Since the COVID-19 pandemic, flexible working arrangements (FWAs) have become more prevalent. A McKinsey study showed that 87% of Americans surveyed would take the chance to work flexibly if offered. The current debate is on whether the rise of FWAs is an “opportunity” for a more egalitarian gender division of household labour or if it reinforces the exploitation of women in the traditional gender division. In this article, Dr Cheng Cheng, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Singapore Management University (SMU) discusses her research, conducted in collaboration with Senhu Wang, Assistant Professor of Sociology from the National University of Singapore, on FWAs and gender household labour inequality.

Q: What motivated your research into the impact of flexible working arrangements (FWAs) on gender inequality in household labour?

Dr Cheng: The last two decades have witnessed the growth of FWAs in addressing work-family conflicts in many developed countries. The rise of FWAs, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, can potentially reshape couples’ use of time at home and influence gender inequality in household labour. However, the empirical evidence on whether FWAs reduce or reinforce gender inequality in domestic work is mixed.

Previous research often focuses on individuals, examining how individuals’ use of FWAs affects their household labour. With Dr Senhu Wang, we have contributed to this discussion by adopting a couple-level perspective, examining how each partner’s use of FWAs affects the within-couple division of household labour. Furthermore, we consider how the effects of FWAs depend on the type of household labour and how the patterns vary across different types of FWAs.

We analysed longitudinal couple-level dyadic data from the 2010-2020 waves of Understanding Society: The United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS). Our final sample consisted of 7,825 heterosexual couples (18,274 couple-wave observations) who were married or cohabiting, of working age (18-65), and employed. We used two-way fixed effects models to examine how changes in couples’ FWAs affect changes in within-couple division of household labour.

In 2003, the UK government granted parents with children under 6 or disabled children under 18 the right to request FWAs. This right was later extended to all adults with caring responsibilities in 2007, and then to all adult employees who have been continuously employed by the same employer for over 26 weeks in 2014. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, FWAs were further expanded to enable organisations worldwide to sustain operations and safeguard jobs. In recent years, there has been increasing clamour for normalising and legitimising the use of FWAs.

While our research was not specifically on couples living in cities, the increasing availability of FWAs in urban settings makes this topic particularly relevant to urban dual-career couples who are often juggling demanding jobs with family responsibilities.

Q: How does your study define flexible working arrangements?

Dr Cheng: FWAs are workplace options that give employees more control over how much, when, or where they work. The goal is often to help employees achieve a better work-life balance. For instance, employees may choose to work fewer hours, set their schedule, or work from home.

In our study, we looked at three main types of FWAs: Reduced Hours Arrangements, Flexible Time Arrangements or Flexible Schedule Arrangements, and Teleworking Arrangements.

Click on the icons to learn more

Q: In your research, how do FWAs actually affect gender inequality in household labour?

Dr Cheng: We found that, among heterosexual couples, FWAs tend to reinforce the unequal gender division of housework by increasing women’s housework burden without changing men’s housework contribution. 

Specifically, our statistical analysis shows that when used by wives alone or by both partners, FWAs increased wives’ housework burden by about one hour per week relative to their husbands. In contrast, men’s use of FWAs did not change their housework contribution, even when their wives did not use any FWAs. In addition, our statistical models reveal that wives’ increased domestic burden as a result of using FWAs was most pronounced in routine housework tasks, such as cooking, washing, and cleaning. These tasks typically need to be done daily at specific times and thus entail a big demand for availability and flexibility.

These findings likely reflect the persistence of traditional gender norms where women are expected to prioritise family responsibilities and men are expected to prioritise work, which shape the way men and women use FWAs differently. When women use FWAs, they often feel pressured to use that flexibility to take on more household responsibilities, while men are more likely to use it for work-related purposes. Thus, when women use FWAs, either alone or together with their husbands, their housework burden significantly increases.

Q: How does this connect to your findings that when only men, among heterosexual couples, use FWAs, their contribution to housework hours remains largely unchanged?

Dr Cheng: Our results corroborate findings from prior research, which shows that men tend to use FWAs to engage in more work-related activities, such as increasing performance and working longer overtime hours.

Another possible explanation is that men are more likely to use flexible time arrangements (FTAs), which tend to have a lesser impact on time availability at home than other types of FWAs. Our statistical models suggest that compared to flexible time arrangements, reduced hours and teleworking arrangements more directly intensified women’s domestic burden.

Thus, overall, we find that FWAs do not increase husbands’ share of household labour. Men’s use of FWAs does not alter the unequal gendered division of household labour. 

Q: How does this finding affect family life for these couples?

Dr Cheng: These dynamics can affect various aspects of family life. Women’s intensified housework burden may hinder their career outcomes, widening within-couple inequalities at home and in the labour market. More domestic responsibilities also mean less leisure time and increased stress. Meanwhile, men may miss out on opportunities for greater involvement in family life. These imbalances could potentially strain the relationship, affecting marital satisfaction.

Q: Does culture play a role in how FWAs affect gender dynamics and does it matter whether it is a family in an urban or rural setting?

Dr Cheng: Our study uses data from the United Kingdom, and it would be valuable for future studies to examine how the impact of FWAs on household labour division may vary across sociocultural contexts. The patterns we observed may be relevant to other countries with similar traditional gender norms and work cultures.

Our study did not specifically compare urban and rural settings, but there are important differences worth considering. For instance, urban and rural settings may differ in occupational structures, which may influence how FWAs are implemented and the specific types of FWAs available. Urban and rural areas may also differ in workplace cultures, family structures, and gender norms, all of which may influence how FWAs affect household labour division.

Q: What are the key takeaways you want people to know about your research?

Dr Cheng: Our study shows that the use of FWAs does not automatically translate into more gender equality in household labour. While women’s use of FWAs tends to increase their housework burden, men’s use of FWAs generally does not change their housework contribution.

The impact of FWAs varies depending on the type of household labour. Women’s increased domestic burden when using FWAs is most pronounced in routine tasks such as cooking and cleaning.

Different types of FWAs also have different effects on gender housework division. Compared to flexible work schedules, reduced hours and teleworking more directly increase the amount of time devoted to the household and increase women’s domestic burden.

Overall, rather than providing an “opportunity” for a more egalitarian division of household labour, the use of FWAs maintains or even exacerbates the “exploitation” of women under the existing traditional gender norms. The persisting traditional gender norms produce gendered ways in how couples use FWAs and strategise their work and family time. The potential of FWAs as an opportunity for more egalitarian divisions of domestic labour may remain limited without changes in traditional gender norms. Thus, to achieve gender equality in household labour, we need to transform society’s expectations about gender roles alongside workplace change.

Q: In your opinion how can the increased domestic burden on female partners be mitigated? How can male partners reduce this burden?

Dr Cheng: Mitigating the increased domestic burden on female partners requires action at multiple levels. Our study highlights that workplace changes such as FWAs alone may not be enough. We also need changes in how society views gender roles and responsibilities at home and work, which need to occur across individual, family, organisational, and societal levels. 

For instance, at the individual and family levels, male partners may play a more active part and use FWAs to increase their contributions to household labour, especially those routine housework tasks. Parents promoting gender-neutral approaches to household responsibilities and modelling gender-egalitarian sharing of domestic labour may also help challenge traditional gender expectations. 

At the organisational level, employers can play a significant role by promoting a work culture where using FWAs for family responsibilities is normalised for all genders, not just women. At the policy and societal level, implementing measures that encourage men to use FWAs for family responsibilities may help reshape traditional gender norms over time.

Such comprehensive changes across society may help realise the potential of FWAs as an “opportunity” for achieving more egalitarian divisions of household labour.