4 Days, 40 Hours

In 1971, the book received attention in a New York Times article that tied it to a growing trend in companies to allow a four-day workweek.[5] Heartened by the response, Poor said, "I predict that within the next five years just about every business in the country will be giving it serious consideration."[4] In another article about the four-day workweek in 1976, The New York Times called 4 Days, 40 Hours "the definitive reference work in this field."[6]

A 1975 review of the book's second edition in The Journal of Human Resources said that Poor "can only be described as radiantly positive about [the 4-day workweek's] potential for good, and utterly unconvinced by the negative criticism from trade union and other sources... She is definitely not impressed by the argument that 10-hour days are fatiguing, or that they represent a regression to 19th century standards." While she does not give much attention to alternatives, "this focus does permit her to concentrate on presenting us with a spirited defense of a four-day, 40-hour schedule, and, as such, her book is to be recommended."[7]

The book's publication led to an increase in her management consulting work; according to a 1979 UPI profile, "The book quickly became a hot item in American industry, and her star was launched."[8]

However, the concept did not actually catch on, and in 1989, an article in the Boston Globe called it "a management fad that went the way of zero-based budgeting and the Boston Consulting Group's cow-and-doggy grid."[9]

David Hamilton wrote, "Her research indicates that the shorter week is most successful in small, nondiversified industries."[10]

A review by Leon E. Lunden in Monthly Labor Review reads, ""repetitive and spotty as it is in part, the book nevertheless reflects the enthusiasm of the various authors for 4-40 and their conviction that it will spread rapidly".[11]