What do you think?
Rate this book
Do More in Four: Why It's Time for a Shorter Workweek
An impassioned—and data-driven—case for a four-day workweek.
The five-day workweek is a pillar of modern life, but it isn't backed by science, ancient wisdom, or divine decree. It's simply a relic of the industrial age—and it's time for an upgrade. What if we could accomplish more while working fewer days?
A shortened workweek once seemed like a radical idea. Today, it's embraced by innovative business leaders, forward-thinking politicians, and a new generation of workers demanding more meaningful work.
In Do More in Four, Joe O'Connor, a pioneer in designing and leading four-day-workweek pilots around the globe, and journalist Jared Lindzon, whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Fortune, and TIME magazine, present a groundbreaking, data-driven exploration of why a four-day workweek isn't merely possible—it's necessary in the age of artificial intelligence.
O'Connor and Lindzon draw on extensive research, compelling case studies, and personal interviews with experts—including a Nobel Prize–winning economist and Bill Gates—to reveal how organizations are reimagining work. From a consumer products giant in New Zealand to a global nonprofit, a Canadian law firm, and a Midwestern architecture firm, they take readers inside the companies transforming their work models to improve employee outcomes while driving revenue growth.
Do More in Four offers a battle-tested blueprint for a smarter, more humane approach to work.
The five-day workweek is a pillar of modern life, but it isn't backed by science, ancient wisdom, or divine decree. It's simply a relic of the industrial age—and it's time for an upgrade. What if we could accomplish more while working fewer days?
A shortened workweek once seemed like a radical idea. Today, it's embraced by innovative business leaders, forward-thinking politicians, and a new generation of workers demanding more meaningful work.
In Do More in Four, Joe O'Connor, a pioneer in designing and leading four-day-workweek pilots around the globe, and journalist Jared Lindzon, whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Fortune, and TIME magazine, present a groundbreaking, data-driven exploration of why a four-day workweek isn't merely possible—it's necessary in the age of artificial intelligence.
O'Connor and Lindzon draw on extensive research, compelling case studies, and personal interviews with experts—including a Nobel Prize–winning economist and Bill Gates—to reveal how organizations are reimagining work. From a consumer products giant in New Zealand to a global nonprofit, a Canadian law firm, and a Midwestern architecture firm, they take readers inside the companies transforming their work models to improve employee outcomes while driving revenue growth.
Do More in Four offers a battle-tested blueprint for a smarter, more humane approach to work.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 13, 2026
10 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 27, 2026
Thank you to NetGalley and RBMedia for the audiobook ARC.
This was a fantastic book. Books about questioning paradigms which are long-held but seldom challenged are exactly in my wheelhouse, and this could prove to be fairly transformative. I am over the moon personally about being part of a generation which is bucking against the unquestioned relics of an industrial age. Especially as a knowledge worker, in a creative field, whose entire value comes from original thought and creative collaboration with dozens of other stakeholders, being bound to an arbitrary 5 day workweek, for 40 hours, from 9-5 (all relics of fights long past, particularly by the Christian and Jewish communities which gave us both Saturday and Sunday off), is radical in an age which has utterly transformed in the last 100 years.
This book was surgical in its analytical approach to the topic. I could see some readers seeing it being 'repetitive', but that's simply because when you approach the same topic from a dozen different angles, be they the 4-day workweek's impact on individual's mental health, the climate, business profit and performance, individual efficiency, health, family equity, parenting and child rearing, social cohesion and others (all of which it has a positive impact on by the way), then it will likely always feel repetitive, even though what it's actually doing is simply pressing the seal deeper into the wax, so that the imprint is sure to last on your soul. I also appreciated how empathetic the authors were to business stakeholders who are to be convinced by these arguments, and framing it as a benefit (in time instead of money) which is a co-authored benefit for workers, by incentivizing efficiency.
I genuinely believe that when looking back in a quarter century and the four day workweek is closer to the norm than not, we will look back at books like this which were at the vanguard of that movement, and thank them for capitalizing on a unique moment in history in which other concomitant movements, such as remote work, are also having their moment in the combined effort to make work... work for people instead of chopping off the best parts of people to fit the mold of the industrial work model.
