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