Reduce or Compress? Household Panel Evidence on Working Time Arrangements and Wellbeing

The 4-day work week (4DW) has garnered much attention following recent high-profile trials across several countries. At the same time, the compressed work week (CWW) has made a comeback, enshrined in new law and receiving renewed academic attention. The rise of two comparable working time arrangements (WTA) raises the question: which is best for workers? To compare, this article uses nationally representative panel data from the United Kingdom which observes both WTAs. Fixed-effects panel regression and within-person effects are used to evaluate each WTA on a range of subjective wellbeing outcomes. Results unsurprisingly corroborate that the 4DW is good for employee wellbeing, especially mental health and leisure satisfaction. In contrast, the CWW has no corresponding positive effect, and even negative effects for women on average. However, the harms of the CWW are alleviated among women when it corresponds with schedule control increases to ‘a lot’, indicating the importance of placing WTAs alongside other working conditions. Overall, the gender differences are notable: women get less benefit from a 4DW and suffer the CWW more. One possible explanation for the initial discrepancy is women’s hours of housework significantly increase, whereas for men they do not. Offering more promise for gender equality, men do take up more hours of childcare when moving to both WTAs. This study demonstrates that, theoretically, researchers should not be so ambivalent about the relationship between wellbeing and working time: working less is better. In terms of organisational and public policy, confusing or equivalating the 4DW and CWW is unhelpful for guiding working time interventions for worker wellbeing.