This was a fantastic book. Books about questioning paradigms which are long-held but seldom challenged are exactly in my wheelhouse, and this could prove to be fairly transformative. I am over the moon personally about being part of a generation which is bucking against the unquestioned relics of an industrial age. Especially as a knowledge worker, in a creative field, whose entire value comes from original thought and creative collaboration with dozens of other stakeholders, being bound to an arbitrary 5 day workweek, for 40 hours, from 9-5 (all relics of fights long past, particularly by the Christian and Jewish communities which gave us both Saturday and Sunday off), is radical in an age which has utterly transformed in the last 100 years.
This book was surgical in its analytical approach to the topic. I could see some readers seeing it being 'repetitive', but that's simply because when you approach the same topic from a dozen different angles, be they the 4-day workweek's impact on individual's mental health, the climate, business profit and performance, individual efficiency, health, family equity, parenting and child rearing, social cohesion and others (all of which it has a positive impact on by the way), then it will likely always feel repetitive, even though what it's actually doing is simply pressing the seal deeper into the wax, so that the imprint is sure to last on your soul. I also appreciated how empathetic the authors were to business stakeholders who are to be convinced by these arguments, and framing it as a benefit (in time instead of money) which is a co-authored benefit for workers, by incentivizing efficiency.
I genuinely believe that when looking back in a quarter century and the four day workweek is closer to the norm than not, we will look back at books like this which were at the vanguard of that movement, and thank them for capitalizing on a unique moment in history in which other concomitant movements, such as remote work, are also having their moment in the combined effort to make work... work for people instead of chopping off the best parts of people to fit the mold of the industrial work model.
January 21, 2026
Four-Day Workweeks are destined to become the status quo for many. With AI closing the gap between busywork, and productivity, it is not a surprise that O'Connor and Lindzon's book meet readers so cordially. There are several reasons to read this book, among them being its importance to cultural conversations taking place at workplaces around the world (for global, to even large national corporations and organizations; there are case studies of smaller companies implementing it for competitive talent retention ends). It is a well-written, and heavily researched book. It's not a rarity to see that in a business book, but to the degree the authors have maximized paginated real estate to do so is a fait accompli. And readers are better for it; Evidence-based anything, is potential profit everything.
Readers approaching the book would do well however, to consider their industry in the implementation of the four-day workweek. For example, I work in a public library where I do not believe that given the dire need for access to the public commons and the last frontiers of democracy that we provide, we will see a four day workweek anytime soon. I thought the same of service and sales, particularly retail outlets who trade in goods, competitive pricing, and minimum wage. When approaching this book then, there should be a disclaimer that it applies (for now at least) to the knowledge economy or corporate workers for whom "home office" would be the omnipotent Oz behind the curtain of retail operations. With that being said, it's still a great book. I know that I love public libraries and what I do so much that I would take a five-day workweek regardless. In fact, at my old job I worked part-time (21.5 hours/week) for the same amount of money I make working full-time (35 hours/week) at my present job, with a few less benefits too. I just love libraries and had the chance at a permanent full-time position with a chance to develop my skills so I took it (and it was a bit closer to home). Four-day work weeks are not necessarily the be-all-end-all so it may help to keep a balanced perspective while reading, because the data is very compelling if viewed independent of the alternatives. There are indeed still additional ways of working that bring the spirit of the four-day work week into their conceptualizations of modern work as the means of production shift with greater AI integration.
