69

Work 48 (2014) 69–81 DOI 10.3233/WOR-141859 IOS Press

The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict Christopher Higginsa , Linda Duxburyb,∗ and Mark Julienc a

Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada c Faculty of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada b

Received 17 December 2012 Accepted 20 January 2014

Abstract. BACKGROUND: A review of the literature determined that our understanding of the efficacy of flexible work arrangements (FWA) in reducing work-family conflict remains inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To shed light on this issue by examining the relationship between work-to-family conflict, in which work interferes with family (WFC), family-to-work conflict, in which family interferes with work (FWC), and four work arrangements: the traditional 9-5 schedule, compressed work weeks (CWWs) flextime, and telework. METHODS: Hypotheses were tested on a sample of 16,145 employees with dependent care responsibilities. MANCOVA analysis was used with work arrangement as the independent variable and work interferes with family (WFC) and family interferes with work (FWC) as dependent variables. Work demands, non-work demands, income, job type and gender were entered into the analysis as covariates. RESULTS: The more flexible work arrangements such as flextime and telework were associated with higher levels of WFC than were fixed 9-to 5 and CWW schedules. Employees who teleworked reported higher FWC than their counterparts working a traditional 9-to-5 schedule particularly when work demands were high. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of both temporal and physical boundaries separating work and family domains results in higher levels of work-family interference in both directions. The results from this study suggest that policy makers and practitioners who are interested in improving employee well-being can reduce work-family conflict, and by extension improve employee mental health, by focusing on the effective use of traditional and CWW schedules rather than by implementing flextime and telework arrangements. Keywords: Control, demands, human resource management, karasek

1. Introduction The average North American adult spends time each day in a variety of roles including employee, spouse or partner, caregiver and volunteer. The challenge of trying to fulfill the demands of these vari∗ Corresponding author: Linda Duxbury, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 915 Dunton Tower, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada. Tel.: +1 613 520 2385; Fax: +1 613 520 2532; E-mail: [email protected].

ous work and family roles often results in a form of strain known as work-family conflict [1,2]. According to Greenhaus and Beutell, work-family conflict occurs when the cumulative demands of these many work and non-work roles are incompatible in some respect so that participation in one role is made more difficult by participation in the other role [3]. Conceptually, conflict between work and family is bi-directional, and researchers make the distinction between workto-family conflict (WFC), and family-to-work conflict (FWC) [4–6]. WFC arises when work responsibilities negatively impact one’s ability to complete family re-

c 2014 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved 1051-9815/14/$27.50 

70

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

sponsibilities [4]. Similarly, FWC occurs when family responsibilities negatively impact one’s ability to fulfill work duties [4]. Research suggests that the number of North American employees reporting high levels of work-family conflict is on the rise [7]. This is unfortunate as there is a substantial body of empirical evidence linking workfamily conflict to a number of negative outcomes including poor physical and mental health, lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment, higher turnover intentions, higher levels of family distress, and lower levels of marital happiness, family satisfaction and quality of family life. Published substantiation of these claims appears in a number of reviews and meta-analyses on the consequences of WFC and FWC [5,8,9]. Many policy makers tasked with issues associated with employee well-being and stress prevention have implemented a variety of workplace interventions, such as flexible or alternative work arrangements, in an effort to reduce employee work-family conflict and its associated negative consequences [10,11]. A flexible work arrangement (FWA) is defined as any one of a spectrum of work structures that alter the time and/or place that work is performed on a regular basis [12,13]. A FWA might offer: (1) flexibility in the scheduling of hours worked (flextime, compressed work weeks or CWWs); (2) flexibility in the number of hours worked (part-time schedules); and (3) flexibility in the place of work (telework). Theoretically, FWAs such as flextime, CWWs and telework reduce WFC and FWC by providing employees with a greater degree of control over their hours of work and their workday [14–16]. Notionally this increase in control makes it easier for employees to combine their work and non-work obligations, thereby reducing the amount of interference they experience between the domains of work and nonwork [17,18]. Despite the appeal of FWAs to policy makers and health care practitioners looking to “solve” the problem of work-family conflict, findings with respect to the efficacy of FWA in reducing WFC and FWC remain inconclusive [20,21]. While some studies report that flextime helps reduce work-family conflict [23– 25], other researchers have reported no association [25–27], a negative association [28], or have observed that flextime was associated with lower levels of work-family conflict for one gender but not the other [29,30]. A similar phenomenon can be observed with respect to the impact of telework on work-family conflict [31].

Telework is the practice of working from home, making use of the Internet, email, and the telephone. While some of the literature on the consequences of telework has stressed the opportunities this work arrangement will create for performing both work and family roles more fully [32–34], other authors contend that working at home may raise stress levels by increasing the permeability of the boundary between work and family domains and making it more difficult to juggle work and family schedules [35]. Studies examining the impact of a CWW on work-family conflict, while not as numerous, have also produced contradictory results [36–38]. These inconsistencies are apparent in two recent meta-analyses on this topic [39,40]. While Byron [39] reported a significant, though moderate, negative effect size between FWA and both WFC (−0.30) and FWC (−0.17), Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran [40] found no such relationship and reported an effect size of 0.000 with WFC and 0.06 with FWC. Allen and Shockley [20] point out that some of the difference in findings between these two meta-analyses can be explained by the fact that Byron [39] looked at schedule flexibility while Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran [40] looked at flexibility with respect to both schedule and location. Allen and Shockley also noted that the credibility limits were large in both metaanalyses, suggesting the presence of uncontrolled confounds. These authors [20] concluded that the inconsistencies with respect to meta analytic findings suggest that FWAs are a necessary but insufficient condition for reducing work life conflict. In 2011 Hill, Erickson, Holmes and Ferris [41, p. 209] published a review of literature looking at the impact of temporal flexibility, which they defined as “the ability of workers to make choices influencing when and for how long they engage in workrelated tasks”, on work-family conflict outcomes. This review focused on the impact of schedule flexibility (a term that seems to be synonymous with flextime, CWWs, part time work and phased retirement) on professional employees. Hill et al. [41] concluded their review by noting that the preponderance of scholarly literature supports temporal workplace flexibility as a positive factor in work-family integration for professionals (p. 219). These authors had, however, little to say about either the relationship between telework and work-family conflict or the impact of temporal flexibility on employees who were not professionals. The above review leads one to ask a fundamental question: why haven’t definitive conclusions emerged

