German Angst: An entrenched mindset as a toxic economic factor
The debate surrounding the 4-day week is a good example of how deeply rooted rigid thinking is in parts of the German working world. Instead of talking objectively about opportunities, models and economic effects, the discussion often fails because of one fundamental question: what exactly does “working” actually mean in the context of new working time models?
All too often, the 4-day week is hastily assessed using old standards. Those who cannot imagine the concept categorically reject it – regardless of what studies or pilot projects (DE & EN) say. Objective facts often play no role. Similar to the debate about an unconditional basic income, many people seem to think the same: What must not be, cannot be.
But is it really all just a question of wording?
One thesis: A different perspective alone could help. If we were to talk about a 1,664-hour model per year rather than “four days of work”, the approach might be more rational – even if the wording seems unwieldy.
Keep it simple – the bill:
A comparison: a traditional full-time position with 40 hours per week, spread over five days, with 30 vacation days and 10 public holidays, comes to around 1,760 annual working hours. A four-day week with 32 hours per week (with the same vacation days and public holidays) results in around 1,664 hours per year – i.e. a difference of around 100 hours per year.
And it is precisely these 100 fewer working hours that are the focus of attention: can a company compensate for this difference – or even exceed it – through higher motivation, fewer sick days, lower staff turnover, increased productivity (e.g. through leaner processes and digitalization) and an improved work-life balance?
The wording:
Many critics argue that the same performance cannot be achieved in four days’ work as in five. But this falls short. The 4-day week does not develop its economic effect within a week, but over months and years. Positive effects such as less burnout, less absenteeism, more stable teams, greater attractiveness as an employer in a shortage of skilled workers and lower complaint costs often only become apparent in the medium to long term.
Things such as:
Low sickness rate
lower fluctuation (every vacancy costs + costs of training new employees + snowball effect, ergo more redundancies)
more enjoyment at work and therefore more commitment (more output)
less burn-out and other mental illnesses
better recovery (long weekend) and therefore possibly more energy on Monday, more recovery and therefore fewer errors
fewer errors and therefore fewer rejects or complaints, fewer complaints and therefore lower costs for customer support or reassembly in factories (plus improved image due to higher quality)
more applicants (keyword: shortage of skilled workers)
possibly also less bullying (a cost factor, among others), as there is less pressure
etc. etc.
All these issues (there are certainly even more factors in an in-depth investigation) become visible and measurable after a year at the earliest, or even after several years. However, it is precisely these issues that make the 4-day week economically viable. Because it’s not about social romanticism, but tangible figures.
Unfortunately, the public debate usually focuses on two aspects:
a) the mere comparison of four versus five working days, as if all companies were calculating from Monday to Friday, and
b) on supposed “soft factors” such as employee satisfaction – without taking their economic relevance seriously.
However, it is precisely these so-called “soft skills” that have long since become hard-hitting business indicators. After all, healthy, committed and satisfied employees are not a nice-to-have, but a clear competitive advantage.
Effects of the 4-day week – a spontaneous Google search:
A spontaneous search on Google revealed the following references and quotes: [Quote translated // Original in German]
“The four-day week led to a significant positive change in life satisfaction, which was mainly due to the additional free time,” explained the scientific director of the study, Julia Backmann. According to the study, 64% of employees expressed a desire to spend more time with their families before the project. Afterwards, the figure was 50 percent. The reduced workload also led to “an increase in daily activity levels, measured by step counts and physical activity”.
https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Studie-Viertagewoche-verbessert-Gesundheit-deutlich-article25299602.html“In the UK, for example, 39% of employees felt less stressed as a result of the 100-80-100 approach and 71% reported a lower level of burnout. Anxiety, fatigue and sleep problems also decreased significantly. Of the 61 companies that tested the 4-day week, 56 would have stuck to it after the study.”
https://t3n.de/news/stellenanzeigen-4-tage-woche-top-branchen-1585921“However, companies that offer a four-day week score points with job seekers. According to a survey by the job portal stellenanzeigen.de, 42 percent of those already willing to change jobs are specifically looking for employers that offer a four-day week.”
https://t3n.de/news/vier-tage-woche-pilotprojekt-2024-deutschland-1573289/“For the most part, nothing has changed. The companies’ performance figures have largely remained the same. This also applies to job satisfaction and employees’ willingness to change jobs. The companies did not record fewer sick days either. What has improved, however, is the mental and physical well-being of employees. In some cases, the new working time model has also had a positive impact on recruitment rates (more applications received and successful new hires). The authors of the study primarily emphasize the health benefits, but also an increase in productivity. They assume the latter because the performance figures have remained the same despite reduced working hours.”
https://www.personalwirtschaft.de/news/hr-organisation/pilotprojekt-beendet-was-bringt-die-vier-tage-woche-181650/“No losses in turnover and profitWhen comparing performance with the same period last year, turnover and profit remained unchanged, according to study director Julia Backmann. The four-day week went well in most companies. “70 percent of organizations say they want to continue,” says Backmann. Some of them wanted to test it further, while others were already implementing it. If you put in less time and achieve the same result, productivity has actually increased.”
