The Four‑Day Working Week in Local Government: An Analytical, Evidence‑Led Exploration of What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why

Executive Summary

The four‑day working week has become one of the most contested workforce debates in local government. Advocates argue it boosts productivity, improves wellbeing, and strengthens recruitment. Critics, including central government ministers, warn it risks undermining service delivery and misusing taxpayer money. The truth, as ever, sits somewhere in the middle.

This blog examines the four‑day week through a hybrid analytical lens: combining quantitative data, qualitative insights, and public‑sector case studies from the UK and abroad. It explores the political context, the evidence base, and the practical considerations councils must address if they are to explore shorter working weeks responsibly.

The conclusion is measured: the four‑day week is neither a silver bullet nor a reckless indulgence. It is a workforce innovation tool that can succeed under the right conditions, but only with rigorous planning, transparent evaluation, and a clear understanding of service‑specific realities.

Why Local Government Is Exploring the Four‑Day Week

Local government is operating under unprecedented pressure. Demand is rising, budgets are shrinking, and the labour market is increasingly competitive. The four‑day week has emerged as a potential response to several interconnected challenges.

Recruitment and retention pressures

Local government vacancy rates have risen sharply in recent years. According to the Local Government Association:

• Over 110,000 roles are vacant across councils at any given time.

• Social work vacancy rates exceed 20% in some authorities.

• Planning, legal, and environmental health roles remain persistently hard to fill.

South Cambridgeshire District Council reported a 30% increase in job applications during its four‑day week trial, a significant shift in a competitive labour market.

Burnout and sickness absence

The public sector has some of the highest sickness absence rates in the UK. ONS data shows:

• Public sector workers average 3.6% sickness absence, compared with 2.1% in the private sector.

• Stress, anxiety, and burnout account for over 50% of long‑term absences.

In Iceland’s public‑sector trials, sickness absence fell by over 10% in several departments.

Productivity pressures

Local government has been asked to “do more with less” for over a decade. The four‑day week is framed by some as a way to:

• reduce low‑value tasks

• streamline processes

• improve focus

• reduce turnover‑related disruption

The UK’s national four‑day week pilot (public and private combined) found:

• 92% of organisations continued the model after the trial

• Productivity stayed the same or improved in over 80% of cases

• Staff turnover dropped by 57%

While not local‑government‑specific, these figures shape the wider debate.

The Political and Policy Landscape

The four‑day week is not just an HR issue, it is a political one.

Central government’s critique

Ministers, including Steve Reed, have argued that:

• taxpayers should not fund reduced hours for the same pay

• public services cannot afford reduced capacity

• the model risks setting a precedent across the public sector

• the optics are poor during economic hardship

These concerns are not trivial. Public trust is fragile, and councils operate under intense scrutiny.

The optics challenge

Polling shows mixed public attitudes:

• Around 60% of the general public support the idea of a four‑day week in principle

• Support drops to around 40% when asked specifically about council staff

• Concern rises to over 50% when framed as “same pay for fewer hours”

This demonstrates the importance of narrative, transparency, and evidence.

The accountability question

Local government is uniquely exposed to:

• FOI requests

• local media scrutiny

• opposition group challenges

• ministerial intervention

South Cambridgeshire’s experience shows that even a well‑designed trial can become a political flashpoint.

The Evidence Base: Quantitative Findings

A growing body of quantitative data, from the UK, Europe, and wider international public‑sector trials, provides a clearer picture of how shorter working weeks affect productivity, recruitment, wellbeing, service quality, and cost. While the evidence is not uniform across all service types, the overall pattern is increasingly robust: shorter working weeks can deliver measurable benefits, but the impact varies depending on context, design, and workforce composition.

Productivity

Productivity is often the central concern in debates about the four‑day week. The assumption is that fewer hours must mean less output. Yet the data from public‑sector trials consistently challenges this.

Iceland

The largest public‑sector trial to date found that productivity stayed the same or improved in 86% of workplaces. This included government departments, local authority services, and frontline administrative teams. The improvements were attributed to better focus, reduced fatigue, and streamlined workflows.

Valencia municipalities

Administrative functions in several municipalities reported 10–15% productivity increases. These gains were linked to process redesign, reduced meeting load, and clearer prioritisation.

