University of Groningen
Do blended working arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and organizational
citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual difference perspective
Wörtler, Burkhard; Van Yperen, Nico W.; Barelds, Dick
Published in:European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publicly available
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Wörtler, B., Van Yperen, N. W., & Barelds, D. (2020). Do blended working arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and organizational citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual difference perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20
Do blended working arrangements enhance
organizational attractiveness and organizational
citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual
difference perspective
Burkhard Wörtler , Nico W. Van Yperen & Dick P. H. Barelds
To cite this article: Burkhard Wörtler , Nico W. Van Yperen & Dick P. H. Barelds (2020): Do
blended working arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and organizational
citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual difference perspective, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 07 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 154
View related articles
Do blended working arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and
organizational citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual difference perspective
Burkhard Wörtler , Nico W. Van Yperen and Dick P. H. BareldsDepartment of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
In blended working arrangements (BWAs), employees have discretion over when and where they work. Although BWAs are proliferating worldwide, the lack of predefined temporal and locational structures is unlikely to appeal to every employee. To investigate with whom and when BWAs cause positive reactions, we conducted two experimental vignette studies among full-time employees. In Study 1, we used a 2 (BWAs: yes vs. no) × 2 (development support: yes vs. no) between-subjects design (N = 212) and, in Study 2, a within- subjects design with the same factors (N = 114). Additionally, in both studies, we measured individual differences in autonomy orientation and personal need for structure. Study 1 showed that, relative to traditional working arrangements, BWAs enhance organizational attractiveness and intention to demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviour. In Study 2, in which employees could compare working arrangements, we only found effects of BWAs among employees high in autonomy orientation or low in personal need for structure. Development support for independent working was not found to moderate the effects of BWAs. By indicating which employees tend to prefer BWAs, our findings could help organizations determine employees’ suitability for such arrangements, which is likely to contribute to BWAs being effective.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 6 February 2020 Accepted 27 October 2020 KEYWORDS workplace flexibility; telecommuting; autonomy orientation; personal need for structure; organizational attraction; person– environment fit
The world of work is undergoing substantial changes due to societal developments and technological innovations leading – across European Union countries (Eurofound & The International Labour Office, 2017) and worldwide (e.g., Kossek & Michel, 2011) – to working arrangements that are increasingly flexible (see also Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Korunka & Kubicek, 2017; Spreitzer et al.,
2017). This development is likely accelerated by the 2020 corona-virus (COVID-19) pandemic which has led to a substantial increase in employees working from home for prolonged periods (Kniffin et al., 2020). The current research examined the possible effects on organizationally relevant outcomes of contemporary working arrangements that provide employees with temporal and spatial flexibility, while also considering the role of individual differences in preferences and psychological needs in these effects from a person–environment fit perspective (e.g., Van Vianen, 2018).
The term blended working refers to a working arrangement that involves blending onsite and offsite working, a situation enabled through modern information and communication tech-nology (ICT; Van Yperen et al., 2014; Van Yperen & Wörtler, 2017a). Blended working enhances employees’ control over where and when their work is accomplished (Van Yperen et al., 2014) and, thus, contrasts with traditional arrangements in which employees are required to be present at the employer’s site and work a relatively fixed schedule (Kalleberg et al., 2000). Various concepts that are similar to blended working have been used in the work and organizational psychological literature. A prominent example is telecommuting, which has also been referred to as telework, virtual work, and flexible work (see Allen et al., 2015). The terminol-ogy used differs across studies, and even a single label can have different definitions (Allen et al., 2015). Based on their review, Allen
et al. (2015, p. 44) describe telecommuting as “a work practice that involves members of an organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours (ranging from a few hours per week to nearly full-time) to work away from a central workplace – typically princi-pally from home – using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct work task”. Since blended working “unambigu-ously refers to a work arrangement in which workers alter between traditional office working and working from home or another location at any time ” (Van Yperen & Wörtler, 2017a, p. 157), it involves, but is not limited to, practices such as telecommuting. That is, blended working involves smooth time- and location- independent working where employees have discretion over when and where they work, as long as they get their work done (Van Yperen & Wörtler, 2017a).
