Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility

FWA

Where: telecommuting, flexplace

When: flextime, scheduling flexibility

Work-family conflict

interrole conflict in which role pressures from work, family domains mutually incompatible in some respect

directionality

FIW

WIF

Variation in WFC, flexibility r/s

flexplace VS flextime (scheduling)

flexibility use VS availability

directionality - nondiretional (eg. interfere with each other), work-family balance, work interference with family (eg. time)

demogaphic characteristics - boundary characteristics associated with FWA, work-family conflict r/s

gender

parental status

marital status

weekly work hours

Resource theory

Time, attention, energy as finite resources

Flexibility - discretion (when and/or where)

time-based perspective (adjust schedule) - commuting, domestic and dependent care activities

location flexibility can reduce employee strain - nonwork matters as needed VS preoccupation, worry

[1], [2] Work-family conflict direction

[2] FWA more -ve associated with WIF than FIW

[1] FWA -ve related to [a] WIF, [b] FIW

[3] Flextime VS flexplace

domain-specificity hypothesis

cross-domain hypothesis

[3] Flextime more -ve associated with [a] WIF(-0.12), [b] FIW than flexplace (-0.07)

Blurred boundaries - conflicts on when of role performance, perception of less control, need for greater self-control

[4], [5] Flexibility use VS availability

[5] Flexplace: use more -ve associated with [a] WIF, [b] FIW than flexplace availability

[4] Flextime: use more -ve associated with [a] WIF, [b] FIW than availability

Demographic moderators

Method

Literature search

Study variables

Moderators

FWA

Coding of studies

WFC

Statistical procedures

Use

Availability

Social exchange theory: more positive job attitudes towards organization

Perceptions of psychological control

role boundary management strategies

Resource allocation theory: more readily, proactively plan and manage work and family responsibilities

FWA as more valued resource for individuals predisposed to greater WFC (greater work and/or family demands)

women (domestic tasks) no moderating effect

family responsibilities (married / are parents)

long work hours (average weekly work hours) - no moderating effect

Married - -ve r/s between flextime, FIW

Parents - -ve r/s between flexplace, WIF

Results: flexplace and FIW (-0.02) stronger than flextime (not statistically significant)

Result: flexplace availability more -ve associated with FIW than use

WIF and/or FIW

higher level aggregate when more than 1 dimension measured eg. time, strain, behavior

Exclude global assessment of nondirectional work-family conflict, composites of WIF, FIW, work-family balance

flextime, flexplace use and availability

[1] -[3] aggregate that averaged flexplace, flextime use, availability, undifferentiated measures (flexplace, flextime all)

summed checklists of multiple forms of flexibility

Parental status (% parents) - flexplace and WIF

marital status (% married) - flextime all and FIW

Gender (% male) (no moderating effect)

Work hours (average weekly working hours) (no moderating effect)

independent coding by 2 study authors (sample sizes, correlations, moderator)

coding discrepancy resolved by discussion, data reexamination in consultation with lead author

comprehensive Meta-analysis software package

random effects model used based on correlation coefficient as effect size indicator

PsycINFO database

Relevant conference programs (last 5 years)

flexibility keywords: flexibility, flextime, flexplace, schedule flexbility, telecommuting, compressed work week, telework

work-family keywords: WFC, work-family balance, work-family interference, negative spillover, work-life conflict, work-life balance, work-nonwork conflict, work-nonwork balance

Inclusion criteria

WIF and/or FIW

Exclude family friendly - eg. dependent care, part time work/reduced workloads, satisfaction with flexibility, self-focused time management, organizational time demands

relationship between at least 1 of 2 forms of flexibility (flextime, flexplace)

usable statistics to calculate corelation between flexibility variable and WFC, largest sample size (similar sample)

Conclusion

FWA r/s with WFC smaller than assumed

Result: flextime availability more -ve associated with WIF than use (largest magnitude for WIF but r only -0.13

Key findings

direction of WFC matters

type of flexibility matters

Limitations

lack of flexplace availability, flextime use

Cross-sectional design

Directions of future research

Implications for practice

limited FWA potential to reduce WFC

organizational practises focusing on support may be more beneficial than FWA