I considered the services that the upper middle class workers the writers are referring to with that four day work week would require, and that the authors refer to as case studies. Those services and abilities to run errands are not existing in a nebulous somewhere else- they are being done by people who likely won't have access to a four-day work week. I would be interested to read an extended volume of the book, or perhaps another one about how the authors would apply these principles to the restaurant and service industries. And most importantly, how they would recommend the application of policies both internal to companies, and to governments to regulate living wage pay. The principles they write about seem contingent on the application of UBI (Universal Basic Income), and perhaps that service industries would be a chosen profession for some. However, that is one hell of a contingency to such an otherwise really well laid out argument in their book. It's part of why I kept reading, because I do think the ideas O'Connor and Lindzen present stood the chance to gain traction across industries if presented in a way that protected workers. For example, if a four-day work week is presented as a cost-cutting and productivity increasing imperative, how will corporations with a track record of maximizing profits at the cost of protecting workers and providing livable wages balance their four-day books? Will policies be introduced that essentially turn service industries into gig work, where employers limit a work week to four days for service staff, then cap that by salarying them so they cannot work for overtime (if the idea of overtime isn't dispensed with entirely), and use other policy levers to maximize profits while reducing costs on the wrong things. Finding cheaper means of production are ideal but time and time again, international and national corporations turn to labour as their cost-cutting measure because it represents one of the most significant costs that immediately responds to policies to make a change in a balance sheet when "times are tough". In Canada where I'm writing from (Southern Ontario, as with the authors), we have a strong(ish) union presence (just ask our premier Doug Ford who learned in the last provincial election where he came the closest to triggering a province-wide general strike for all CUPE members, and other industries than anyone has accomplished in 50 years or so). Unions are a bit of a scary word for corporations and organizations but absent of government regulations, or trust in the government to provide the conditions for reasonable work where the cost of living does not disappear people, sometimes they're all people have to turn to lest they be crushed under the weight of poverty wages. I wonder how the four day work week would become an argument of a benefit to dissolve unions (or at least attempts to try and chip away at faith in union leaders where a four-day workweek could become a bargaining chip at contract negotiation time as a way to remove a key benefit the employer no longer wants to pay for). Furthermore, I just plainly wonder how it would affect these labour relations period. For example, if a four-day work week was introduced in tandem with universal basic income, would employers feel compelled to offer cost-of-living competitive wages anymore? The only people who wouldn't be covered by those kinds of policies are immigrants, and migrant workers who lack permanent residence and subsequent protections, so really, it would create a race-based underclass of impoverished workers whose employers don't have a good reason to pay more than minimum wage? How do the authors see it being implemented otherwise? These implications are not something the authors talk about. When considering the Pangea-splitting effect of a four day work week on the status quo though, it's an important one. It isn't just talking about changing the way we work, but it also stands to change the definition of what work matters more than other kinds of work. It would be interesting to see a book from a union and working-class perspective, of the interstitial policies required to make something like this work for everyone, not just full-time, expensively educated, upper middle class knowledge workers.
The book was very good. Any book that challenges me to think at such depth is something I cherish. I found myself wondering about another point of their argument though, which indicated a "four day work week or bust" mentality. The four day work week shouldn't be implemented as the catch-all problem solver for productivity, nor should it be considered in isolation of greater shifts in DEI policy. Though it seems like that was a possible view the authors took. I don't know for sure what their perspective is, but there was one part of the book that seemed to use the four day work week as a declarative benefit for male employees, which quietly presented it as the solution to the problem of sexism and misogynistic work bias instead of addressing the bias in particular. The authors write of work life balance, and then said that, "If you believe your employer, manager, or boss may be persuaded by some of the social benefits of a four-day workweek, share with them how, in the North American pilot, male employees spent 27 percent more time looking after their children, and 60 percent of participants said they were better able to combine their jobs with caring responsibilities. Though it's still early, the data suggests that the four-day workweek could be a massive step forward for workplace gender equality by encouraging men to chip in more at home and by leveling the playing field for women at work" (p.156). That's not how I want to advocate for gender equality at work. Maybe I'm too "woke" and a "snowflake" but I'd rather be awake in a snowstorm than let that kind of sexism buttress "workplace gender equality".