South Cambridgeshire

The council reported stable or improved performance in 9 out of 10 indicators during its trial. This included planning performance, customer service response times, and case throughput, all areas under significant national pressure.

Recruitment and retention

Local government’s recruitment crisis is one of the strongest arguments for exploring shorter working weeks. The data here is particularly compelling.

South Cambridgeshire

• Job applications increased by 30%.

• Agency spend fell by £1.2m, largely due to improved retention and reduced reliance on temporary staff.

Odsherred Municipality (Denmark)

The introduction of reduced hours led to improved recruitment across administrative roles, helping the council compete with private‑sector employers offering higher salaries.

UK national pilot (public + private)

Although not limited to the public sector, the pilot found turnover fell by 57%, a significant indicator of how shorter working weeks can stabilise workforces.

Wellbeing and sickness absence

Wellbeing is one of the most consistently positive outcomes across all trials. The data shows that shorter working weeks have a measurable impact on staff health.

Iceland

Wellbeing scores increased by 20–40%, depending on the department. Staff reported feeling more rested, more focused, and more able to manage work‑life balance.

Swedish care trials

Sickness absence fell by 22%, a significant reduction in a sector known for high burnout and physical strain.

Glasgow Life

Staff reported improved morale, reduced stress, and a greater sense of control over their working lives.

What this tells us: Wellbeing improvements are not anecdotal, they are measurable. Reduced sickness absence also has financial implications, particularly in high‑demand services.

Service quality

Service quality is the ultimate test for any public‑sector innovation. The evidence here is cautiously optimistic.

Iceland

No decline in service quality was reported across participating departments. In some cases, service responsiveness improved due to better‑rested staff.

Valencia municipalities

Resident satisfaction increased in several municipalities, particularly in administrative and customer‑facing services.

South Cambridgeshire

Customer service metrics remained stable, even as staff hours were reduced. This was achieved through workflow redesign and clearer prioritisation.

What this tells us: Service quality does not automatically suffer when hours are reduced. In well‑designed pilots, it can remain stable or even improve.

Costs

Costs are where the evidence becomes more complex. While some services absorb the change easily, others require additional investment.

Swedish care trials

Staffing costs increased by 12–20%, largely due to the need for additional staff to maintain coverage in shift‑based environments.

Valencia municipalities

Some councils required additional funding to maintain frontline coverage, particularly in smaller authorities with limited workforce flexibility.

Administrative functions

Across all trials, administrative and corporate services generally absorbed the change without cost increases. Efficiency gains often offset reduced hours.

The Evidence Base: Qualitative Insights

Quantitative data gives us the headlines, but qualitative evidence tells us what the numbers mean in practice. The lived experience of staff, managers, and service users across public‑sector trials provides a deeper understanding of how a four‑day week actually feels, functions, and impacts day‑to‑day operations. These insights reveal not just outcomes, but the cultural, behavioural, and relational shifts that underpin them.

Staff perspectives

Across every public‑sector trial, regardless of country, service type, or organisational size, staff feedback has been remarkably consistent. The themes that emerge are not superficial perks; they speak to fundamental changes in how people experience work.

Feeling more rested

Staff repeatedly describe feeling more energised, more alert, and more capable of sustaining focus throughout the week. The additional rest day creates a genuine recovery window, reducing the cumulative fatigue that is so common in public‑sector roles.

Improved work‑life balance

Employees report having more time for family, caring responsibilities, exercise, hobbies, and basic life admin. This is particularly significant in local government, where many staff juggle demanding roles with complex personal commitments.

Greater focus

With fewer hours available, staff become more intentional about how they work. Meetings become shorter, distractions reduce, and people report being more “present” during the hours they are working.

Reduced burnout

Burnout is a major issue in local government. In multiple trials, Iceland, Valencia, Odsherred, and South Cambridgeshire, staff described the four‑day week as a protective factor. They felt less overwhelmed, less emotionally drained, and more able to cope with the demands of their roles.

Higher job satisfaction

Staff consistently report feeling more valued, more motivated, and more committed to their organisation. The four‑day week is often described as a tangible demonstration that the employer cares about wellbeing.