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft/vier-tage-woche-pilotstudie-arbeitszeitmodell-100.html“The results published on the non-profit organization’s website sound impressive: 36 percent of the participating companies are said to have increased their annual turnover compared to the previous year, 42 percent recorded a decrease in the number of redundancies, 63 percent of the companies found it easier to recruit new staff and 64 percent reported a reduction in burnout cases. In other words, the participants were less stressed, healthier and even productivity increased.”
https://www.basicthinking.de/blog/2024/09/13/vier-tage-woche-ist-machbar-in-deutschland-mit-hindernissen/“Companies now say that productivity decreases when people spend a day lazing around.
A study in the UK has shown that productivity actually increased. People also became less ill, identified more with their employers, resignations more than halved in some cases and companies also became more attractive to applicants.
And how is it possible to increase productivity?
Productivity is usually measured as value added per working hour. And this has increased because people were simply more motivated at work. Because they think, cool, this is a good employer. Then they are also more relaxed.”
https://www.vice.com/de/article/dieser-forscher-zerlegt-alle-argumente-gegen-die-viertagewoche/
Survey: Many would change jobs for the 4-day week.
https://t3n.de/news/umfrage-fuer-die-4%E2%80%91tage-woche-wuerden-viele-den-job-wechseln-1566089/“Among employees, we found that the number of days of absence has fallen significantly,” says Stronge. The study found a reduction of 65 percent. […] “Great satisfaction among employees,” says Stronge, summarizing the results of the trial. The study shows that significantly fewer people are absent from work in the long term, for example due to burnout. “In the UK, as in many other countries, we are experiencing an epidemic of mental illness. Stress, anxiety, depression, that’s why we’re losing millions of working days,” says Stronge. […]”
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/weltwirtschaft/vier-tage-woche-grossbritannien-101.html“Current figures prove the need for action. The overall economic damage amounts to up to 100 billion euros annually (source: Ifo Institute 2022). According to Statista, the average staff turnover rate in Germany in 2023 was 9.3%. In some sectors, such as the IT industry, the rate is significantly higher. The average cost per employee turnover is 33,000 euros for companies (source: Kienbaum Study 2023) […] Companies not only lose expertise and experience as a result of staff turnover, but also valuable production output. A high turnover rate can also lead to a negative image of the company and make financing more difficult. As a boss and for companies, it is therefore essential to actively combat the turnover of skilled workers.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eine-untersch%C3%A4tzte-gefahr-die-fluktuation-von-herbert-scheuerer-wuenf/“But studies prove it: We are becoming more and more productive. In 1950, goods worth €5 could be produced in one working hour. By 2015, it was already worth €35. So we are seven times more productive than we were 70 years ago – and the trend is rising.
In addition, many previous experiments have shown that reducing working hours does not reduce employee productivity. Some studies even see a positive effect on productivity.
This suggests that if working hours were reduced from 40 to 35 hours, for example, it would probably not be possible to produce the same number of goods and provide the same number of services as before – or even more – everywhere, but at least in many areas. The reasons: Employees are more rested and therefore more concentrated and creative. The number of accidents at work is greatly reduced and employees live much healthier lives. There is less sick leave.”
https://www.moment.at/story/arbeitszeitverkuerzung-wer-ist-dagegen/
Scientific pilot project – Germany tests the 4-day week:
The initial results of Germany’s largest pilot project on the flexible reduction of working hours.
https://www.timechimp.com/de/blog/pilotprojekt-4-tage-woche-in-deutschland
Summary of the study:
Objectivity instead of emotion: Why the debate on the 4-day week often misses the point
Once again for clarification: This article is not intended to unconditionally celebrate the 4-day week or present it as a panacea. Rather, it is about finally breaking the emotional deadlock in the debate. The discussion is characterized less by objective analysis than by personal convictions and often prejudices – without both sides even speaking the same language.