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

about the relationship between FWAs and work-family conflict? Authors such as Allen and Shockley [20], Baltes et al. [42], Bailey and Kurland [43], Geurts and Demerouti [44] and Gottlieb et al. [45] have all suggested that the lack of consensus is a function of the research design of the studies. Areas that they flag as problematic include: (1) the use of homogeneous populations and small sample sizes; (2) the use of poorly validated measures; (3) a failure to control for confounding variables such as gender and demand levels; (4) confusion as to how FWAs should be assessed, for example the availability versus the use of the work arrangement; (5) the limited scope of the research, as most studies focus on either work time or work location flexibility; (6) and the lack of agreement on how these relationships should be theorized. FWAs have, for example, been theorized as a mediator, a moderator, and an antecedent of work-family conflict [20,27, 39,41,47]. The purpose of the research described in this paper is to shed light on the aforementioned issues and concerns by reexamining the relationship between WFC/FWC and the use of four work arrangements, namely the traditional 9-5 work schedule, a CWW, flextime, and telework. The authors’ aim was to address many of the concerns noted previously. In the current study, the authors use a large heterogeneous sample of employees who chose to adopt one of the four work arrangements noted above, employ valid and reliable measures of the WFC and FWC constructs, and control for variables that might confound findings such as gender and work and family demands.

2. Theoretical framework The research depicted in this paper is based on a modified version of Karasek‘s demand-control model of stress to frame examination of the relationship between the use of traditional 9-to-5, CWW, flextime, and telework work arrangements and WFC and FWC. The authors use Karasek’s demand-control theory [14] in the present study to theoretically ground this examination. Karasek’s model has three main components: demands, strain, and control. According to the model, employees with higher levels of control are better able to cope with demands, thereby reporting lower levels of job strain. There is a large body of empirical work that is supportive of Karesek’s model and the idea that higher levels of control are associated with lower levels of strain [12,15,48–50]. While the model

71

to be tested in this analysis includes the same basic constructs as those used by Karasek, the current researchers followed the lead of Dikkers et al. [51], Kelley and Moen [52] and Moen et al. [19] and changed how these constructs are conceptualized and operationalized to make them more relevant to a study that focuses on the relationship between the use of FWAs and WCF/FCW. Karasek’s view of demands [14] was limited to what happened in the workplace, both psychologically and physically. Unfortunately restricting demands to only those experienced at work limits the utility of this construct in any study of work-family conflict. Many North Americans are working double and triple duty as fathers, mothers, spouses, and volunteers in addition to performing paid employment and unpaid overtime [53]. Accordingly, in this research the scope of the demands construct is extended to include both work and non-work demands. Karasek’s [14] notion of strain centres on job strain. When Karasek’s model was developed in the 1970s, most employees were men living in a traditional family unit where there was a clear division of labour associated with gender [54]. Men worked outside the home and experienced job strain, while women were responsible for most of the household and child-rearing duties. This gendered division of labour does not describe the reality of most North American employees today. Dual-income families are the norm [55] and men and women are experiencing strain in both their work and home environments [53]. Karasek’s model was updated in this study to reflect these societal trends and realities by including two measures of strain in the theoretical framework guiding this analysis: WFC and FWC. The final construct in Karasek’s model was control. He defined his control construct, called decision latitude, as “the working individual’s potential control over his tasks and his conduct during the working day” [14, p. 289]. According to Karasek [14], perceived control includes both task authority and skill discretion. Karasek conceptualized task authority as the ability of the worker to influence decisions regarding his or her job, while skill discretion was seen as the opportunity an employee had to use his or her full set of skills and to learn new skills. Such a conceptualization of perceived control does not take into account the amount of control an employee has over the workfamily interface and, as such, has little to do with either WFC or FWC. This study is designed to address this issue by using work arrangement as a surrogate

72

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

measure of perceived control. In this approach it is assumed that the more flexibility offered by a particular work arrangement, the greater the amount of control an employee will have over the work-family interface and the lower the interference between work and family domains. This assumption is consistent with the research of others using Karasek’s framework [16,56] as well as the extant FWA theory. 2.1. Work arrangement and study hypotheses Flexible work arrangements have a long history. The first chapter in Pierce, Newstrom, Dunham and Barbe’s seminal work on alternative work schedules published in 1989 outlines the history behind the modern work scheduling trends. They noted that patterns of work time were remarkably stable between 1930 and the end of 1960‘s: “jobs generally demanded 40 hours of service in five consecutive eight hour clips during which we obediently come and go at rush hours appointed by others” [57, p. 12]. This work arrangement, which is referred to in the literature as a “traditional” work schedule, a “regular” work day or a “9 to 5 work day”, catered to a male dominated workforce and assumed a gendered division of labour. Since the end of the 1960s, a number of socio-economic factors, including an increase in the number of women in the labour force as well as the number of single parent and two-income households, have reduced the utility of this work arrangement for those who have to balance work and multiple family demands, such as childcare, eldercare, a second job, and schooling. Organizations responded to the above socio-economic pressures by introducing more FWA’s, including CWWs, flextime, and full and part-time telework. A CWW is similar to a traditional work schedule except that employees work longer shifts in exchange for a reduction in the number of working days in their work cycle on a weekly or biweekly basis. For example, one might work four 10-hour days and get the fifth day off. Flextime is defined by Pierce et al. [57] as an arrangement where people work a set number of hours within a fixed period of time, but can vary the time they start or finish work. Flextime, therefore, allows individual employees some flexibility in choosing the time, but not the number, of their working hours. Telework programs allow individuals to conduct part or all of their work from their place of residence. The literature is replete with suggestions on how CWW, flextime and telework arrangements enhance an employees’ sense of control [57,58]. CWWs give

