Orivel Orivel
Open menu

Draft a Persuasive Internal Proposal to Adopt a Four-Day Work Week

Compare model answers for this Business Writing benchmark and review scores, judging comments, and related examples.

Login or register to use likes and favorites. Register

X f L

Contents

Task Overview

Benchmark Genres

Business Writing

Task Creator Model

Answering Models

Judge Models

Task Prompt

You are a mid-level operations manager at a 200-employee software company called Meridian Technologies. Employee satisfaction survey results show that 74% of staff report moderate-to-high burnout, and voluntary turnover has risen from 12% to 19% over the past year. You believe a four-day work week (32 hours, no pay reduction) could address these issues. Write a formal internal proposal (approximately 500–700 words) addressed to the VP of Operations, Dana Chen, recommending a six-month pilot program for a four-day...

Show more

You are a mid-level operations manager at a 200-employee software company called Meridian Technologies. Employee satisfaction survey results show that 74% of staff report moderate-to-high burnout, and voluntary turnover has risen from 12% to 19% over the past year. You believe a four-day work week (32 hours, no pay reduction) could address these issues. Write a formal internal proposal (approximately 500–700 words) addressed to the VP of Operations, Dana Chen, recommending a six-month pilot program for a four-day work week. Your proposal must include: 1. A clear subject line and professional opening that states the purpose. 2. A concise summary of the problem, supported by the data points above. 3. A description of the proposed pilot program, including scope, timeline, and how productivity will be measured. 4. At least three specific, evidence-based benefits (you may reference well-known case studies or general research findings). 5. An honest acknowledgment of at least two potential risks or objections, with brief mitigation strategies. 6. A concrete next step or call to action. Constraints: - Use a professional but approachable tone appropriate for an internal audience. - Avoid jargon that would be unclear to a non-technical executive. - Structure the proposal with clear headings or sections for easy scanning. - Do not use bullet points for the entire document; use a mix of prose paragraphs and, where appropriate, short lists.

Judging Policy

A strong response should be evaluated on the following dimensions: (1) Professional formatting — the proposal should include a clear subject line, appropriate salutation, well-labeled sections or headings, and a professional closing. (2) Clarity and structure — the document should be logically organized, easy to scan, and use a mix of prose and selective lists as instructed. (3) Persuasiveness — the argument should be compelling, grounded in the provided data and plausible external evidence, and framed around busin...

Show more

A strong response should be evaluated on the following dimensions: (1) Professional formatting — the proposal should include a clear subject line, appropriate salutation, well-labeled sections or headings, and a professional closing. (2) Clarity and structure — the document should be logically organized, easy to scan, and use a mix of prose and selective lists as instructed. (3) Persuasiveness — the argument should be compelling, grounded in the provided data and plausible external evidence, and framed around business outcomes rather than just employee preference. (4) Completeness — all six required elements must be present and substantively addressed. (5) Tone — the writing should strike the right balance between formal and approachable, suitable for an internal upward communication. (6) Risk acknowledgment — objections should be addressed honestly rather than dismissed, with realistic mitigation strategies. (7) Conciseness — the proposal should stay within the approximate word count and avoid filler or redundancy. Deduct credit for missing required sections, overly casual or overly stiff tone, unsupported claims, poor organization, or failure to follow the formatting constraints.

Answers

Subject: Proposal for a Six-Month Four-Day Work Week Pilot (32 Hours, No Pay Reduction) Dana, I’m writing to recommend that Meridian Technologies launch a six-month pilot of a four-day work week (32 hours, no pay reduction). The purpose is to reduce burnout, improve retention, and maintain (or improve) delivery outcomes by redesigning how we use time—not simply reducing it. Problem Summary (Why This Matters Now) Our most recent employee satisfaction survey indicates that 74% of staff report moderate-to-high burnout. In parallel, voluntary turnover has increased from 12% to 19% over the past year. These two da...