In Iceland, workers went further, calling the change “life‑changing” and “sustainable”, language rarely used in discussions about working patterns. This emotional resonance is a powerful indicator of the model’s cultural impact.

Managerial perspectives

Managers offer a different lens, one focused on team dynamics, operational flow, and organisational culture. Their insights reveal how the four‑day week reshapes leadership and management practice.

Improved team morale

Managers consistently report that teams feel more positive, more cohesive, and more engaged. The shared experience of a shorter week often strengthens team culture.

Fewer interpersonal conflicts

With reduced stress levels, managers observed fewer tensions, fewer misunderstandings, and a calmer working environment. Emotional bandwidth increases when people are less exhausted.

More efficient meetings

Managers note that meetings become shorter, more focused, and more purposeful. The discipline of reduced hours forces better preparation and clearer decision‑making.

Better prioritisation

Managers report that teams become more strategic about what truly matters. Low‑value tasks fall away, and staff become more confident in challenging unnecessary work.

Reduced presenteeism

The four‑day week disrupts the culture of “being seen” that often exists in public‑sector environments. Managers observed a shift towards outcomes rather than hours.

However, the picture is not universally positive. In the Swedish care trials, some managers reported:

• increased rota complexity

• higher coordination demands

• pressure to maintain coverage with fewer hours

These challenges highlight the need for strong managerial support and service‑specific redesign.

Service‑user perspectives

Ultimately, public‑sector innovation must be judged by its impact on residents, service users, and communities. The qualitative evidence here is more varied, and more nuanced.

Iceland: no negative impact reported

Across government departments, schools, and local authority services, residents did not report any decline in service quality. In some cases, responsiveness improved due to better‑rested staff.

Valencia: improved responsiveness in some municipalities

Residents in several municipalities reported faster responses, more positive interactions, and a perception that staff were more engaged and attentive.

Glasgow Life: mixed feedback

While many customers noticed no change, some reported reduced availability in specific services, particularly where rota redesign had not fully addressed coverage gaps.

This variation underscores a critical point: service‑user experience depends heavily on service design. Where rotas, workflows, and coverage models are redesigned effectively, service quality can improve. Where they are not, gaps become visible quickly.

Implementation Considerations for Councils

A four‑day week is a transformation programme, not a rota change. Councils that treat it as a simple scheduling adjustment inevitably run into problems. Those that approach it as a structured organisational redesign, with clear governance, evidence, and engagement, are the ones that see meaningful results. The following considerations outline what councils must think through before, during, and after a pilot.

Workflow redesign

The most successful public‑sector trials all began with a forensic look at how work actually gets done. A shorter working week forces an organisation to confront inefficiencies it has tolerated for years. Workflow redesign is not optional; it is the foundation of the entire model.

Remove low‑value tasks

Many councils discover that a significant proportion of staff time is spent on activities that add little or no value, unnecessary reporting, duplicated data entry, legacy processes, or tasks that exist purely because “we’ve always done it this way.” Removing or automating these tasks creates the headroom needed to reduce hours without increasing pressure.

Streamline processes

Process mapping often reveals bottlenecks, handoffs, and delays that slow down service delivery. Councils that streamline processes, simplifying forms, reducing approvals, standardising workflows, unlock efficiency gains that make a four‑day week viable.

Reduce meeting load

Public‑sector teams are often overwhelmed by meetings. A four‑day week forces a discipline around meeting culture: shorter meetings, fewer attendees, clearer agendas, and a shift towards asynchronous communication where appropriate.

Clarify decision pathways

Slow or unclear decision‑making is a major source of wasted time. Councils must simplify governance structures, empower managers to make decisions without unnecessary escalation, and ensure staff know who is responsible for what.

Workflow redesign is the difference between a sustainable four‑day week and a compressed week that burns people out.

Performance frameworks

A four‑day week without a performance framework is a political risk. With one, it becomes a credible, evidence‑led experiment. Councils must build a performance framework that is rigorous, transparent, and aligned with the purpose of the pilot.

Baseline data

Before any change is made, councils need a clear understanding of current performance. This includes service KPIs, customer satisfaction, case throughput, response times, financial baselines, and workforce metrics such as sickness absence and turnover.

Clear KPIs

KPIs must be specific, measurable, and directly linked to the objectives of the pilot. For example:

• recruitment and retention targets

• productivity indicators

• service response times

• customer satisfaction scores

• sickness absence rates

These KPIs should be agreed with political leadership, senior management, and workforce representatives.

Transparent reporting

Regular, accessible reporting builds trust. Councils should commit to publishing performance dashboards at predictable intervals, allowing residents, staff, and elected members to track progress.

Regular review cycles

A four‑day week pilot must be iterative. Councils should build in review points, monthly, quarterly, or service‑specific, to assess what’s working, what isn’t, and what needs adjusting.

A strong performance framework protects the integrity of the pilot and ensures decisions are based on evidence, not ideology.

Service coverage models

One of the biggest challenges in local government is ensuring that reduced hours do not reduce service availability. Councils must design coverage models that maintain, or improve, service outcomes.

Staggered rotas

For many services, staggered rotas allow teams to maintain five‑day coverage while individuals work four days. This model works well in customer services, regulatory functions, and some frontline teams.

Hybrid models

Not all services can adopt the same pattern. Councils may need a mix of four‑day weeks, compressed hours, flexible shifts, and traditional patterns depending on service needs.

Digital enhancements

Digital tools can reduce demand on staff time, online forms, automated workflows, self‑service portals, and improved CRM systems can all support a shorter working week without compromising service quality.

Additional staffing where needed

Some services, particularly shift‑based or high‑demand frontline roles, may require additional staffing to maintain coverage. Councils must assess the financial implications and ensure any additional costs are justified by the benefits.

Service coverage is where many pilots succeed or fail. It requires creativity, flexibility, and a willingness to redesign long‑standing patterns of work.

Workforce engagement

A four‑day week cannot be imposed. It must be co‑designed with the workforce. Engagement is not a communications exercise; it is a partnership.

Staff reference groups

Creating representative groups allows staff to shape the pilot, raise concerns, and propose solutions. These groups become a vital feedback loop throughout the trial.

Training for managers

Managers need support to lead in a new model. This includes training on workload management, prioritisation, performance monitoring, and supporting staff wellbeing.

Clear expectations

Staff must understand what is expected of them: how productivity will be measured, how service coverage will be maintained, and how the organisation will support them.

Honest communication

Engagement must be authentic. Councils should acknowledge challenges, listen to concerns, and be transparent about what is negotiable and what is not.

Workforce engagement is the cultural engine of the four‑day week. Without it, even the best‑designed pilot will struggle.

Public narrative

The public narrative is as important as the operational design. Councils operate in a political environment where perception matters. A four‑day week must be communicated clearly, confidently, and transparently.

Focus on service outcomes

The message must be simple: the four‑day week is being tested to improve services, not reduce them. Councils should emphasise how the model supports recruitment, retention, wellbeing, and productivity, all of which underpin service quality.

Share data openly

Transparency builds trust. Councils should publish performance data regularly, explain what it means, and show how it informs decision‑making.

Address concerns proactively

Residents will have questions about availability, response times, and value for money. Councils must address these concerns directly, not defensively.

A strong public narrative protects the pilot from misinterpretation and reinforces the council’s commitment to accountability.

Pilot design

A four‑day week pilot must be structured, disciplined, and grounded in evidence. Poorly designed pilots fail not because the model is flawed, but because the process is.

Time‑bound

Pilots need clear start and end dates. This creates focus, allows for structured evaluation, and reassures residents and elected members that the council is testing, not committing.

Evidence‑led

Decisions must be based on data, not assumptions. Councils should commit to adjusting the model based on what the evidence shows, not what they hope it will show.

Iterative

A pilot is a learning process. Councils should expect to refine rotas, adjust workflows, and respond to emerging challenges.

Scalable

The pilot should be designed with scalability in mind. If it works, the council should be able to expand it without starting from scratch.

A well‑designed pilot gives councils the confidence to innovate and the credibility to defend their decisions.

8. Recommendations for Local Government Leaders

The four‑day working week is not a universal solution. It is a strategic choice, one that must be grounded in evidence, organisational maturity, and a clear understanding of service realities. The following recommendations draw on the quantitative and qualitative insights from public‑sector case studies and offer a balanced framework for councils considering whether, when, and how to explore shorter working weeks.

When a four‑day week is appropriate

A shorter working week is most likely to succeed when the organisational context supports it. The case studies show that the councils and public bodies that saw the strongest results shared several common conditions.

Recruitment and retention pressures are high

If a council is struggling to attract or retain staff, particularly in hard‑to‑fill roles, a four‑day week can be a powerful differentiator. South Cambridgeshire’s 30% increase in applications is not an anomaly; Iceland, Odsherred, and Valencia all reported similar boosts. In a labour market where councils cannot compete on salary, competing on working conditions becomes a strategic necessity.

Administrative functions dominate

The evidence is clear: administrative and professional services adapt most easily to reduced hours. Productivity gains are more achievable, workflow redesign is more straightforward, and service coverage is easier to maintain. Councils with large corporate, planning, regulatory, or back‑office functions may find the model particularly viable.

Leadership is aligned

Every successful trial, from Iceland to South Cambridgeshire, had one thing in common: political and managerial alignment. Leaders must be united in purpose, messaging, and risk appetite. A divided leadership team will struggle to maintain credibility, especially under external scrutiny.

Performance data is strong

A four‑day week should never be used to mask performance issues. Councils with stable or improving KPIs are better positioned to test new models without jeopardising service quality. Strong baseline data also allows for transparent evaluation, essential for public trust.

Public narrative can be managed

The optics of a four‑day week are challenging. Councils with strong community relationships, clear communications, and a track record of transparency are better placed to manage the narrative. Where trust is fragile, the risk of misinterpretation is higher.

When a four‑day week isn’t appropriate

Equally important is recognising when the conditions are not right. Several public‑sector trials failed or stalled because the organisational environment could not support the change.

Severe budget constraints

While some trials reduced agency spend, others, particularly in frontline services, required additional staffing. Councils already facing acute financial distress may struggle to absorb the upfront investment required for redesign, training, and coverage.

High‑demand frontline services without redesign

The Swedish care trials and parts of the Valencia pilots show that shift‑based, high‑demand services cannot simply “fit” into a four‑day model without significant redesign. If a council is not prepared to rethink rotas, staffing models, and service pathways, the risk of service degradation is high.

Weak organisational culture

A four‑day week requires trust, autonomy, and a willingness to challenge old habits. Councils with siloed teams, low morale, or inconsistent management capability may find the transition destabilising. Culture is not a by‑product of the four‑day week, it is a prerequisite.

Lack of political support

Without political backing, even the strongest operational case can collapse. South Cambridgeshire’s experience demonstrates that ministerial intervention can override local decision‑making. Councils must assess not only internal support but also the wider political climate.

What must be in place first

Before any council considers a pilot, several foundational elements must be established. These are not optional; they are the conditions that separate successful trials from those that falter.

Clear purpose

A four‑day week cannot be justified on vague aspirations. Councils must articulate a specific, measurable purpose: improving recruitment, reducing sickness absence, enhancing productivity, or modernising the employer offer. A clear purpose anchors the design and evaluation of the pilot.

Strong evidence framework

A credible four‑day week pilot lives or dies on the strength of its evidence base. Every successful public‑sector trial, from Iceland to South Cambridgeshire, has relied on rigorous, transparent, and repeatable data collection. Without this, the pilot becomes vulnerable to political challenge, media misinterpretation, and internal scepticism. Councils must treat the evidence framework as the backbone of the entire programme, not an afterthought. A robust framework includes:

• Baseline performance metrics 

  Councils need a clear picture of current performance before any changes are made. This includes service KPIs, customer satisfaction, sickness absence, recruitment and retention data, and financial baselines. Without this, it becomes impossible to attribute changes to the four‑day week rather than external factors.

• Clear KPIs 

  KPIs must be specific, measurable, and directly linked to the stated purpose of the pilot. For example:

  • recruitment and retention targets

  • productivity indicators

  • service response times

  • case throughput

  • customer satisfaction scores

  • sickness absence rates

    
    

    These KPIs should be agreed with political leadership, senior management, and workforce representatives to ensure shared ownership.

• Transparent reporting cycles 

  Regular, published reporting builds trust. South Cambridgeshire’s decision to publish monthly performance dashboards was a major factor in maintaining credibility. Councils should commit to a reporting rhythm that is predictable, accessible, and open to scrutiny.