employees an extra day off work each week to fulfill family or social obligations. Theoretically, such an arrangement increases the amount of control an employee has over when he or she uses community services and performs family chores such as grocery shopping. It allows for longer weekends and “minivacations,” makes it easier to schedule appointments and plan family activities, and reduces the amount of time spent commuting to and from work by both reducing the number of days one has to go to work and by allowing the employee to commute to and from work in off-peak traffic hours. CWW arrangements may be particularly useful for employees who wish to reduce the number of days per week spent at work, but who cannot financially afford to decrease their working hours. Hypothetically, flextime is seen to increase control by allowing employees to schedule their work day to correspond to when they are most productive, to avoid traffic congestion during their commute to and from work, and to be home to get their children off to school in the morning or when they arrive home from school in the afternoon. In theory, telework may increase an employee’s sense of control by reducing the amount of time they spend commuting to and from work, by increasing the amount of control they have over the pacing and scheduling of work as well as dependent care, and by allowing them to constructively balance competing work and family responsibilities [31,34]. In this paper we posit that flextime arrangements will provide employees with more control over the work-family interface than will CWW schedules. These higher levels of control will be reflected in the lower levels of WFC and FWC reported by those working a flextime schedule as compared to their counterparts using a CWW. We base this hypothesis on the fact that flextime affords the employee the ability to tailor his or her schedule around a core set of hours on a daily basis. In other words, the increased control over the work-family interface will be experienced daily rather than weekly. This assumption is supported by work done by Saltzstein et al. [37], who found that a CWW was not helpful for most parents, as the longer hours spent in work each day caused problems on the days when they were scheduled to work. In other words, working longer days decreased opportunities for employees to experience quality family time on a daily basis. They also reported that in some families a CWW meant that the parent did not see their children at all on certain days. This suggests that the large amount of control that an employee has one day per week is not as effective at reducing work-family con-

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

flict as having a smaller amount of control five days a week, which is theoretically the case with flextime. We also speculate that telework arrangements will provide more control over the work-family interface than the other three work schedules. Work by Kossek et al. [56] provides support for this contention; these researchers link telework to higher levels of psychological job control, which they define (pg350) as “the degree to which an individual perceives that s/he can control where, when, and how s/he works.” The key difference, then, between telework and the other work arrangements examined in this analysis is that it not only gives employees temporal control over their work such as offered by flextime and CWW, but it also gives them greater choice with respect to where work can be done, whether at home versus at the office, and to how the work is to be performed, thereby maximizing job autonomy. The above reasoning leads to the following hypotheses. H1a: Employees who work a traditional “9 to 5” schedule will report higher levels of WFC and FWC than their counterparts who work a CWW. H1b: Employees who work a CWW will report higher WFC and FWC than their counterparts who work a flextime schedule. H1c: Employees who work a flextime schedule will report higher levels of WFC and FWC than their counterparts who telework.

3. Methodology In 2001 the authors of this paper completed a study entitled Balancing Work, Family and Caregiving in Canada. This cross-sectional study was designed to provide business and labour leaders, policy makers and academics with an objective “big picture” view of work-family issues in Canada in the new millennium. The study was based on a theoretical model of WFC and FWC derived from the literature and included measures to quantify key antecedents and outcomes of WFC and FWC. The model also incorporated a number of possible moderators of the relationships depicted in the model. All data used in this paper to test research hypotheses were drawn from this 2001 data set. Data were collected using a 12 page paper and pencil survey that included the following 9 sections: Your Job, Your Manager, Time Management, Work, Family and Personal Life, Work Arrangements, Work En-

73

vironment, Family, Physical and Mental Health and Information About You. Respondents were Canadian employees who worked for medium to large organizations with 500 or more employees in three sectors of the economy: public (federal, provincial and municipal governments), private, and not-for-profit (defined in this study to include organizations in the health care and educational sectors). In total, 100 companies participated in the study, 40 from the private sector, 22 from the public sector and 38 from the not-for-profit sector. Companies were responsible for distributing the surveys to their employees who then returned the survey directly to us using a stamped return envelope. The sample is well distributed with respect to age, region, community size, job type, education, and income. The high correspondence between the demographic characteristics of this sample and national data suggest that the results from this research can be generalized to employees working for Canada’s larger employers. Complete details on the study and the respondents can be found in Duxbury and Higgins [65]. 3.1. Sample In total 31,571 employees responded to the 2001 survey. The study sample was selected from this larger data set using the following criteria: (1) the respondent had to be in a full-time job; (2) the respondent had to have either child-care and/or elder-care responsibilities; and (3) the respondent had to be using one of the following four work arrangements: a traditional 9-5 work day, a CWW, flextime or telework. These criteria eliminated part-timers as well as employees who performed shift work and limited our sample to individuals with dependent-care responsibilities who were likely to experience WFC and FWC. The final sample size for the current study consisted of 7,102 men and 9,043 women (16,145 in total). 3.2. Measures The authors operationalized the dependent variable of work-family conflict using the measures of WFC and FWC developed by Gutek and her colleagues (1991) [4]. These measures were selected for several reasons. First, they are widely used in the extant workfamily literature. Second, both measures have been shown to have high levels of internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity [4] Respondents were asked to indicate using a 5-item Likert scale

74

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict Please indicate the indicate the phrase that best describes your work arrangement: – – – –

Regular work arrangements (i.e., you work a set number of hours each week, arriving and departing at the same time each day); Flextime (you vary your arrival and departure times around a “core” time when you are expected to be at work); CWW (you get one working day off every week or two in return for longer hours on the other days); Telework (you spend part of your regular work week working at home). Fig. 1. Operationalization of work arrangement.