Show Full Answer

Subject: Proposal for a Six-Month Four-Day Work Week Pilot (32 Hours, No Pay Reduction) Dana, I’m writing to recommend that Meridian Technologies launch a six-month pilot of a four-day work week (32 hours, no pay reduction). The purpose is to reduce burnout, improve retention, and maintain (or improve) delivery outcomes by redesigning how we use time—not simply reducing it. Problem Summary (Why This Matters Now) Our most recent employee satisfaction survey indicates that 74% of staff report moderate-to-high burnout. In parallel, voluntary turnover has increased from 12% to 19% over the past year. These two data points are closely linked: sustained burnout erodes engagement, increases unplanned absences, and pushes high performers to explore alternatives. At 200 employees, a seven-point jump in voluntary turnover represents a meaningful loss of experience and momentum, along with significant recruiting and onboarding costs. A four-day work week pilot is a practical, time-bound way to test whether we can relieve pressure and stabilize retention while continuing to meet customer and business commitments. Proposed Pilot Program (Scope, Timeline, and Measurement) Scope and operating model: The pilot would run company-wide with a few role-based exceptions where coverage is critical (e.g., customer support). Rather than mandating a single day off for everyone, we would use a “staggered day off” model to protect service levels: Core teams choose either Friday or Monday as their standard off day, coordinated within each department. Customer-facing groups maintain five-day coverage through rotating schedules. Meetings are streamlined and limited to the four working days. Timeline (six months total): Weeks 1–4: Planning and baseline capture (current productivity, cycle times, support responsiveness, and engagement). Months 2–6: Pilot execution with monthly check-ins and a mid-point adjustment at month 3. Final 2 weeks: Full evaluation and recommendation (continue, revise, or end). How we will measure productivity and business impact: To keep the assessment fair and transparent, we will use a combination of output, quality, and customer metrics compared against a pre-pilot baseline: Delivery and throughput: commitments met vs. planned, project milestone adherence, and cycle time for key workflows. Quality: defect rates, rework levels, and escalation volume. Customer experience: support first-response time, resolution time, and satisfaction scores. People outcomes: burnout/engagement pulse surveys, voluntary turnover, and sick days/unscheduled absences. The goal is not “more work in less time” at any cost; it is sustainable performance with fewer wasted hours and clearer priorities. Evidence-Based Benefits (What We Can Expect) 1) Reduced burnout and improved retention. Multiple well-known pilots (including the widely cited UK 4 Day Week Global trial) reported stable or improved performance alongside improvements in employee well-being and reductions in resignations. While results vary by organization, the consistent theme is that giving people more recovery time reduces chronic stress and improves staying power. 2) Maintained or improved productivity through better focus. Research and case studies frequently show that reducing available time forces sharper prioritization, fewer low-value meetings, and more deliberate planning. Teams tend to protect deep work time, which is particularly relevant in software and product environments where interruptions and meeting load can be a major drag on output. 3) Recruiting advantage and stronger employer brand. A four-day week pilot signals that Meridian is serious about sustainable work. In a competitive hiring market, differentiated flexibility can widen our candidate pool and reduce time-to-fill. Even if we ultimately adjust the program, the pilot itself demonstrates responsiveness to employee feedback. Risks and Mitigation (Addressing Likely Objections) Risk 1: Coverage gaps and slower customer response. Mitigation: Use staggered schedules in customer support and any other service-critical teams; set clear coverage requirements; monitor response and resolution times weekly; authorize temporary schedule adjustments if service levels dip. Risk 2: Compressed schedules could increase stress or reduce collaboration. Mitigation: Keep the work week at 32 hours (not “five days of work in four”); redesign routines by reducing standing meetings, enforcing meeting-free focus blocks, and clarifying decision rights. Managers will receive simple guidance on workload planning and early identification of overload. Risk 3: Uneven applicability across roles may raise fairness concerns. Mitigation: Where full participation is not feasible, offer equivalent flexibility (e.g., rotating four-day weeks, predictable shifts, or additional paid time off) and communicate the rationale clearly so employees understand the “why” and the plan to review equity impacts. Next Step / Call to Action If you agree, I’m requesting approval to form a small pilot working group (Operations, People/HR, Finance, and one representative per department) to finalize the schedule model and measurement dashboard within four weeks. I would also like 30 minutes on your calendar next week to walk through the pilot design, confirm success criteria, and align on how we will communicate the program to managers and employees. With burnout at 74% and voluntary turnover rising from 12% to 19%, a carefully measured six-month pilot gives us a disciplined way to test an intervention that could materially improve sustainability, retention, and performance. Respectfully, [Your Name] Operations Manager, Meridian Technologies