Allow me to explain. First, believing that gender workplace equality's lowest common denominator is men chipping in at home, and women having more time to do caretaking duties, and that this is written in the last chapter as if to suggest a discursive (and dangerously casual) air of "hey, if all this research doesn't convince your bosses, remind them that it's great for men, and because we haven't figured out how to prioritize women on their own merit, it's great for them because it's great for us!" is kind of ick. It implicitly states that men's feelings about their work are the most important thing to consider when implementing or proposing a substantial policy change at work. It also makes me wonder about the fundamentals of how they conducted their research and whether it was built with implicit bias in it that would help to generate such a conclusion. It seems a very misogynist way of encouraging a four-day workweek. I don't know how a four-day workweek is meant to level the playing field for women at work when it doesn't remove barriers aside from men who are upset that they have to care about the families they created, and relationships they've chosen to be in as equitably contributing partners. I'm not debating that a four-day workweek would be great for some people. But why not just address the sexism that prioritizes men's work and their presence at work as the mountain-moving imperative? Why not address the problem at its root instead of suggesting a significant change to the way a company works that replicates the problem under another guise? Because it will. A four-day workweek solves a productivity problem, not a gender equality problem. It wasn't designed to, so it will inevitably fail if that's the reason a company implements it. Why not stop relegating ideas being beneficial on the basis of caretaking work outside of work being more available in the same breaths as associating it with women exclusively (making it so that the two things are still one in the same in the public imaginary of women's roles)? It does not disrupt the gender roles that cause sexism and uneven playing fields to be a problem in the first place. Why not address the implicit bias that suggests there is a difference in the importance between men and women's work? Why are we tiptoeing around misogyny and sexism at work instead of deploying the four-day workweek as a way to disrupt it? Is it even possible, or does it just represent a benefit to profits more than personnel? Why use the painful experience of sexism and misogyny, reducing it to a selling point for an idea without actually demonstrating a salient way that it will get to the ideological root of the problem, rather than applying a band-aid solution? What about encouraging meaningful training that reminds men that the world was literally designed for their comfort vis-a-vis patriarchy, and stop applauding men for bare minimum contributions to the household that only uphold sexist standards while simultaneously claiming to break those barriers? Isn't that gaslighting women in the process because it looks like an effort is being made, but it's so little as to be performative rather than moving the needle on relevant issues? How can readers be sure that the authors researched that as part of the burnout in the women whose experiences they used as case studies, manipulating both their gender and intersections to the ends their argument is making? In the end, is the four-day workweek the best solution for gender equality and if it isn't, should it be mentioned as such, making it a lowest-common denominator that organizations can cling to as justification for it, whose executives are (statistically) mostly men that stand to benefit most from it? These are not insignificant questions I'm left with; I realize that the authors are working with available data that shows the comment was probably made in decent faith and perhaps a lack of awareness. It might be an idea to omit that paragraph completely from future runs of this book because it's a small paragraph that isn't necessary to the book. But it did make me question the saliency of their entire argument because it reveals that it hasn't totally been considered from the perspective of what would be of benefit to everyone. O'Connor's wife, as the book states, is the CEO of the women's branch of the Work Time Revolution company of which he co-founded, which shows that there are reasons to believe this sexism I'm questioning isn't central to their argument, but even women's organizations can be harmful to women. This truly is why I decided to only give this book 2 stars. If you can get past that part of book (it's at the end of it), it's otherwise okay and had me considering a range of ways to conceive of my own job and those who come to public libraries looking for ways to do theirs better or differently.
Readers approaching the book would do well however, to consider their industry in the implementation of the four-day workweek. For example, I work in a public library where I do not believe that given the dire need for access to the public commons and the last frontiers of democracy that we provide, we will see a four day workweek anytime soon. I thought the same of service and sales, particularly retail outlets who trade in goods, competitive pricing, and minimum wage. When approaching this book then, there should be a disclaimer that it applies (for now at least) to the knowledge economy or corporate workers for whom "home office" would be the omnipotent Oz behind the curtain of retail operations. With that being said, it's still a great book. I know that I love public libraries and what I do so much that I would take a five-day workweek regardless. In fact, at my old job I worked part-time (21.5 hours/week) for the same amount of money I make working full-time (35 hours/week) at my present job, with a few less benefits too. I just love libraries and had the chance at a permanent full-time position with a chance to develop my skills so I took it (and it was a bit closer to home). Four-day work weeks are not necessarily the be-all-end-all so it may help to keep a balanced perspective while reading, because the data is very compelling if viewed independent of the alternatives. There are indeed still additional ways of working that bring the spirit of the four-day work week into their conceptualizations of modern work as the means of production shift with greater AI integration.