(1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral and 5 = strongly agree) how much they agreed or disagreed with six questions assessing WFC (e.g., “My work schedule often conflicts with my personal life”) and four questions quantifying FWC (e.g., “Making arrangements for children while I work involves a lot of effort”). Prior to calculating a mean score for each scale we assessed them for reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha was strong for both scales (WFC = 0.92; FWC = 0.87) as was Fornell and Larcker’s [66] measure of composite reliability (WFC = 0.94; FWC = 0.91). Convergent validity, assessed using Fornell and Larcker’s AVE measure was also acceptable (men = 0.68; women = 0.65) exceeding the required minimums. The measurement properties were deemed acceptable. WFC was calculated for each respondent by computing an average score from the six items. FWC was calculated for each respondent by computing an average score from the four items. Higher scores for the scales indicated higher levels of interference. Work arrangement, as the independent variable, was determined using the questions depicted in Fig. 1. Information was also collected regarding gender, nonwork demands and work demands, variables that have been theoretically and empirically linked to a key construct in Karasek’s demand-control model. Including gender as a control variable is consistent with gender role theory [59–61] and empirical studies, which have shown that women spend more hours per week on household chores and dependent care responsibilities [11,53,55,62] than their male counterparts. Work demands were measured by asking respondents to estimate how many hours per week they spent in work activities, including time at the office and away from the office and commuting to and from work. Nonwork demands were operationalized by asking respondents to estimate how many hours per week they spent engaged in childcare activities and/or caring for elderly dependents. Measuring demands in this way is consistent with how other work-family researchers [4] have conceptualized the construct. Information was also recorded on income and job type, as the ability to purchase outside help and services to reduce family demands is positively associ-

ated with income. Other researchers such as Quick et al. [63], O’Neil and Greenberger [64], and Duxbury and Higgins [32] report a strong association between job type and variables such as commitment, work expectations, and identification with the work role, all of which have been linked to WFC and FWC. 3.3. Data analysis To test the study hypotheses the authors ran a oneway multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with work arrangement as the independent variable and WFC and FWC as dependent variables. SPSS version 21.0 was used to conduct the analysis. MANCOVA is similar to multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), but allows the researcher to control for covariates that could have effects on the dependent variables. MANOVA is a type of analysis of variance used with two or more dependent variables that can also determine the effect of multiple levels of an independent variable on the dependent variables. Analysis controlled for the variables of gender, non-work demands and work-demands, income, and job type.

4. Results Table 1 presents data on the demographic characteristics of the sample by gender and work arrangement. The following observations can be drawn from these data. The sample is 56% female. Men and women are similar in terms of age and non-work demands. The men in the sample spent significantly more hours in work per week than the women (42.4 hrs for men vs. 37.7 hrs for women) confirming the author’s decision to control for gender in this analysis. The means and standard deviations by work arrangement are shown in Table 2. The most common work arrangement was a traditional 9 to 5 schedule (n = 4,000 for men; n = 5492 for women), followed by flextime (n = 1943 for men; n = 1908 for women), CWWs (n = 955 for men; n = 1407 for women) and telework (n = 204 for men; n = 236 for women). In terms of percentages 56.3%

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

75

Table 1 Demographics

Mean age (years) Work demands (hrs per week) Non-work demands (hrs per week)

Men Flex CWW Traditional Telework Overall n = 1943 n = 955 n = 4000 n = 204 n = 7102 44.1 45.1 45.0 45.5 44.8 44.2 39.5 42.0 43.6 42.4 8.1

8.1

7.8

7.8

8.0

Women Flex CWW Traditional Telework Overall n = 1908 n = 1407 n = 5492 n = 236 N = 9043 42.0 43.9 43.3 44.3 43.2 39.9 36.4 37.2 39.1 37.7 8.2

7.7

7.7

8.5

7.9

CWW = CWW; Flex = Flextime. Table 2 Means,1 Standard Deviations, Significant Pairwise comparisons Work interferes with family (WFC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Significant pairwise comparisons Traditional 2.81 1.030 Flextime, Telework CWW 2.76 0.983 Flextime, Telework Flextime 2.93 0.998 Traditional, CWW, Telework Telework 3.10 1.048 Traditional, CWW, Flextime Family interferes with work (FWC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Significantly pairwise comparisons Traditional 2.28 0.965 Telework CWW 2.33 0.949 p > 0.05 Flextime 2.36 0.957 p > 0.05 Telework 2.40 1.012 Traditional CWW = Compressed work week.

of men worked a traditional schedule, 27.4% worked flextime, 13.4% worked a CWW and 2.9% teleworked. For women the percentages were as follows: 60.7% worked a traditional schedule; 21.1% worked flextime; 15.6% worked a CWW; and 2.6% teleworked. While the proportions of the respondents that reported teleworking were small, the very large sample size meant that the researchers had 440 employees in this category, which was sufficient for analysis. The next step was to test the three study hypotheses that predicted significant differences in reported WFC and FWC between the four work arrangements. In essence, these hypotheses placed the four work arrangements in the following rank order based on projected most to least work-family conflict: traditional “9 to 5” schedule, CWW, flextime, telework. The omnibus test for work arrangement was significant (Pillai’s Trace = 0.000; F6,314125 = 9.98; p < 0.001) as were the tests for the control variables of gender (Pillai’s Trace = 0.001; F2,15705 = 3.4; p < 0.05); work demands (Pillai’s Trace = 0.040; F2,15705 = 326.8; 1 The sample was divided into four groups based on the work arrangement used by the respondent. WFC and FWC scores were then calculated for each of these four groups as the summed average of the items making up these two scales.