Result

#1 | Winner

Winning Votes

3 / 3

Average Score

87

Total Score

89

Overall Comments

Answer A provides a highly detailed, well-structured, and persuasive proposal. It excels in outlining the pilot program's scope, timeline, and especially its comprehensive measurement strategy, which includes specific metrics and the crucial concept of a pre-pilot baseline. The proposal also offers three robust mitigation strategies for potential risks and concludes with an exceptionally concrete and actionable call to action. The tone is perfectly balanced between professional and approachable, making it highly effective for an internal audience.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
90

Answer A fully meets all requirements, including word count, and provides an excellent level of detail appropriate for a formal internal proposal. The content is perfectly aligned with the prompt's expectations for scope and depth.

Clarity

Weight 20%
85

The proposal is exceptionally clear, with well-defined sections, straightforward language, and no jargon. The details, especially for measurement, are articulated in an easy-to-understand manner.

Structure

Weight 20%
90

Answer A demonstrates excellent structure with clear, descriptive headings and a natural flow. It effectively uses a mix of prose and embedded lists for details, making it very easy to scan and digest.

Actionability

Weight 20%
95

This answer is outstanding in actionability. The pilot program is meticulously detailed, especially the measurement section with specific metrics and the crucial 'pre-pilot baseline'. The call to action is exceptionally concrete, requesting approval for a working group and a specific meeting time.

Tone

Weight 15%
85

The tone is perfectly balanced: professional, respectful, and evidence-based, yet approachable with the direct address to 'Dana'. The closing is also appropriate for an internal communication.

Total Score

85

Overall Comments

Answer A is a comprehensive, well-structured proposal that addresses all six required elements with depth and specificity. It demonstrates strong business acumen by framing the four-day work week around sustainable performance rather than just employee preference. The proposal includes a detailed measurement framework, a realistic phased timeline, and addresses three risks (exceeding the minimum requirement of two) with practical mitigation strategies. The tone is professional yet approachable, and the call to action is concrete with specific next steps. The writing uses a good mix of prose and selective lists as instructed. One minor weakness is the slightly informal opening (just 'Dana,' without a more formal salutation), though this could be appropriate for the described internal relationship. The proposal stays focused and avoids filler while being thorough.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
85

Answer A addresses all six required elements thoroughly and substantively. It includes a clear subject line, professional opening, data-supported problem summary, detailed pilot description with scope/timeline/measurement, three evidence-based benefits with appropriate qualifications, three risks with mitigation strategies (exceeding the minimum), and a concrete call to action. The evidence citations are carefully qualified rather than making bold claims.

Clarity

Weight 20%
85

Answer A is clearly written with precise language. The measurement framework is particularly well-articulated with four distinct categories of metrics. The distinction between 'more work in less time' and 'sustainable performance with fewer wasted hours' is an effective clarifying statement. The phased timeline is easy to follow.

Structure

Weight 20%
80

Answer A uses clear section headings with parenthetical descriptions that aid scanning. It employs a good mix of prose paragraphs and selective lists as instructed. The flow from problem to solution to evidence to risks to action is logical and persuasive. One minor issue is that the opening could have a slightly more formal salutation.

Actionability

Weight 20%
90

Answer A excels in actionability with a highly specific call to action: forming a pilot working group with named stakeholder groups, a four-week timeline for finalizing the plan, and a request for a 30-minute meeting next week. The measurement framework is detailed enough to actually implement. The staggered schedule model and role-based exceptions show practical thinking.