I considered the services that the upper middle class workers the writers are referring to with that four day work week would require, and that the authors refer to as case studies. Those services and abilities to run errands are not existing in a nebulous somewhere else- they are being done by people who likely won't have access to a four-day work week. I would be interested to read an extended volume of the book, or perhaps another one about how the authors would apply these principles to the restaurant and service industries. And most importantly, how they would recommend the application of policies both internal to companies, and to governments to regulate living wage pay. The principles they write about seem contingent on the application of UBI (Universal Basic Income), and perhaps that service industries would be a chosen profession for some. However, that is one hell of a contingency to such an otherwise really well laid out argument in their book. It's part of why I kept reading, because I do think the ideas O'Connor and Lindzen present stood the chance to gain traction across industries if presented in a way that protected workers. For example, if a four-day work week is presented as a cost-cutting and productivity increasing imperative, how will corporations with a track record of maximizing profits at the cost of protecting workers and providing livable wages balance their four-day books? Will policies be introduced that essentially turn service industries into gig work, where employers limit a work week to four days for service staff, then cap that by salarying them so they cannot work for overtime (if the idea of overtime isn't dispensed with entirely), and use other policy levers to maximize profits while reducing costs on the wrong things. Finding cheaper means of production are ideal but time and time again, international and national corporations turn to labour as their cost-cutting measure because it represents one of the most significant costs that immediately responds to policies to make a change in a balance sheet when "times are tough". In Canada where I'm writing from (Southern Ontario, as with the authors), we have a strong(ish) union presence (just ask our premier Doug Ford who learned in the last provincial election where he came the closest to triggering a province-wide general strike for all CUPE members, and other industries than anyone has accomplished in 50 years or so). Unions are a bit of a scary word for corporations and organizations but absent of government regulations, or trust in the government to provide the conditions for reasonable work where the cost of living does not disappear people, sometimes they're all people have to turn to lest they be crushed under the weight of poverty wages. I wonder how the four day work week would become an argument of a benefit to dissolve unions (or at least attempts to try and chip away at faith in union leaders where a four-day workweek could become a bargaining chip at contract negotiation time as a way to remove a key benefit the employer no longer wants to pay for). Furthermore, I just plainly wonder how it would affect these labour relations period. For example, if a four-day work week was introduced in tandem with universal basic income, would employers feel compelled to offer cost-of-living competitive wages anymore? The only people who wouldn't be covered by those kinds of policies are immigrants, and migrant workers who lack permanent residence and subsequent protections, so really, it would create a race-based underclass of impoverished workers whose employers don't have a good reason to pay more than minimum wage? How do the authors see it being implemented otherwise? These implications are not something the authors talk about. When considering the Pangea-splitting effect of a four day work week on the status quo though, it's an important one. It isn't just talking about changing the way we work, but it also stands to change the definition of what work matters more than other kinds of work. It would be interesting to see a book from a union and working-class perspective, of the interstitial policies required to make something like this work for everyone, not just full-time, expensively educated, upper middle class knowledge workers.
The book was very good. Any book that challenges me to think at such depth is something I cherish. I found myself wondering about another point of their argument though, which indicated a "four day work week or bust" mentality. The four day work week shouldn't be implemented as the catch-all problem solver for productivity, nor should it be considered in isolation of greater shifts in DEI policy. Though it seems like that was a possible view the authors took. I don't know for sure what their perspective is, but there was one part of the book that seemed to use the four day work week as a declarative benefit for male employees, which quietly presented it as the solution to the problem of sexism and misogynistic work bias instead of addressing the bias in particular. The authors write of work life balance, and then said that, "If you believe your employer, manager, or boss may be persuaded by some of the social benefits of a four-day workweek, share with them how, in the North American pilot, male employees spent 27 percent more time looking after their children, and 60 percent of participants said they were better able to combine their jobs with caring responsibilities. Though it's still early, the data suggests that the four-day workweek could be a massive step forward for workplace gender equality by encouraging men to chip in more at home and by leveling the playing field for women at work" (p.156). That's not how I want to advocate for gender equality at work. Maybe I'm too "woke" and a "snowflake" but I'd rather be awake in a snowstorm than let that kind of sexism buttress "workplace gender equality".