p < 0.001) and non-work demands (Pillai’s Trace = 0.074; F2,15705 = 629.2; p < 0.001). These results indicate that the inclusion of gender, work demands and non-work demands in the MANCOVA improved estimates of the relationship between work arrangement and WFC/FWC as compared to analyses that omitted these covariates. For the dependent variable of WFC, the univariate F-test, with a Bonferroni adjustment, was significant (F3,15706 = 15.0; p < 0.001). Bonferroni post-hoc tests showed interesting but unexpected results (see Table 2). Employees who worked traditional 9 to 5 schedules had similar levels of reported WFC (mean = 2.81; SD = 1.03) to those with CCWs (mean = 2.76; SD = 0.98). Unexpectedly, these levels were significantly lower than were observed for the respondents working flextime (mean = 2.93; SD = 0.99) and telework schedules (mean = 3.10; SD = 1.05). Additionally, WFC scores for those respondents using flextime schedules were significantly lower than for those using telework schedules (2.93 for flextime vs. 3.10 for telework). For the FWC dependent variable, the univariate F-test, using a Bonferroni adjustment, was significant (F3,15706 = 8.1; p < 0.001). Bonferroni post-hoc tests indicated a significant difference between those working a traditional schedule (mean = 2.28; SD = 0.97) and those who telework (mean = 2.40; SD = 1.01). No other significant differences were found for FWC. In sum, there was no support for Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c. In fact, employees who worked a schedule where start and stop times were predictable, such as the traditional 9-to-5 work day and the CWW, had lower levels of WFC than those who used flextime, and telework arrangements where work start and stop times were variable and less predictable. These results were surprising in light of the literature reported previously. Additional analysis was, therefore, undertaken to determine whether only those employees with higher demands at work benefited, in terms of lower WFC and FWC, from the increased levels of control provided by FWA. In other words, the researchers tested

76

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

Table 3A Means, standard deviations, sample size for those with low work demands Work interferes with family (WFC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Significantly different Traditional 2.29 0.923 p > 0.05 CWW 2.26 0.885 p > 0.05 Flextime 2.33 0.967 p > 0.05 Telework 2.63 1.00 p > 0.05 Family interferes with work (FWC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Pairwise comparisons Traditional 1.83 0.874 p > 0.05 CWW 1.82 0.843 p > 0.05 Flextime 1.91 0.896 p > 0.05 Telework 2.14 1.042 p > 0.05 CWW = compressed work week. Table 3B Means, standard deviations, sample size for those with high work demands Work interferes with family (WFC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Significantly different Traditional 2.91 1.006 Flex, Telework CWW 2.91 0.948 Flex, Telework Flextime 3.01 0.963 CWW, Traditional Telework 3.12 1.070 CWW, Traditional Family interferes with work (FWC) scores by work arrangement Mean SD Pairwise Comparisons Traditional 2.30 0.936 p > 0.05 CWW 2.42 0.914 p > 0.05 Flextime 2.37 0.931 p > 0.05 Telework 2.37 1.015 p > 0.05 CWW = compressed work week.

the hypothesis that the relationships put forward in Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c can only be observed when work demands are high, under the assumption that the higher the work demands, the greater the need for control over the work-family interface. To test this hypothesis the authors split the sample into two approximately equally sized groups: those with lower than average work demands (defined as less than 42.5 hours per week in work) and those with higher than average work demands (more than 42.5 hours per week in work). The same analysis was repeated on these two samples. The results are shown in Tables 3a and 3b. The results were in most ways consistent with the theory. First, respondents in the low work demands group reported significantly lower levels of WFC and FWC than those in the high demand group, regardless of how their work was scheduled. Second, WFC and FWC were not affected by work schedule for those with low work demands. Finally, WFC was significantly associated with work schedule in the high work demand group. More specifically, respondents

who teleworked reported the highest levels of WFC (mean = 3.12; SD = 1.07), followed by those who worked flextime (mean = 3.01; SD = 0.96), CWWs (mean = 2.91; SD = 0.95) and traditional schedules (mean = 2.91; SD = 1.00). Additionally, those who worked a traditional 9 to 5 schedule had lower WFC than their counterparts who worked the more flexible schedules (i.e., flextime and telework). Finally, FWC was not affected by work schedule for those with high work demands.

5. Discussion Over the past five decades there has been no consensus as to whether or not the use of FWA such as flextime, CWWs and telework helps reduce work-family conflict. The findings from this study offer support for the idea that FWA do not reduce levels of WFC. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case in that employees who worked regular, predictable work schedules with a set start and stop time, such as the 9-to5 schedule and CWWs, reported lower levels of WFC than those who had variability with respect to work start and stop times and work location. The fact that this relationship was observed for both the total sample as well as for those in the higher than average work demands sample increases the researcher’s confidence in the veracity of this finding. This finding is supportive of work done by Baltes et al. [42], who found that less flexible work schedules tended to have greater positive impact on a number of work-related criteria, including productivity/performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and satisfaction with work schedule, than more flexible schedules. Baltes and his colleagues concluded that too much flexibility might, in fact, be a bad thing because it contributed to “choice overload” and postulated that in some cases, people are overwhelmed by a greater amount of choice and, as a result, perceive a decreased, rather than increased, sense of control. Sullivan and Lewis [67] also commented on this choice overload phenomenon and noted that too much flexibility can be particularly problematic for employees who are pressured by their own tendencies or by the organization to devote time to work. It should be noted, however, that neither of these studies looked at work-family conflict. When taken together these findings suggest that researchers may need to update their conceptualization of control over the work-life boundary to reflect recent research on the relationship between organiza-

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

tional culture and work-family conflict [68]. Organizational culture shapes beliefs and expectations about role demands and how to meet them [69]. Much of the work on culture and work-family conflict assumes that organizational cultures that focus on hours, face time and the bottom line reduce the efficacy of FWA and the ability to offer employees more control over the work and family interface [68,70–72]. The current study offers additional insight into this issue by determining that, not only do employees who work the more flexible work schedules not realize greater work-family balance, but those who work schedules with predictable start and stop times report less WFC. While it is difficult to determine why this is the case from the crosssectional data collected for this study, the authors offer the following suggestions on the mechanisms that may underlie this phenomenon. Organizational cultures that value hours and face time and that pressure employees to give priority to work over all other aspects of their lives are often discussed in work-family literature as being associated with increased levels of work-family conflict [68]. In such organizations the underlying assumptions are that time at work equals productivity [73] and is indicative of commitment [71,74,75] and contribution to the organization [76]. These organizations reward employees who make sacrifices for work [73] and make work their top priority [75]. The literature suggests that the prevalence of this type of culture is quite widespread [77]. Our data suggest that the culture of face time and hours may impact the relationship between work arrangement and perceived control in a fashion that runs opposite to most of the literature in this area. In organizations with a culture of face time and hours, employees who work traditional 9 to 5 and CWW schedules, with preordained start and stop times, have a legitimate right to arrive at work and to call an end to their work day at predictable times. Furthermore, their hours of work are set by policy and known to all. This would give those who work a fixed schedule more, not less, control over the extent to which work impacts family. Employees using flexible schedules in a culture of hours and face time, on the other hand, do not have any genuine boundaries on when and where they work. These employees are likely to seek cues from significant others in the workplace with respect to what is accepted and what is not and would have to behave in a non-normative manner that is contrary to cultural expectations if they wished to control work start and stop times (flextime, telework) or reduce the amount