Blended working arrangements (BWAs) have the potential to
deliver various benefits. For example, they can extend older employees’ employability and smooth their transition from employment to retirement (Dropkin et al., 2016; Van Yperen & Wörtler, 2017b) and are, therefore, seen as relevant to resolving societal issues linked to ageing workforces (Phillips & Siu, 2012). Furthermore, a meta-analysis has linked blended working practices to various desirable outcomes including enhanced performance and job satisfaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). However, BWAs also carry risks. Practices such as working remotely may lead to employees feeling isolated (Beauregard et al., 2019), possibly because maintaining workplace friendships likely requires face- to-face interaction (Sias et al., 2012). Further, ubiquitous ICT avail-ability may lead to employees overusing technology and, conse-quently, experiencing high levels of stress and exhaustion (Murray & Rostis, 2007). Anecdotal reports indicate that these have been
CONTACT Burkhard Wörtler b.wortler@rug.nl
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1844663
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
critical issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that blended working practices, such as working from home, may not always be favourable and that some individuals might not react positively to BWAs.
In the present research, we pursued two aims. First, we sought to identify positive effects of BWAs, relative to traditional working arrangements, by considering outcomes that focus on benefiting an organization as a whole; namely, perceived organizational attractiveness and employees’ intention to show organizational citizenship behaviour. Investigating these criteria is relevant because there is uncertainty as to whether BWAs provide organi-zational benefits (Rice, 2017). BWAs are likely to benefit organiza-tions when they are used as a defined human resource (HR) practice in strategic HR management. A strategic perspective on HR management is adopted when “human resource practices, procedures, and systems are developed and implemented based on organizational needs” (Baird & Meshoulam, 1988). To enhance their effectiveness and success, and to gain a competitive advan-tage, today’s organizations need to be perceived as attractive if they are to recruit talented employees (Chapman et al., 2005; Werbel & DeMarie, 2005) who will accept increasing requirements for flexibility (Cañibano, 2019; Höge & Hornung, 2015) and show organizational citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 2014, 2009). To this end, it is valuable for organizations to know whether, and with whom (i.e., which types of individuals), BWAs increase orga-nizational attractiveness and intentions to show orgaorga-nizational citizenship behaviour.
Organizational attractiveness is “reflected in individuals’
affective and attitudinal thoughts about particular companies as potential places for employment” (Highhouse et al., 2003, p. 989). This is relevant for organizations because recruitment involves an attitude-formation process during which indivi-duals form ideas of what being employed by an organization would be like (Breaugh, 2013). Thus, an increased understand-ing of how organizational attractiveness can be enhanced should positively influence an organization’s recruitment suc-cess; for example, in terms of winning over talented applicants (Chapman et al., 2005). Indeed, applicants’ attraction to orga-nizations was found to be positively associated with intentions to pursue employment with those organizations, which in turn predicted actual job pursuit behaviour (Highhouse et al., 2003).
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is formally defined as “Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ et al., 2006, p. 3). Here, we have considered intentions to show OCB (see also Williams & Shiaw, 1999) that is directed towards benefitting the wider organization (hereafter OCB intentions) such as taking action to enhance the organization’s reputation (K. Lee & Allen, 2002). Behavioural intention has been recognized as a proximal ante-cedent of actual behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Organizations value OCB because, as a facet of employees’ overall job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), such behaviour has the potential to increase overall organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al.,
2009; Yen & Niehoff, 2004).
Our main aim was then to investigate individual and contextual characteristics that might moderate the posited effects of BWAs. BWAs carry challenges including potential work intensification (e.
g., Kelliher & Anderson, 2010), greater ambiguity (e.g., Raghuram et al., 2003), and blurred boundaries between work and non-work (e. g., Flecker et al., 2017). Such challenges can be linked to (a) con-stant connectivity to work through ICT (Leonardi et al., 2010) and (b) a lack of predefined temporal or locational work structures (e.g., Gerdenitsch, 2017). Substantial freedom to choose and a lack of predefined temporal and locational structures are unlikely to be unequivocally appealing for everyone (Gerdenitsch, 2017; Langfred & Moye, 2004). Thus, BWAs may not per se be perceived more favourably than traditional arrangements. When comparing BWAs and traditional working arrangements, employees with dif-ferent characteristics are likely to differ in how appealing they deem these arrangements. In their review, Beauregard et al. (2019) suggested that conditions where BWAs would be effective include ones where employees prefer such arrangements. As such, empirically identifying with whom BWAs, relative to traditional working arrangements, tend to elicit greater positive reactions, would provide a better understanding of how to potentially boost the likelihood that BWAs actually deliver their intended benefits for employees and for organizations. Relative to the out-comes of blended working practices (see e.g., Allen et al., 2015), knowledge of the individual differences on which the positive effects of blended working depend is rather limited (Anderson et al., 2015).