Allow me to explain. First, believing that gender workplace equality's lowest common denominator is men chipping in at home, and women having more time to do caretaking duties, and that this is written in the last chapter as if to suggest a discursive (and dangerously casual) air of "hey, if all this research doesn't convince your bosses, remind them that it's great for men, and because we haven't figured out how to prioritize women on their own merit, it's great for them because it's great for us!" is kind of ick. It implicitly states that men's feelings about their work are the most important thing to consider when implementing or proposing a substantial policy change at work. It also makes me wonder about the fundamentals of how they conducted their research and whether it was built with implicit bias in it that would help to generate such a conclusion. It seems a very misogynist way of encouraging a four-day workweek. I don't know how a four-day workweek is meant to level the playing field for women at work when it doesn't remove barriers aside from men who are upset that they have to care about the families they created, and relationships they've chosen to be in as equitably contributing partners. I'm not debating that a four-day workweek would be great for some people. But why not just address the sexism that prioritizes men's work and their presence at work as the mountain-moving imperative? Why not address the problem at its root instead of suggesting a significant change to the way a company works that replicates the problem under another guise? Because it will. A four-day workweek solves a productivity problem, not a gender equality problem. It wasn't designed to, so it will inevitably fail if that's the reason a company implements it. Why not stop relegating ideas being beneficial on the basis of caretaking work outside of work being more available in the same breaths as associating it with women exclusively (making it so that the two things are still one in the same in the public imaginary of women's roles)? It does not disrupt the gender roles that cause sexism and uneven playing fields to be a problem in the first place. Why not address the implicit bias that suggests there is a difference in the importance between men and women's work? Why are we tiptoeing around misogyny and sexism at work instead of deploying the four-day workweek as a way to disrupt it? Is it even possible, or does it just represent a benefit to profits more than personnel? Why use the painful experience of sexism and misogyny, reducing it to a selling point for an idea without actually demonstrating a salient way that it will get to the ideological root of the problem, rather than applying a band-aid solution? What about encouraging meaningful training that reminds men that the world was literally designed for their comfort vis-a-vis patriarchy, and stop applauding men for bare minimum contributions to the household that only uphold sexist standards while simultaneously claiming to break those barriers? Isn't that gaslighting women in the process because it looks like an effort is being made, but it's so little as to be performative rather than moving the needle on relevant issues? How can readers be sure that the authors researched that as part of the burnout in the women whose experiences they used as case studies, manipulating both their gender and intersections to the ends their argument is making? In the end, is the four-day workweek the best solution for gender equality and if it isn't, should it be mentioned as such, making it a lowest-common denominator that organizations can cling to as justification for it, whose executives are (statistically) mostly men that stand to benefit most from it? These are not insignificant questions I'm left with; I realize that the authors are working with available data that shows the comment was probably made in decent faith and perhaps a lack of awareness. It might be an idea to omit that paragraph completely from future runs of this book because it's a small paragraph that isn't necessary to the book. But it did make me question the saliency of their entire argument because it reveals that it hasn't totally been considered from the perspective of what would be of benefit to everyone. O'Connor's wife, as the book states, is the CEO of the women's branch of the Work Time Revolution company of which he co-founded, which shows that there are reasons to believe this sexism I'm questioning isn't central to their argument, but even women's organizations can be harmful to women. This truly is why I decided to only give this book 2 stars. If you can get past that part of book (it's at the end of it), it's otherwise okay and had me considering a range of ways to conceive of my own job and those who come to public libraries looking for ways to do theirs better or differently.
November 10, 2025
I loved this book. While it can feel a little dense at times, the authors make a compelling and well-researched case for why the traditional five-day work week, born in the industrial age, no longer fits today’s world. They show how a four-day work week can maintain productivity while improving overall well-being and supporting long-term business success. What stood out most was how clearly they speak to business leaders, making the argument not just idealistic but practical and urgent. It is a persuasive and thought-provoking read that makes a strong case for real change in how we think about work.
Thank you to Harvard Business Review Press and NetGalley for providing an advance copy in exchange for my honest review.
Thank you to Harvard Business Review Press and NetGalley for providing an advance copy in exchange for my honest review.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Thank you to Netgalley and RBmedia for this ARC audiobook in exchange for an honest review!
Do More in Four: Why It's Time for a Shorter Workweek builds a solid, research-heavy argument for why the four-day workweek needs to happen. Joe O’Connor and Jared Lindzon aren't messing around here. This is packed with studies, data, and real examples from companies that have actually done this successfully.