While proponents point to long-term benefits such as employee retention, mental health and sustainable productivity, critics focus primarily on short-term risks such as productivity losses, too few staff or economic uncertainties.
This creates an unbridgeable gap, as both parties are talking about the same topic, but not about the same time horizons or success parameters.
And that is precisely the problem: as long as no common basis for the discussion is created – i.e. the same starting assumptions, the same goals, the same metrics – the exchange will remain ineffective and polarizing.
The underestimated costs of the 5-day week: a look at facts and figures
When we talk about the 4-day week, we often only discuss the supposed productivity gap. However, hardly any of the critics take into account the real economic and business damage that is already being caused by the existing 5-day working model. Again, this is not about social romanticism or more free time, but measurable costs that are incurred every day and need to be factored into the issue for a holistic view.
A look at a few figures reveals the dimensions (again ad-hoc Google search):
Category | Costs / effects | source |
Mental illness & burnout (macroeconomic) | 99.6 billion € direct and indirect costs | |
Absenteeism due to mental disorders (2011) | 12.85 billion in lost production & lost gross value added | see above |
Termination costs | Ø € 43,000 per termination | |
Bullying in the workplace | 15,000 – 50,000 € per case, per year | |
Long-term illness | Ø 400 € per day (SMEs: 250 €) | |
Sickness-related absences (total) | Ø € 74 billion annually |
And it gets even worse: according to the Gallup Study 2024, only 9% of employees still feel a genuine emotional bond with their employer. The result:
- Productivity losses of up to 127 billion euros per year
- 28% higher absenteeism, which costs companies a further 3.7 billion euros
„The lack of motivation among employees leads to considerable productivity losses, causing economic damage of up to 127 billion euros per year. […]
In addition, apathetic employees have 28 percent higher absenteeism rates, which burdens company budgets with 3.7 billion euros annually.“
Quelle
Of course, it would be dubious to claim that a 4-day week will completely solve these problems. And the sources do not claim to be exhaustive (different studies, different years, different quality of sources, etc.), but are only intended to provide an initial overview of the topic and stimulate discussion. But it is just as dubious to completely ignore the potential benefits associated with it – as critics all too often do.
While 20% fewer working hours are reflexively presented as 20% less output, the extent of the economic damage already caused by the current system is never taken into account. These arguments do not appear in any counter-speech to the 4-day week. Why actually?
On the contrary: instead of looking for new solutions, some are calling for even more working hours per week – and are thinking aloud about abolishing public holidays. Would that “improve” the figures mentioned above?
Who knows?! [slight sarcasm]
Let’s stop for a moment at this point and come back to the thesis or the annual hours calculation from the beginning of the article:
In the context of the annual hours calculation, a 4-day week results in a mathematical reduction of around 100 working hours compared to the traditional 5-day week. In purely mathematical terms, this means that employees with a 5-day week work around 100 hours more per year. But what if these additional hours are not actually worked in practice due to overwork, absences, bullying, illness or dismissals and other factors mentioned above? In this case, they would be mathematically available, but would in fact be completely absent.
A differentiated view is also required here. It is by no means assumed that the hours would automatically be available in the 4-day week model. The decisive factor is always the classification in the overall context.
4-day week as an overall concept:
The four-day week is a comprehensive concept that goes far beyond simply reducing working hours. It requires a strategic consideration of the long-term effects on the organization and employees – not just on a weekly basis, but over a period of years.
It is not about managing the same workload in less time. Simply condensing the workload to 32 hours instead of 40 leads to greater stress and counteracts the actual goal. Instead, the work itself must be made more efficient – through optimized processes, the use of automation and artificial intelligence as well as a targeted streamlining of existing structures.
If you only have 80% of your previous time available, you need to be able to use this time more productively. This means eliminating unnecessary meetings, streamlining work processes and using targeted techniques and tools to minimize time wasters. The reduction in working time can only be implemented effectively in conjunction with a reorganization of work.
https://t3n.de/news/ki-vier-tage-woche-new-work-1565814
The work itself must be made more efficient
Here, too, it is worth taking another look at the math. According to a study, German employees waste 300 hours a year on pointless or poor work processes. This would mean that if we were to improve these processes alone, we could easily compensate for the “losses” of the 4-day week.
Fake-Work
Fake work also goes in this direction. Many employees are busy with tasks that appear useful at first glance, but do not generate any output for the company and therefore block and even waste valuable working hours.