Psychological and organizational models and theories, and particularly person–environment fit theory (P–E fit theory; Kristof- Brown et al., 2005; Van Vianen, 2018), posit that individual out-comes are most accurately predicted when environmental and individual characteristics are considered jointly. Here, individual characteristics related to preferences and needs have been recog-nized as relevant when studying BWAs (Gerdenitsch, 2017; Van Yperen et al., 2014, 2016). Drawing on P–E fit theory, we argue that individual differences in autonomy orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and in personal need for structure (PNS; M. M. Thompson et al.,
2001) moderate the posited effects of BWAs. The P–E fit paradigm has played a central role in guiding HR practices for decades (Werbel & DeMarie, 2005). When adopting strategic HR manage-ment, HR practices are linked to the type of P–E fit that is most compatible with the organization’s strategy, and this is seen as providing the foundation on which to build a competitive advan-tage (Werbel & DeMarie, 2005). As such, if offering BWAs is part of an organization’s overall strategy, then identifying employees hav-ing a preference for BWAs and thus behav-ing more suitable for such arrangements (Beauregard et al., 2019), as well as training and developing them to work effectively in such arrangements, would be seen as systematic practices in the organization’s strate-gic HR management.
Autonomy orientation is an individual difference variable that
reflects “a general tendency to experience social contexts as auton-omy supportive and to be self-determined” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 339). From a P–E fit perspective, an individual’s autonomy orienta-tion is relevant when studying BWAs because individuals with a high autonomy orientation are particularly drawn to contexts that allow self-determination and choice (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagné,
2003). PNS (M. M. Thompson et al., 2001) refers to a desire for clarity and predictability as well as a preference for well-ordered contexts/ situations. M. M. Thompson et al. (2001) conceptualized PNS as an individual difference variable, implying that the strength of an individual’s need for structure is meaningful when predicting
various outcomes. From a P–E fit perspective, PNS is relevant when studying BWAs because, relative to more traditional working arrangements, they lack predefined structures regarding when and where the work is to be done (see also Gerdenitsch, 2017).
In addition to these individual difference variables, we inves-tigated the moderating effect of leadership behaviour aimed at developing employees’ skills and competence in working inde-pendently (hereafter labelled development support; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014), as a contextual factor, on the posited effects of BWAs. The reason for investigating development support was that research and wider discussions indicate that employ-ees need to perceive support when working under BWAs, and that leadership behaviours have an important function in this (Gerdenitsch, 2017; Haines et al., 2002).
Combining these aspects, we have examined whether the effects of BWAs on organizational attractiveness and OCB inten-tions vary as a function of autonomy orientation, PNS, and devel-opment support (see Figure 1). An enhanced understanding of for whom and when BWAs are appealing is urgent given that BWAs are becoming increasingly available and necessary due to rapid advances in ICT devices and infrastructure (e.g., Van Yperen et al.,
2014) and unforeseen circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions as outcomes of BWAs
An integral feature of BWAs is that they allow greater job- related autonomy and control and, for this reason, they are regarded as a job resource (R. J. Thompson et al., 2015; Van Yperen et al., 2016). One would intuitively expect the prospect of gaining autonomy through BWAs to be generally appealing to employees because this is likely to be perceived as facilitat-ing the achievement of work-related goals, a means to deal with job demands, and an opportunity for personal develop-ment, learning, and growth (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Individuals also strive for autonomy because experiencing a sense of autonomy is an inherent human need (Deci & Ryan,
2000) whose satisfaction is positively linked to experiencing positive affective-motivational states (e.g., Wörtler et al.,
2020). BWAs could be perceived as an opportunity to fulfil this need (Deci et al., 2017; Gerdenitsch et al., 2015; Irak & Mantler, 2018). Furthermore, freedom to decide when and where to work allows employees to more flexibly take care of
non-work-related responsibilities (e.g., personal appointments) and meeting demands such as caring for children and elderly relatives (R. J. Thompson et al., 2015; Van Yperen & Wörtler,
2017a). Given these perceived advantages of BWAs over tradi-tional working arrangements, it is likely that BWAs will enhance employees’ evaluations of organizational attractiveness. Indeed, a previous experimental study by R. J. Thompson et al. (2015) showed that opportunities for time- and location- independent working increased students’ perceptions of orga-nizational attractiveness. Other research has revealed that blended working practices are positively related to organiza-tional commitment (Eaton, 2003) and negatively related to turnover intention (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). These findings indicate that BWAs are associated with employees’ bonding with an organization and, as such, provide indirect evidence that employees feel attracted to organizations that offer BWAs.