The first chunk of the book is basically all data. Numbers, statistics, research findings. They're making the case that this isn't some pipe dream, it's something backed by real evidence. Companies that switch see better productivity, employees stick around longer, and revenue actually goes up. The authors don't just say it works, they show you the receipts over and over.
I really enjoyed the Unilever examples from New Zealand and Australia. Seeing a massive corporation test this out and measure the results proves this isn't just for small startups or tech companies. What I found most useful was learning about all the different ways to actually do this. Some places give everyone the same day off. Others rotate days so the business stays open five days but people only work four. Some companies just shorten each day instead of cutting a full day. There's flexibility here, which makes it feel more realistic for different types of businesses.
My biggest complaint is how repetitive this gets. If you're reading a book called Do More in Four, you're probably already interested in the idea. But the authors keep hammering the same points home again and again. I kept thinking "okay, I get it, move on." This could have been shorter and still made all the same arguments effectively.
The book is really accessible though. You don't need to know business speak or have any special background to understand what they're talking about. That makes it perfect for small business owners or executives who are actually considering this and need practical information with solid research behind it.
Stephen R. Thorne did a good job with the narration. Pleasant voice, academic but not boring. The audiobook worked fine for most of it, but honestly, during those data-heavy sections I wished I had a physical book to look at too. Once it moved into the case studies and how-to stuff, audio-only was totally fine.
This is business-focused, but as someone working in education, I kept thinking about how some of these ideas could apply to schools. It would take serious rethinking, but there are valid points here that go beyond just the business world.
This is a must-read if you're seriously thinking about implementing a four-day workweek at your company. It's thorough and research-backed, even if it could use some editing. Business leaders who want the full picture with all the data will appreciate this, even if it drags in spots.
A well-researched guide to the four-day workweek that proves its case but takes too long getting there.
Do More in Four: Why It's Time for a Shorter Workweek builds a solid, research-heavy argument for why the four-day workweek needs to happen. Joe O’Connor and Jared Lindzon aren't messing around here. This is packed with studies, data, and real examples from companies that have actually done this successfully.
The first chunk of the book is basically all data. Numbers, statistics, research findings. They're making the case that this isn't some pipe dream, it's something backed by real evidence. Companies that switch see better productivity, employees stick around longer, and revenue actually goes up. The authors don't just say it works, they show you the receipts over and over.
I really enjoyed the Unilever examples from New Zealand and Australia. Seeing a massive corporation test this out and measure the results proves this isn't just for small startups or tech companies. What I found most useful was learning about all the different ways to actually do this. Some places give everyone the same day off. Others rotate days so the business stays open five days but people only work four. Some companies just shorten each day instead of cutting a full day. There's flexibility here, which makes it feel more realistic for different types of businesses.
My biggest complaint is how repetitive this gets. If you're reading a book called Do More in Four, you're probably already interested in the idea. But the authors keep hammering the same points home again and again. I kept thinking "okay, I get it, move on." This could have been shorter and still made all the same arguments effectively.
The book is really accessible though. You don't need to know business speak or have any special background to understand what they're talking about. That makes it perfect for small business owners or executives who are actually considering this and need practical information with solid research behind it.
Stephen R. Thorne did a good job with the narration. Pleasant voice, academic but not boring. The audiobook worked fine for most of it, but honestly, during those data-heavy sections I wished I had a physical book to look at too. Once it moved into the case studies and how-to stuff, audio-only was totally fine.
This is business-focused, but as someone working in education, I kept thinking about how some of these ideas could apply to schools. It would take serious rethinking, but there are valid points here that go beyond just the business world.
This is a must-read if you're seriously thinking about implementing a four-day workweek at your company. It's thorough and research-backed, even if it could use some editing. Business leaders who want the full picture with all the data will appreciate this, even if it drags in spots.
A well-researched guide to the four-day workweek that proves its case but takes too long getting there.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Do More in Four: Why It's Time for a Shorter Workweek
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Being someone who is always curious of the future of what work can look like - this book really outlined a lot of good points and solid arguments towards 4 day workweeks.
I did find that some of the earlier chapters of the book kind-of glazed AI a little more than necessary, but I still found it a good book detailing how technology improvements can, and should, inevitably decrease the need for hours worked - a metric that has long since stuck at 9-5 5 days a week (for most of the developing world).