Last but not least: working hours and the shortage of skilled workers
One often reads the argument and also the criticism that the 4-day week would exacerbate the shortage of skilled workers due to the lack of hours. According to the motto: fewer hours = fewer skilled workers are present in the company. But what if it’s the other way around?
A short summary of the article:
Longer working hours lead to exhaustion and errors, which increases the risk of accidents at work and health problems.
Working longer hours does not automatically increase productivity, but reduces concentration and performance – with negative consequences for the entire team.
The health consequences are serious: long working hours have been proven to increase the risk of heart disease, depression and other illnesses.
Overwork exacerbates the shortage of skilled workers, as burnt-out employees fall ill, resign or withdraw from the job market altogether.
Sustainable solutions require flexible working time models, health promotion, the recovery of skilled workers who have left the company and targeted training measures.
Conclusion: working more hours as an answer to staff shortages is a fallacy – in the long term, we need healthy, satisfied and productive employees.
Interim conclusion:
Let us pause again at this point.
We have a complete tangle of different aspects. And we haven’t even factored in the fact that the proportion of part-time workers in Germany will be higher than ever in 2024/2025 (“Part-time rate higher than ever – women significantly less likely to work full-time”). So when politicians say that Germans work less compared to other countries, you also have to look at how the whole thing is calculated. Traditionally, all working people are added together and the average is calculated. So if a man in Germany works 40 hours and his (married) wife “only” works 20 hours on a part-time basis, then both work 30 hours on average. If a man in another European country works 40 hours and his wife stays at home, this is not included in the calculation, ergo both work 40 hours, at least this figure is communicated in the media. So while the German couple “earns” 60h together, the other couple works 40h, but is mathematically classified higher (30h vs. 40h). So with a 4-day week, we are also indirectly talking about part-time work, nursery places and the role of women in working life and society. But that would go completely beyond the scope of this article.
The interim conclusion at this point is therefore:
We are discussing/analyzing 100 hours [see calculation at the beginning of this article]
The 5-day week has already caused economic damage
Germans should work more, although this will/could lead to even more economic and social damage
- Germans should work more, even though the number of hours worked has reached a historic high. Never before has so much work been done in Germany as in recent years.
There are various different social factors (e.g. kindergarten places) that are completely ignored. kindergarten places), which are completely ignored
we destroy 3 – 4 times more hours through bad processes and fake work than the 4-day week would “cost” us
sickness rates are already going through the roof
at the same time, critics argue that both the 4-day week and an increase in working hours will exacerbate the shortage of skilled workers
You could despair at this point. No matter how you do it, you’re doing it wrong. The current system is bad, less work is bad, but so is more work.
But perhaps that is precisely the reason why we all – myself somehow included – retreat to (learned) ideologies. We are stuck. Or maybe it’s time to think differently after all?
Long-term thinking instead of short-term counting: Why the 4-day week pays off
Exemplary criticism:
However, Weber sees no need to replace the rigid five-day model with a rigid four-day model. He would be “cautious” about imposing a four-day week on everyone without exception. Anyone who previously worked 40 hours a week but received the same salary would have to work 25 percent more every hour to compensate for their working hours. In the vast majority of jobs, however, this is unthinkable, says Weber. After all, you can’t drive as many buses or care for as many people in four days as you can in five.
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/vier-tage-woche-unternehmen-ig-metall-101.htmlUnimaginable for me “I don’t understand this discussion. On the one hand, we have a shortage of skilled workers, and on the other, we want to reduce the working hours of existing skilled workers. Unimaginable for me in the manufacturing industry. Perhaps possible in other sectors.”
https://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/leserdebatte-sollte-die-vier-tage-woche-eingefuehrt-werden/29349436.html
Many arguments against the 4-day week are based on a short-term view – usually over days or weeks. However, the real effect lies in a year-on-year comparison. And this is where the strengths of this model become particularly clear.
Two examples illustrate the principle:
1. Productivity on an annual basis instead of a weekly basis
Those who are sick less often work more effectively throughout the year.
The classic calculation: fewer hours = less output, falls short.
If you are more motivated and healthier in a 4-day week, you can achieve significantly more over the 1,664 average annual working hours.
2. Attractiveness increases skilled worker retention
Jobs that become more attractive through reduced working hours suffer less from the shortage of skilled workers.
This is a real competitive advantage for companies – especially in sectors with high staffing requirements.