Tone

Weight 15%
85

Answer A strikes an excellent balance between professional and approachable. The opening is direct without being presumptuous, and the closing ties back to the data effectively. The language throughout is confident but not overreaching, and the risk acknowledgment section demonstrates intellectual honesty. The phrase 'Respectfully' in the closing is appropriate.

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Total Score

87

Overall Comments

Answer A is a strong internal proposal that closely matches the prompt. It includes a clear subject line, direct opening, well-labeled sections, a concrete six-month pilot design, multiple relevant productivity metrics, evidence-based benefits, realistic risk mitigation, and a specific call to action. The tone is professional and approachable, and the document is easy to scan without overusing bullets. Its main weakness is that some external evidence is referenced generally rather than cited with more precision.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
88

Very well suited to the internal business-writing task: formal, executive-appropriate, and directly responsive to the stated problem and requested pilot recommendation.

Clarity

Weight 20%
86

Clear throughout, with concise explanations of the problem, proposal, metrics, and risks. The wording is easy for a non-technical executive to follow.

Structure

Weight 20%
87

Excellent scanability with strong section headings, balanced prose and lists, and a smooth progression from problem to recommendation to next steps.

Actionability

Weight 20%
90

Highly actionable: defines scope, staggered operating model, timeline phases, multiple evaluation metrics, mitigation plans, and a concrete request for a working group and meeting.

Tone

Weight 15%
85

Professional but approachable, with a constructive and credible tone appropriate for upward internal communication.

Subject: Proposal for a Six-Month Pilot of a Four-Day Work Week To: Dana Chen, VP of Operations From: [Your Name], Operations Manager Date: [Current Date] **1. Executive Summary** This proposal outlines a plan for a six-month pilot program to implement a four-day, 32-hour work week at Meridian Technologies, with no reduction in employee compensation. The objective is to address the significant challenges of employee burnout and rising voluntary turnover, with the ultimate goal of boosting productivity, improving employee well-being, and strengthening our position as a top employer in the software industry. **...

Show Full Answer

Subject: Proposal for a Six-Month Pilot of a Four-Day Work Week To: Dana Chen, VP of Operations From: [Your Name], Operations Manager Date: [Current Date] **1. Executive Summary** This proposal outlines a plan for a six-month pilot program to implement a four-day, 32-hour work week at Meridian Technologies, with no reduction in employee compensation. The objective is to address the significant challenges of employee burnout and rising voluntary turnover, with the ultimate goal of boosting productivity, improving employee well-being, and strengthening our position as a top employer in the software industry. **2. The Challenge: Burnout and Attrition** Recent internal data reveals critical issues affecting our workforce and long-term stability. Our latest employee satisfaction survey indicates that 74% of our staff report experiencing moderate-to-high levels of burnout. This is directly impacting our ability to retain top talent, as evidenced by a sharp increase in voluntary turnover from 12% to 19% over the past fiscal year. These trends represent not only a significant loss of institutional knowledge but also incur substantial costs related to recruitment, hiring, and training. To ensure Meridian's continued growth and innovation, we must proactively address the root causes of this disengagement. **3. Proposed Pilot Program** I recommend a six-month pilot program, beginning in Q3, to test the viability of a four-day work week. * **Scope:** The pilot would initially include the Operations and Engineering departments, representing a cross-section of our core functions. This controlled scope will allow us to gather robust data and refine the model before considering a company-wide rollout. * **Timeline:** The pilot would run from July 1st to December 31st. A formal review would be conducted at the three-month and six-month marks. * **Productivity Measurement:** Success will be measured against established departmental KPIs. We will not change our output expectations. Key metrics will include project completion rates, software deployment frequency, system uptime, and customer satisfaction scores. Additionally, we will closely monitor employee engagement survey results and attrition rates within the pilot groups compared to the rest of the company. **4. Anticipated Benefits** A transition to a results-oriented, 32-hour week is supported by extensive research and successful case studies. We can anticipate three primary benefits: * **Increased Productivity and Focus:** Companies like Microsoft Japan have reported productivity gains of up to 40% after implementing a four-day week. By compressing work into four days, employees are incentivized to eliminate inefficiencies, reduce time spent in non-essential meetings, and focus on high-impact tasks. * **Enhanced Talent Attraction and Retention:** In a competitive tech market, a four-day work week is a powerful differentiator. It offers a tangible benefit that can significantly improve our ability to attract senior talent and, more importantly, reduce the costly turnover we are currently experiencing. It signals that we are a forward-thinking employer that trusts and invests in its people. * **Improved Employee Well-being:** Providing employees with an additional day off each week directly combats the burnout reported by 74% of our staff. This allows more time for rest, family, and personal pursuits, leading to a healthier, more energized, and more creative workforce upon their return each week. **5. Potential Risks and Mitigation** A change of this magnitude requires careful planning. Two potential challenges are: * **Maintaining Five-Day Business Coverage:** A primary concern is ensuring seamless client support and operational availability. * **Mitigation:** We can implement a staggered schedule model. For example, half of a team could work Monday-Thursday, while the other half works Tuesday-Friday, ensuring full departmental coverage throughout the standard work week. * **Risk of Decreased Output:** There may be skepticism about achieving the same output in fewer hours. * **Mitigation:** The pilot will be accompanied by workshops on efficient work practices, such as deep work principles and effective use of asynchronous communication tools. The focus will shift from hours logged to results achieved, a transition supported by clear performance metrics. **6. Next Steps** I am confident that a four-day work week pilot program offers a strategic solution to our current challenges with burnout and retention. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal with you in more detail next week. I am prepared to present a more granular implementation plan, including communication strategies and specific KPI benchmarks. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Result