I also really appreciate how the author took time to describe the great lengths at which employers will attempt to prevent these types of changes, and how to persuade and recommend 4 day workweeks. Not only that, but they also did an analysis on the inflation vs pay vs hours worked and found some really disturbing trends!
I loved the book's cat analogy about halfway through the book that described how corporations are resistant to change, for just "we always do it this way" instead of really looking at the benefits to their employees, the environment, and overhead.
Also, as a Canadian myself, I loved how this book had so many Canadian examples of businesses and employers utilizing the four day workweek.
Four day workweeks seem like a really interesting and compelling business move, and I look forward to the potential future of trying out this work method some day.
Definitely check this book out if you are interested in books like The 4-Hour Workweek or It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work
Definitely check it out!
4.8/5
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
Being someone who is always curious of the future of what work can look like - this book really outlined a lot of good points and solid arguments towards 4 day workweeks.
I did find that some of the earlier chapters of the book kind-of glazed AI a little more than necessary, but I still found it a good book detailing how technology improvements can, and should, inevitably decrease the need for hours worked - a metric that has long since stuck at 9-5 5 days a week (for most of the developing world).
I also really appreciate how the author took time to describe the great lengths at which employers will attempt to prevent these types of changes, and how to persuade and recommend 4 day workweeks. Not only that, but they also did an analysis on the inflation vs pay vs hours worked and found some really disturbing trends!
I loved the book's cat analogy about halfway through the book that described how corporations are resistant to change, for just "we always do it this way" instead of really looking at the benefits to their employees, the environment, and overhead.
Also, as a Canadian myself, I loved how this book had so many Canadian examples of businesses and employers utilizing the four day workweek.
Four day workweeks seem like a really interesting and compelling business move, and I look forward to the potential future of trying out this work method some day.
Definitely check this book out if you are interested in books like The 4-Hour Workweek or It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work
Definitely check it out!
4.8/5
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Thanks to NetGalley and RB Media/Ascent Audio for the digital copy of this book; I am leaving this review voluntarily.
Okay, here’s an interesting topic that I am very much interested in. I recently went from a 4-day work week to a 5-day work week. I didn’t think it would be much of an adjustment, but it is. I listened to narrator Stephen R. Thorne narrate this book and thought he did a good job. His pleasant voice kept me interested in the topic throughout.
There’s a great case to be made that the 5-day work week is a dinosaur; what was created during the Industrial Age no longer fits into our global economy. Study after study has shown that the 4-day work week can be done. It can produce greater productivity, increasing business success. It can also support a greater work-life balance.
I did find that this book was very repetitive. I know about driving a point home, but most people who pick up this book are already on board, so beating the reader over the head with the same point again and again didn’t sit well with me. As a creator, I am also appalled at the author’s push of AI to increase productivity. I don’t give a good G** Damn how it can help me – the use of AI and data centers popping up all over the country have already shown how damaging it is to our environment.
Okay, here’s an interesting topic that I am very much interested in. I recently went from a 4-day work week to a 5-day work week. I didn’t think it would be much of an adjustment, but it is. I listened to narrator Stephen R. Thorne narrate this book and thought he did a good job. His pleasant voice kept me interested in the topic throughout.
There’s a great case to be made that the 5-day work week is a dinosaur; what was created during the Industrial Age no longer fits into our global economy. Study after study has shown that the 4-day work week can be done. It can produce greater productivity, increasing business success. It can also support a greater work-life balance.
I did find that this book was very repetitive. I know about driving a point home, but most people who pick up this book are already on board, so beating the reader over the head with the same point again and again didn’t sit well with me. As a creator, I am also appalled at the author’s push of AI to increase productivity. I don’t give a good G** Damn how it can help me – the use of AI and data centers popping up all over the country have already shown how damaging it is to our environment.
January 31, 2026
A book that advocates for the four day work week, written by a journalist and activist (?) who have dedicated years of their respective careers to advancing the topic. As someone who already has a pretty flexible work schedule, this seems both slightly unnecessary and easily attainable to me. I think the authors present interesting case studies for success and, crucially, strong historical analysis that the five day work week only persists because we let it. More bosses should read this!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews