When a small nation of just over 400,000 people starts changing how work is measured, the rest of the world pays attention. Iceland’s recent experiments with a shorter work week have yielded impressive results—higher worker satisfaction, better work-life balance, and no obvious drop in productivity. The key question now is whether the United States can follow suit?

What Iceland Did And What It Found

Arlington Research on Unsplash

Between 2015 and 2019, Iceland ran large-scale trials in the public sector, reducing weekly hours from about 40 to around 35-36 without reducing pay. The key findings, as reported by The Autonomy Institute, IT Pro, and Rude Baquette, are as follows:

• Workers reported improved well-being, with 97% saying shorter hours made it easier to balance work and life or kept it the same (52% reporting it easier).

• Productivity stayed the same or improved in most workplaces—no collapse in output despite fewer hours.

• The move was implemented via collective bargaining rather than a one-size-fits-all law, which may have aided acceptance. (Rude Baguette)

These results suggest that a shorter week can work as a structural reform of labor.

Why The U.S. May Face Bigger Hurdles

Reproducing Iceland’s model stateside won’t be plug-and-play. For starters:

The U.S. economy is far more diverse—with large private-sector firms, service industries, gig work, and variable shift patterns. What works in Iceland’s public sector doesn’t map directly onto every U.S. sector.

Collective bargaining is much less widespread among U.S. workers compared to Iceland. Changes that were negotiated in Iceland may in the U.S. require legislation or large-scale employer adoption.

Lastly, cultural norms differ. Work hours in the U.S. carry different social meanings, and some employers equate longer hours with commitment or productivity even when data suggest otherwise.

What To Watch If A Shorter Week Is Rolled Out In The U.S.

If the shortened-week concept takes off in the U.S., these features will likely determine success:

• Same pay for fewer hours: Iceland’s change kept pay constant while reducing hours—crucial for worker buy-in.

• Management of workflow: Icelandic trials succeeded because tasks were re-organized, meetings cut, and focus sharpened. Employers would need to rethink how work is structured, not just shorten the time.

• Sector-specific adaptation: Some industries—retail, healthcare, emergency services—may need modified models (e.g., compressed days rather than fewer days) rather than wholesale adoption of Iceland’s 35-hour week.

• Measurement of outcomes: Productivity, employee well-being, turnover, and absenteeism give a fuller picture—shorter hours alone don’t guarantee better performance.

Should You Care (Especially If You’re 45-65)?

Arlington Research on Unsplash

If you’re between 45 and 65, achieving better work-life balance can make off-hours more meaningful—time for family, hobbies, or volunteering—as retirement nears. Also, as shorter workweeks gain traction, early adopters may secure greater flexibility and benefits.

Final Thought

Iceland’s experiment proves a critical point: fewer hours do not have to mean less output—and they can mean a better life for workers. Whether that model scales in the United States depends on adaptation, industry-specific strategies, and cultural change.

Still, one thing is clear: if firms and workers start viewing time not as hours logged but as outcomes achieved, the future of work might look different.