#2

Winning Votes

0 / 3

Average Score

73

Total Score

74

Overall Comments

Answer B delivers a solid proposal that addresses all key requirements. It clearly articulates the problem, proposes a pilot, and lists relevant benefits and risks with mitigation. However, its pilot program details, particularly the measurement section, are less comprehensive than Answer A's. The call to action is also less specific, merely requesting a discussion rather than concrete approval for next steps. While professional, the formatting is slightly more list-heavy, and the tone is a bit more formal compared to Answer A's approachable directness.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
75

Answer B generally meets the requirements, but its pilot scope is more limited than A's, and the call to action is less direct, making it slightly less appropriate for the scale of the problem presented in the prompt.

Clarity

Weight 20%
80

Answer B is clear and easy to understand, with logical flow and simple language. However, Answer A's prose and integration of details flow slightly more smoothly.

Structure

Weight 20%
75

Answer B uses numbered headings for clear organization, but its reliance on explicit bullet points for sub-sections (scope, timeline, benefits, risks) makes it feel slightly less integrated and prose-driven compared to Answer A.

Actionability

Weight 20%
65

While the pilot program is described and mitigation strategies are present, the measurement section is less thorough than Answer A's. The call to action is a general request for a meeting rather than a specific approval or next step, making it less actionable for the VP.

Tone

Weight 15%
75

The tone is professional and appropriate for an internal proposal. However, the 'To:/From:/Date:' header makes it slightly more formal and less directly approachable than Answer A's opening.

Total Score

72

Overall Comments

Answer B is a solid proposal that covers all required elements with clear formatting and professional presentation. It includes a proper memo header with To/From/Date fields, which adds formality. However, it has several notable weaknesses: the Microsoft Japan 40% productivity claim is a commonly cited but misleading statistic (it measured pages printed per employee, not overall productivity), which undermines credibility. The scope is limited to only two departments rather than company-wide, which while potentially more realistic, doesn't fully leverage the pilot opportunity. The proposal only addresses two risks (the minimum), and the mitigation strategies are somewhat generic. The use of bold markdown formatting and bullet points throughout much of the document leans toward violating the constraint about not using bullet points for the entire document. The benefits section relies heavily on bullet points rather than prose paragraphs. The call to action is less specific than Answer A's.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
70

Answer B covers all six required elements but with less depth. The Microsoft Japan 40% productivity claim is a commonly misrepresented statistic that could undermine credibility with a knowledgeable executive. The pilot scope is limited to two departments, which is a valid choice but less ambitious. Only two risks are addressed (the minimum), and the benefits section could be more nuanced in its evidence claims.

Clarity

Weight 20%
75

Answer B is generally clear and readable. The executive summary provides a good overview. However, some sections could be more specific - for example, 'workshops on efficient work practices' is vague, and the productivity measurement section could be more detailed. The writing is competent but occasionally generic.

Structure

Weight 20%
75

Answer B has a professional memo header and numbered sections that are easy to scan. However, it relies heavily on bullet points throughout, which somewhat violates the constraint about not using bullet points for the entire document. The benefits and risks sections are almost entirely bullet-point based rather than using the requested mix of prose and lists.

Actionability

Weight 20%
65

Answer B's call to action is relatively vague - requesting a meeting 'next week' to present a 'more granular implementation plan.' This suggests the proposal itself isn't the implementation plan, which weakens its actionability. The measurement approach mentions KPIs but is less specific about what exactly will be tracked and how. The Q3 start date adds some concreteness.

Tone

Weight 15%
75

Answer B maintains a professional tone throughout with appropriate formality for upward communication. The executive summary and closing are well-crafted. However, some phrases like 'I am confident that' could come across as slightly presumptuous before the pilot has been tested. The tone is competent but slightly more formulaic than Answer A's.

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Total Score

74

Overall Comments

Answer B is competent and persuasive in parts, with a clear subject line, organized sections, and credible benefits. However, it relies heavily on bullet formatting, includes markdown-style asterisks that feel less polished for a formal internal proposal, and is somewhat less tailored and actionable than Answer A. The scope choice is plausible but less aligned with the broader organizational problem, and some claims are more generic or potentially overstated.

View Score Details

Appropriateness

Weight 25%
73

Generally appropriate, but the markdown-style formatting and somewhat generic phrasing make it feel less polished and less natural for a real internal memo to an executive.

Clarity

Weight 20%
78

Mostly clear and readable, but the document is more list-driven and occasionally uses broad statements instead of fully explaining implications or decision logic.

Structure

Weight 20%
74

Organized into sections, but it leans too heavily on bullets and numbered headings. The formatting is less natural for the stated constraint to avoid making the whole document list-like.

Actionability

Weight 20%
71

Provides a usable outline, but the pilot design is less developed. Measurement and implementation details are thinner, and the next step is more general than operational.

Tone

Weight 15%
72

Respectful and professional overall, but somewhat more stiff and template-like, with less of the natural internal voice seen in stronger business proposals.

Comparison Summary

Final rank order is determined by judge-wise rank aggregation (average rank + Borda tie-break). Average score is shown for reference.

Judges: 3

Winning Votes

3 / 3

Average Score

87
View this answer

Winning Votes

0 / 3

Average Score

73
View this answer

Judging Results

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Why This Side Won

Answer A wins because it is more complete, better tailored to the company context, and more actionable as an internal proposal. It presents a clearer operating model, stronger measurement framework, more nuanced risk handling, and a more natural business-writing tone. Answer B is solid but feels more templated and less implementation-ready.

Why This Side Won

Answer A wins because it provides a more thorough, nuanced, and actionable proposal. It offers a more detailed measurement framework with specific metrics across four categories, addresses three risks instead of two with more realistic mitigation strategies, includes a more concrete call to action (requesting a specific working group and a 30-minute meeting), and demonstrates stronger business framing throughout. Answer A also better follows the formatting constraint by using a more balanced mix of prose and lists, while Answer B relies more heavily on bullet-point formatting. Answer A's evidence citations are more carefully qualified ('results vary by organization') compared to Answer B's potentially misleading Microsoft Japan 40% claim. Both proposals are competent, but Answer A shows greater depth, specificity, and persuasive sophistication.

Why This Side Won

Answer A wins due to its superior level of detail, particularly in the proposed pilot program's measurement section, which is critical for a data-driven initiative. Its mitigation strategies are more comprehensive, and its call to action is significantly more concrete and actionable, guiding the VP towards specific next steps. The overall structure and tone also feel more polished and persuasive for the intended internal audience.

X f L