• Mechanisms for staff and service‑user feedback 

  Quantitative data tells one story; qualitative insight tells another. Councils need structured ways to gather feedback from staff, managers, unions, and service users. This might include surveys, focus groups, pulse checks, and anonymised feedback channels.

• 
  

Without a strong evidence framework, a four‑day week pilot becomes a political liability rather than an evidence‑based experiment. With one, it becomes a credible, defensible, and transparent test of innovation.

Workforce engagement

No council can deliver a successful four‑day week without deep, meaningful workforce engagement. Staff buy‑in is not a “nice to have”, it is the single most important determinant of success. Engagement must go far beyond consultation; it requires genuine co‑design.

Iceland’s landmark public‑sector trials succeeded because unions were involved from the outset, shaping the design, monitoring the impact, and advocating for the workforce. Glasgow Life’s improvements were driven by staff‑led workflow changes, where employees identified inefficiencies, redesigned processes, and took ownership of the transition.

Effective workforce engagement means:

• creating space for honest dialogue

• acknowledging concerns about workload, coverage, and expectations

• involving staff in redesigning processes

• equipping managers to lead cultural and operational change

• ensuring frontline voices are heard, not just corporate ones

When staff feel ownership, the four‑day week becomes a shared endeavour. When they feel it is being imposed, it becomes a source of anxiety and resistance.

Service redesign

A four‑day week is not a compressed week. Councils that treat it as such inevitably fail. The model requires a fundamental rethink of how work is organised, prioritised, and delivered.

Service redesign typically includes:

• Removing low‑value tasks 

  Many councils discover that a significant proportion of staff time is spent on activities that add little value. Removing or automating these tasks creates capacity.

• Streamlining processes 

  Workflow mapping often reveals duplication, bottlenecks, and unnecessary handoffs. Redesigning processes can unlock efficiency gains that make reduced hours viable.

• Reducing meeting load 

  Public‑sector teams often spend excessive time in meetings. A four‑day week forces a discipline around meeting purpose, length, and attendance.

• Clarifying decision pathways 

  Slow or unclear decision‑making is a major source of wasted time. Councils must simplify governance, empower managers, and reduce unnecessary escalation.

• Redesigning rotas and coverage models 

  For frontline services, this is essential. Staggered rotas, hybrid models, and digital enhancements can maintain service coverage without increasing pressure.

Without redesign, the four‑day week simply shifts pressure onto staff, increases the risk of burnout, and undermines service quality. With redesign, it becomes a catalyst for long‑overdue organisational improvement.

Communications strategy

Public perception can make or break a four‑day week trial. Even the most successful operational model can be derailed by poor communication. Councils must approach communications with the same rigour as service redesign. A strong communications strategy should:

• Explain the purpose 

  Residents need to understand why the council is exploring a four‑day week, whether it’s recruitment, retention, wellbeing, productivity, or financial sustainability.

• Share the evidence 

  Transparency builds trust. Councils should proactively publish data, case studies, and progress updates.

• Address concerns 

  Residents will worry about service availability, response times, and value for money. Councils must address these concerns directly, not defensively.

• Publish performance data 

  Regular, accessible reporting demonstrates accountability and reinforces the message that the pilot is evidence‑led.

• Reinforce the focus on service outcomes 

  The narrative must always come back to the same point: the four‑day week is being tested to improve services, not reduce them.

Transparency is the antidote to scepticism. Councils that communicate openly, consistently, and confidently are far more likely to maintain public trust throughout the pilot.

Conclusion: A Measured Path Forward

The four‑day working week is not a miracle cure, nor is it a reckless indulgence. It is a workforce innovation tool, one that can deliver real benefits when implemented with care, evidence, and transparency. The public‑sector case studies show that shorter working weeks can improve wellbeing, strengthen recruitment, and maintain or even enhance productivity. But they also show that frontline services require careful redesign, that costs can rise in certain contexts, and that political legitimacy is essential.

With the right conditions, the right leadership, and the right evidence, it can be part of a sustainable future for the sector. But it must be done thoughtfully, transparently, and with communities at the heart of every decision.