77

of work done from home (telework). This would give those who work flexible work schedules less, not more, control over the extent to which work interferes with family. The fact that those who telework, the arrangement that offers the greatest degree of flexibility as it supports both flextime as well as flexplace, report higher levels of WFC than those working flextime is consistent with this interpretation of the data. Also worthy of note are the data showing that employees who work CWW schedules report lower levels of WFC than those working a flextime arrangement. As noted earlier, various authors have debated the relationship between CWW schedules and work-family balance with many contending that the benefits employees gain by having increased control over work hours are likely offset by the increase in demands and the fatigue that often accompanies working longer hours per work day. Our data indicates that CWW arrangements are more likely than flextime arrangements to be associated with lower WFC when demands are taken into account. This is an important finding as it broadens the organizational choice with respect to how best to reduce work-family conflict within its workforce while simultaneously increasing their hours of operation – creating a win-win scenario. The implementation of CWW schedules should have great appeal to employees and organizations that operate 24/7 (police, fire, health care), as well as those that operate across time zones or that emphasize customer service. Another point that is important to our understanding of the relationship between work-family conflict and the use of different FWA is our analysis showing that these work arrangements are, with one exception, not strongly linked to the second type of work-family conflict considered in this study: FWC. This finding is consistent with boundary theory as outlined in detail in papers by Ashforth et al. [78] and Clark [26]. The concept of boundaries has been used in many disciplines “to refer to the physical, emotional, temporal, cognitive and/or relational limits that define entities as separate from one another” [78, p. 478]. Clark [26, p. 756] conceptualized boundaries as the lines of demarcation between domains that define the point at which domain relevant behaviour begins or ends. The author notes that the boundary is typically stronger in the direction of the more powerful domain and weaker in the direction of the less powerful domain. The fact that how ones’ work day is arranged is associated with WFC but not FWC suggests that access to flexible work schedules does not facilitate engagement in family activities during work hours. In other words, this does not en-

78

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

courage employee to stay home with a sick child. It also implies that for the majority of respondents in this study, the work role is the more powerful domain. Telework offers the one exception to this observation. Employees who performed telework reported higher levels of FWC as well as WFC than their counterparts who used other work arrangements. It would appear that removal of both temporal and physical boundaries separating work and family domains results in higher levels of work-family interference in both directions.

6. Conclusion This study explores the relationship between workfamily conflict, operationalized as self-reported WFC and FWC, and the use of four work arrangements, namely a traditional 9-5 schedule, CWW, flextime, and telework. The research was designed to address many of the shortcomings of research in this area identified in the literature and, as such, provides some clarity to the ongoing debate in the literature about whether or not flexible work arrangements help reduce levels of worklife conflict. More specifically the researchers used a large (n = 16,145) heterogeneous sample of full-time employees with child and/or eldercare responsibilities who chose to use one of these four work arrangements, valid and reliable measures of our constructs (WFC, FWC) and controlled for variables that might confound our findings, namely gender, work and family demands, income, and job type. The original hypotheses that those working a traditional 9-to-5 work day would have the highest levels of work-family conflict, followed by those working a CWW schedule, flextime, and telework, which would show the lowest levels of conflict, were not supported by the data. Employees who worked regular, predictable work schedules with set start and stop times (9-to-5 and CWWs schedules) reported lower levels of WFC than those who had variability with respect to work start and stop times (flextime) and work location (telework). It is also important to note that employees who perform telework report higher levels of FWC as well as WFC than their counterparts who use other work arrangements, particularly when work demands were deemed to be higher. 6.1. Contributions to scholarship This study has implications for academics interested in the impact of FWA. More specifically it empha-

sizes the utility of an updated demand/control theoretical framework when looking at this issue. This theoretical framework can be extended to help us understand the underlying mechanisms between various forms of workplace control (e.g., perceived flexibility, supervisor support) and how these forms of control will help reduce work-family conflict. The findings from this study also suggest that ambiguity with respect to the relationship between the use of FWA and work-family conflict may be due (at least in part) to inadequate control of potential confounds of this relationship. Our analysis suggests that controlling for variables that may be linked to role demands seem to be particularly critical. 6.2. Applied implications Findings from this research have a number of important implications for employers, policy makers and practitioners who are interested in improving employee well-being. First, and most importantly, this study implies that employers can reduce WFC in their workforce (and by extension improve employee mental health) by focusing on the effective use of traditional and CWW schedules rather than flextime and telework. Second, this study indicates that FWA, on their own, will have a limited role in reducing FWC. This means that policy makers and practitioners who are interested in improving employee well-being need to consider approaches other than FWA if they wish to address this form of work-family conflict. Third, telework arrangements appear to be problematic in that they increase the permeability of the work-family boundary in both directions. This implies that care should be taken to select the right employees and prepare them appropriately if the company wishes to use this work arrangement responsibility. 6.3. Limitations and directions for future research It is acknowledged that the research in this paper is not without its limitations. The data is cross-sectional and therefore causality cannot be established. The findings from this study could, for example, be interpreted to mean that traditional and CWW arrangements help employees cope with high levels of work-family conflict. Alternatively, the findings could mean that employees with high levels of work-family conflict are more likely to use a telework or flextime arrangement, perhaps in the hope that these FWAs will help them cope with competing work and family demands. Lon-

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict

gitudinal research is needed to untangle the complicated cause-effect relationship between FWA policies and work family conflict. Second, the fact that the data were self-reported could be a limitation. It is possible that respondents might exaggerate the number of hours they have spent in various work and non-work activities. However, as Bond, Galinsky and Swanberg [11] noted, the issue of the number of hours reported should most likely be interpreted as a relative and not absolute figure. Third, it could be argued that because all respondents worked for larger organizations the results may not be generalizable to those who work for smaller firms. This could be overcome by doing similar analysis in small and medium sized firms. The fact that we did not focus on how the type of organization (i.e. public, private, not for profit) might affect the results is also problematic. Future research in the area could broaden the context of the study to look at the impact of sector on these findings. Researchers could also examine the impact on how flexible work arrangements are usually organized and implemented (e.g. legislated as in Scandinavia or organization-based like in the USA) on these relationships. Fourth, it can be argued that our measures of demands are somewhat simplistic. With respect to demands, our study operationalized demands solely in terms of hours with the assumption that more hours in the role reflected increased demand. Future research in the area should broaden the definition of work demands to include, for example, increasing time pressures and greater job complexity. Similarly, future studies should broaden the concept of family demands to include time spend in homechores and eldercare and responsibility for caregiving. Fifth, while we controlled for gender, job type, income and demands in our analysis there are other variables such as partner support, organizational culture, the behaviour of the immediate manager etc. that might contribute to neutralizing work–family conflict regardless of the FWA being used. Future studies should expand the set of controls included in the analysis to help us better identify contextual factors that might impact this relationship. It might also be interesting to test the relationship on male and female samples separately to determine whether the relationship between flexibility policies and WFC/FWC are different for men and women. Sixth, the data reported in this paper was collected in 2001. This could prove problematic if organizational culture has changed over the past decade in a manner

79

that allows employees to benefit from the work time and work location flexibility. Unfortunately, our work in the area suggests that most organizations today still have a culture of hours and reward employees who give priority to work rather than family. Finally, future research in this area should focus on identifying how best to reduce family-to-work conflict as well as to extend the approach outlined in this paper to look at the impact the different work arrangements have on other key variables such as absenteeism, engagement, family functioning, employee mental health etc. Qualitative research should also be done to examine the impact of organizational culture on the relationship between alternative work arrangements and workto-family conflict.

References [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Thomas L, Ganster D. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-life conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1995; 80; 6-15. Siegel P, Post C, Brockner J, Fishman A, Garden C. The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90(1); 13-24. Greenhaus J, Beutell N. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review. 1985; 10(1); 76-88. Gutek B, Searle S, Klepa L. Rational versus gender role expectations for work-life conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991; 76; 560-568. Kossek E, Ozeki C. Work-life conflict, policies and the joblife satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1998; 83; 139-149. Netemeyer R, Boles J, McMurrian R. Development and validation of work-life conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996; 81; 400-410. Galinsky E, Kim S, Bond J. Feeling overworked: When work becomes too much. New York: Families and Work Institute, 2001. Allen T, Herst D, Bruck C, Sutton M. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2000; 5; 278-308. Mesmer-Magnus J, Viswesvaran C. Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2005; 67(2); 215-232. Anderson S, Coffey B, Byerly R. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-life conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management. 2002; 28; 787-810. Bond J, Thompson C, Galinsky E, Prottas D. Highlights of the National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute, 2003. Christensen K. Leadership in action: A work and family agenda for the future. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.). The work and family handbook: Multi disci-

80

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26] [27]

[28]

[29]

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict plinary perspectives and approaches. (pp. 705-732). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006. Watson L, Swanberg J. Flexible Workplace Solutions for Low-Wage Hourly Workers: A Framework for a National Conversation, Boston, MA: Sloan Foundation. [cited 2011]. Retrieved from: www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/LWPolicyFinal. pdf. Karasek R. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979; 24; 285-309. Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books, 1990. Barnett R. Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs. 1998; 124; 125-182. Hobfoll S. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989; 44(3); 513524. Perlow L. Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly. 1998; 43(2); 328-357. Moen P, Erin L K, Qinlei H. Work, Family, and Life-Course Fit: Does Control over Work Time Matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2008; 73; 414–25. Allen T, Shockley K. Flexible Work Arrangements: Help or Hype? In D. Crane, E. J. Hill (Eds.), Handbook of Families and Work: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 263-285) Plymouth, U.K.: University Press, 2009. Kelly E, Kossek E, Hammer L, Durham M, Bray J, Chermack K, Murphy L, Kaskubar D. Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-life initiatives on work-life conflict and business outcomes. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2(1); 305-349. Lingard H, Brown K, Bradley L, Bailey C, Townsend K. Improving employees’ work-life balance in the construction industry: Project alliance case study. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management. 2007; 122(10); 807-815. Barling J, Barenburg A. Some personal consequences of ‘flexitime’ work schedules. Journal of Social Psychology. 1984; 123; 137-138. O’Driscoll M P, Poelmans S, Spector P E, Kalliath T, Allen T D, Cooper G L, Sanchez J I. Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work– family conflict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management. 2003; 10; 326-344. Lapierre L, Allen T. Work supportive family, family supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problemfocused coping: Implications for work-life conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006; 11(2); 169-181. Clark S. Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 2001; 58; 348-365. Bohen H, Viveros-Long A. Balancing Jobs and Family life: Do Flexible Work Schedules Help? Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981. Dunham R, Pierce J, Castaneda M. Alternative work schedules: Two field quasi-experiments. Personnel Psychology. 1987; 40; 215-242. Hammer L, Neal M, Newsom J, Brockwood K, Colton C L. A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family-friendly workplaces supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90(4); 799-810.

[30]

[31]

[32] [33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

White M, Hill S, McGovern P, Mills C, Smeaton D. Highperformance management practices, working hours, and work-life balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2003; 41; 175-195. Gajendran R, Harrison D. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(6); 1524-1541. Duxbury L, Higgins C, Neufeld D. Tipping the Balance: Teleworking and Homelife, Flexible Working. 1999; 4; 19-21. Madsen S. The effects of home-based teleworking on worklife conflict, Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2003; 14(1); 35-58. Hill J, Hawkins A, Miller B. Work and Family in the Virtual Office: Perceived Influences of Mobile Telework, Family Relations. 1996; 45; 293-301. Duxbury L, Higgins C. Interference Between Work and Family: A Status Report on Dual-career and Dual-earner Mother’s and Fathers. Employee Assistance Quarterly. 1994; 9; 55-80. Cunningham B. Exploring the impact of a ten-hour compressed shift schedule. Journal of Occupational Behavior. 1981; 2; 217-222. Saltzstein A, Ting Y, Saltzstein G. Work-life balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review. 2001; 61; 452-466. Hill E, Carroll S, Jones B, Buswell L, Fackrell T, Galovan A. Temporal Workplace Flexibility and Associated Work-Life Outcomes for Professionals, In S. Kaiser, M. Ringlstetter, D. Eikhof, & M. Cunha (Eds.), Creating Balance? International Perspectives on the Work-Life Integration of Professionals, (pp. 209-223). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2011. Byron K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2005; 67(2); 169-198. Mesmer-Magnus J, Viswesvaran C. How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A metaanalytic examination. Journal of Labor Research. 2006; 27(4); 555-574. Hill E J, Erickson J, Holmes E, Ferris M. Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life conflict: Finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24(3); 349-358. Baltes B, Briggs T, Huff J, Wright, Neuman G. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999; 84; 496-513. Bailey D, Kurland N. A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 2002; 23(4); 383-400. Geurts S, Demerouti E. Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. In Schabracq, M., Winnubst, J. & Cooper, C. (Eds.) The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2003. Gottlieb B, Kelloway K, Barham E. Flexible work arrangements: Managing the work-family boundary. New York: Wiley; 1998. Carlson D S, Grzywacz J G, Kacmar K M. The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2010; 25(4); 330355. Rau B. Flexible Work Arrangements. In: Sweet S, Casey J, editors. Sloan Work and Family Research Network Encyclopedia, [cited 2003]. Available from: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/ encyclopedia_entry.php?id=240.

C. Higgins et al. / The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict [48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57] [58]

[59]

[60]

[61] [62] [63]

[64]

Van der Doef M, Maes S. The job demand-control (support) model and physical health outcomes: A review of strain and buffer hypotheses. Psychological Health. 1998; 13(5); 909936. Van der Doef M, Maes S. The job demand-control (support) model and sychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress. 1999; 13; 87-114. de Jonge J, Dollard M, Dormann C, Le Blanc P, Houtman I. The Demand-Control Model: Specific Demands, Specific Control, and Well-Defined Groups. International Journal of Stress Management. 2000; 7(4); 269-287. Dikkers J, Geurts S, den Dulk L, Peper B, Kompier M. Relations among work–home culture, the utilization of work– home arrangements, and work–home interference. International Journal of Stress Management. 2004; 11; 232-245. Kelly E, Moen P. Rethinking the clockwork of work: Why schedule control may pay off at work and home. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2007; 11(9): 487-506. Bianchi S, Raley S. Time allocation in families. In Bianchi, S., Casper, L. & King, R. (Eds.) Work, family, health and wellbeing. (pp. 21-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005. Kanter R. Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1977. Statistics Canada. Women in Canada 2000: A Gender Based Statistical Report, Statistics Canada: Ottawa, Catalogue no. 89-503-XPE, 2000. Kossek E, Lautsch B, Eaton S. Telecommuting, control and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control and effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2006; 68(2); 347-367. Pierce J, Newstrom J, Dunham R, Barber A. Alternative Work Schedules. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc, 1989. Avery C, Zabel D. The Flexible Workplace: A Source Book of Information and Research, Westport CT: Quorum Books, 2001. Barnett R, Baruch G. Social roles, gender and psychological distress. In Barnett R, Biener L, Baruch G. (Eds.) Gender and Stress. (pp. 121-142) New York: The Free Press, 1987. Simon R. Gender, multiple roles, role meaning and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1995; 36(2); 182-194. Voydanoff P. Work and family life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1987. Silver C. Being there: The time dual-earner couples spend with their children. Canadian Social Trends. 2000; 57; 26-29. Quick J, Nelson D, Hurrell J Jr. Preventive stress management in organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1997. O’Neil R, Greenberger E. Patterns of commitment to work and parenting: Implications of role strain. Journal of Marriage

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75] [76]

[77]

[78]

81

and the Family. 1994; 56; 101-112. Duxbury L, Higgins C. The National Work-Life Conflict Study: Report One. Healthy Communities Division, Health Canada, 2002. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Sullivan C, Lewis S. Home-based telework, gender and the synchronization of work and family; perspectives of teleworkers and their co-residents. Gender, Work and Organization. 2001; 8(2); 123-145. Duxbury L, Gover L. Exploring the Link Between Organizational Culture and Work-life Conflict, in N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson (Eds). The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 271-290), LA, CA: Sage; 2010. Nikandrou I, Panayotopoulou L, Apospori E. The impact of individual and organizational characteristics on work-life conflict and career outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2008; 23(5); 576-598. Kossek E, Noe R, DeMarr B. Work-life role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. The International Journal of Conflict Management. 1999; 10(2); 102-129. Lewis S. Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-life challenge. Women in Management Review. 2001; 16(1); 21-29. Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Pyykko M. Does work-life conflict mediate the relationship between work-life culture and self reported distress? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2005; 78; 509-530. Andreassi J, Thompson C. Work-life culture: Current research and future directions. In K. Korabik, D Lero & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-life integration (pp. 331-351). New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press, 2008. Lewis S. Family friendly employment policies: A route to changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins. Gender, Work and Organization. 1997; 4(1); 13-23. Perlow L. Putting the work back into work/family. Group and Organization Management. 1995; 20(2); 227-239. Thompson C, Beauvais L, Lyness K. When work-life benefits are not enough: The influence of work-life culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-life conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1999; 54; 392-415. Kelloway E, Bottlieb B, Barham L. The Source, nature and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1999; 4; 337-346. Asforth B, Kreiner G, Fugate M. All in a Days Work: Boundaries and Micro-Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review. 2000; 25; 472-491.