An invented example from the trade:
A car repair shop that either switches to shift work or closes on Fridays due to a 4-day week may repair fewer cars per week. But thanks to fewer sick days, higher motivation and better employee retention, the annual output – i.e. the number of cars repaired over 12 months – increases. This makes them a winner despite “fewer working days”. Because productivity is more than just attendance. It depends on many factors – including motivation, health and job satisfaction. And all of these can be positively influenced by the 4-day week.
A brief explanation of this invented example: The aim is to demonstrate a different way of calculating. Of course, this example does not work by itself. However, the example is intended to show that when opponents of the 4-day week argue with productivity, they must also calculate the long-term productivity of a company and not just 5 days vs. 4 days. And this is where downtime, unmotivated employees and all the factors mentioned above also play a decisive economic role. No company runs smoothly, no employee is never ill or never has a bad day. All of this must be factored in (with euro amounts and working hours). Otherwise the reference to productivity is just a milquetoast calculation.
Imagine if entire departments dedicated exclusively to error correction and complaint processing could be reduced or eliminated because rested employees cause significantly fewer errors. In industry, for example, there are reassembly departments that analyze faulty products. Although system-related errors are not always attributable to individual actions, even a reduction in the size of such departments would enable considerable cost savings.
Summary: Why the 4-day week is more than just a nice experiment
The debate about the 4-day week clearly shows that Germany is struggling less with the implementation of new working time models than with outdated ways of thinking. The debate is too often conducted emotionally, while fact-based and long-term arguments are ignored.
The article sheds light on why the discussion often misses the point: While critics focus on short-term losses, proponents talk about long-term gains. Many arguments can be backed up with figures – such as the enormous economic costs of burnout, absenteeism, redundancies and demotivation.
This is exactly where the 4-day week can come in: It increases employer attractiveness, reduces absenteeism and increases productivity – not from week to week, but over the course of the year. Companies that think outside the box do not see this as a disadvantage, but as a real opportunity in the market for skilled workers.
At the end of the day, the question is not: How much less do we work? How much better could we work? And then at the very end, “How much more output could we achieve with this ‘better’?”
FAQ 2.0 on the 4-day week: clear answers to complex questions
“Functioning” does not mean that exactly the same performance has to be achieved in four days as in five. It's about the relationship between effort and effect - in the long term. Less sickness, less fluctuation and greater satisfaction can increase productivity in the medium and long term, despite shorter working hours.
With a classic 32-hour week (instead of 40), you lose around 96 hours per year in terms of calculation. This difference can (perhaps) easily be offset or even exceeded by greater efficiency and fewer absences.
No - but many can be adapted. Through shift models, team rotation or adjustments to the customer cycle, sectors such as trade, production or care can also be integrated into a flexible 4-day structure. The model does not have to be introduced across the board, but intelligently.
The figures speak for themselves:
- 127 billion in lost productivity annually due to demotivation (Gallup 2024)
- 99.6 billion in costs due to mental illness and burnout
- 43,000 € per dismissal
This shows that there is no alternative to our current system - it is expensive.
Yes, studies show that attractive working time models are a decisive factor when choosing an employer. Those who have to work less, but feel recognized and relaxed, stay longer and are more likely to apply for a job - especially in industries with staff shortages.
Not necessarily per week - but often even more over the year. Employees are more motivated, make fewer mistakes, drop out less often and contribute better ideas. Quality increases and this is also reflected in the output.
Conclusion: The discussion about the 4-day week is not just about hours – it’s about mindset. If you are prepared to think long-term and really take all factors into account, you will realize:
Less can (emphasis on can; not must) actually be more in the end.
A few reports on the study results:
Two factors were deliberately not included in the article, but should be briefly touched on here.
a.) If we are currently talking about a shortage of skilled workers – i.e. too few hands for too much work – but at the same time talk about the fact that “according to politicians” the current working population is not working enough – i.e. economically viable. How then are we supposed to pay for the skilled workers we need?
b.) At the same time, board members’ salaries and shareholders’ dividends have been rising for years, while employees’ salaries have only risen minimally. When we talk about more work and prosperity, we also need to talk about where this prosperity should go.
The last point in particular, or rather the last embedded Facebook post, should be taken with a grain of salt. The 4-day week is already being dismissed as a “left-wing fantasy”. And the lower figures in particular are unsubstantiated. The fact is, however, that the gap between rich and poor is widening (Cantillon effect // german source). So when we talk about “working more/longer”, we also have to talk about where the money earned should end up. And so the 4-day week is also indirectly a debate for society as a whole.
