Introduction. Hybrid work has proliferated, yet evidence on its effects is mixed, partly because "hybrid" lumps together distinct schedules and ignores autonomy over scheduling.
Purpose. We test how specific hybrid splits—3 office/2 home (3-2) vs 4 office/1 home (4-1)—and who chooses the days (employee vs manager) shape job satisfaction, work-life balance, and performance.
Method. Study 1 re-analyses survey data from Malta Business Bureau employees (n=285; 2020) to relate proportion of WFH to outcomes. Study 2 is a pre-registered online vignette experiment (n=1,003) randomly assigning five conditions: 5-0, 3-2 (employee-chosen), 3-2 (manager-chosen), 4-1 (employee-chosen), 4-1 (manager-chosen). Outcomes use established 3-item scales for job satisfaction, work-life balance, and performance; OLS/ANOVA and margins tests assess main and interaction effects.
Results. Study 1: higher WFH share correlates positively with work-life balance and performance (p<.01) and modestly with job satisfaction. Study 2: both hybrid splits beat 5-0 on all outcomes; 4-1 outperforms 3-2 for job satisfaction and work-life balance (p<.001). Autonomy raises job satisfaction and work-life balance; for performance, autonomy interacts with schedule: 3-2 with employee choice performs best, whereas 4-1 with manager choice outperforms 3-2 when autonomy is absent.
Conclusions. Not all hybrid is equal. A structured 4-1 model can optimize satisfaction and balance, especially where autonomy is limited, while granting choice can unlock performance in more flexible (3-2) setups. Organizations should tune both split and autonomy to role/team needs.