Fridays were designated as half-days to accommodate cultural practices, while weekends were shifted to Saturday-Sunday.

Similarly, Iceland conducted landmark experiments between 2015 and 2019, testing a four-day workweek for public sector workers. The trials, involving 2,500 participants, demonstrated that shorter workweeks could increase productivity, reduce stress, and maintain or even enhance output. In Japan, the “Work Style Reform Act” encouraged public offices to adopt flexible schedules to reduce overwork and promote better work-life balance.

In the private sector, a 2022 trial in the United Kingdom involving over 60 companies tested the four-day workweek without pay cuts. Results showed sustained or increased revenue, better employee mental health, and lower burnout. In the United States, companies like Twitter and Microsoft adopted remote or hybrid work models. Kickstarter implemented a permanent four-day workweek after successful trials. Similarly, New Zealand’s Perpetual Guardian conducted a four-day workweek experiment in 2018, which resulted in better work-life balance, reduced stress, and sustained productivity.

Iceland’s trials were particularly influential. By 2022, nearly 90% of Iceland’s workforce had access to shorter workweeks. Similarly, in the UK, 91% of firms participating in 2022 trials chose to continue the four-day workweek, citing improved employee retention, reduced absenteeism, and stable or increased revenues.

Elsewhere, European Union pandemic recovery funds incentivized remote work, particularly for small and medium enterprises. Germany and France supported hybrid work arrangements through subsidies, while Singapore introduced the Work-Life Grant, providing financial incentives for businesses implementing flexible work setups. In the Philippines, the 2018 Telecommuting Act created a legal framework for remote work, though adoption remains limited.

However, not all jobs easily adapt to remote work or reduced hours. Manufacturing and healthcare roles, for example, often require on-site presence. While some manufacturers are exploring partial automation to accommodate reduced shifts, human oversight remains essential. In healthcare, telemedicine can address some services remotely, but frontline workers — such as nurses, doctors, and support staff — must remain physically present.

Additionally, in regions with limited digital infrastructure, remote work can exacerbate socioeconomic disparities. Large corporations can afford to provide equipment and connectivity for employees, but small businesses often lack the resources to do so. This creates an uneven playing field, particularly for smaller companies competing in flexible work environments.

In the Philippines, many government offices have already adopted shorter workweeks and other flexible arrangements. However, in the private sector, no-work-no-pay policies present a significant barrier. For a shorter workweek to succeed, compensation must shift from being based solely on hours or days worked to being tied to output, productivity, and efficiency.

To address these challenges, the government along with business must agree on how to clearly define the scope of flexible work arrangements — be they remote, hybrid, or shortened workweeks — and establish guidelines for compensation, overtime, and worker protections. The government can also offer tax incentives or grants to businesses transitioning to these models, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that need financial support. Encouraging a mix of on-site and remote work where possible would allow businesses to balance operational needs with flexibility goals.

Flexible work arrangements are reshaping the global workforce, offering significant benefits in terms of productivity, morale, and environmental impact. The successes documented in Iceland, the UK, and other pioneering countries demonstrate that traditional assumptions about the 40-hour, five-day workweek are increasingly outdated.

Still, caution is warranted. Implementing shorter workweeks or fully remote setups in sectors like manufacturing and healthcare presents unique logistical and operational hurdles. Each industry must carefully evaluate the pros and cons, and industry leaders must play a key role in guiding this transition.

Governments and businesses can implement sweeping changes, supported by legislation and incentives, or allow market forces to drive flexible work on a case-by-case basis. Regardless of the approach, the conversation surrounding flexible work arrangements will continue to evolve, shaped by technological advancements, cultural shifts, and the growing demand for a more inclusive, resilient workforce.

Policymakers must review real-world examples, including lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, to design effective and equitable policies. By balancing sector-specific requirements and carefully implementing policy measures, flexible work arrangements can become a sustainable blueprint for the future of work.

 

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council

matort@yahoo.com