R. J. Thompson et al.’s (2015) study also showed that BWAs increased students’ perceptions that an organization valued their contributions and cared about their wellbeing. Such per-ceptions, in turn, are likely to evoke employee reactions that benefit the organization (Baran et al., 2012). Put another way, favourable organizational incentives that are perceived as sup-portive tend to be reciprocated by employees. For example, employees are likely to reciprocate by showing OCB (Baran et al., 2012). OCB that is directed towards the organization is “likely to be a direct function of what employees think about their work characteristics” (Lee & Allen, 2002, p. 133). Taking these together, we predicted that:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive effect of BWAs, relative to an
absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions.
The moderating roles of autonomy orientation and PNS
Since the usage of BWAs (Shockley & Allen, 2010) and their perceived effectiveness (O’Neill et al., 2009; Van Yperen et al.,
2014) are related to individual characteristics, BWAs may appeal only to certain individuals. Consistent with this idea, P–E fit theory emphasizes the importance of the “compatibil-ity between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281). Compatibility or fit between individuals and
organizations has been labelled person–organization fit. Such a fit can be achieved when an organization accommodates employees’ needs, desires, and preferences (Kristof, 1996). Individuals form perceptions about their fit with an organiza-tion (Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof, 1996), and the level of perceived/subjective fit is linked to various individual-level outcomes including organizational attraction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Yu, 2014) and OCB (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Evidence from a meta-analysis suggests that the subjective perception of fit is among the strongest antecedents of an individual’s attraction to an organization (Chapman et al.,
2005).
Findings from previous studies seem to be consistent with the underpinning idea of P–E fit theory. O’Neill et al. (2009) found that a need for autonomy was more strongly related to self-rated performance and to job satisfaction among employ-ees who worked away from the conventional workplace through ICT than among employees who did not. In a sample of business students, Luse et al. (2013) found that personality predicted a preference for working in a team where members are geographically dispersed using technology. In particular, individuals who tended to be curious and willing to explore new ideas were found to prefer participating in such virtual teams. This may be because open individuals perceive virtual teams as an opportunity to explore new ideas within a non- traditional setting (Luse et al., 2013), which may be indicative of a subjective fit. Similarly, Anderson et al. (2015) demonstrated that the association between working remotely and job-related positive affect is stronger among employees high in openness to experience. R. J. Thompson et al. (2015) found that the positive effect of BWAs on organizational attractiveness was stronger for students who preferred to integrate their work and their non-work roles. Using a sample of workers from the US, Van Yperen et al. (2016) showed that an opportunity for blended working may maintain employees’ intrinsic work moti-vation in demanding work contexts, but only for workers hav-ing a strong desire to experience a work-related sense of choice and psychological freedom. In the current research, we posit, based on the tenets of P–E fit theory, that individual differences in autonomy orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and PNS (M. M. Thompson et al., 2001) are particularly pertinent individual difference variables in the BWAs domain, and that these vari-ables are likely to moderate the effects of such arrangements on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions.
Autonomy orientation as a moderator
The cost of autonomy perspective (Langfred & Moye, 2004) posits that even though autonomy is generally considered to be a favourable aspect of one’s job, it can be unfavourable if individuals do not endorse it or when it is perceived as a subtle form of control. For example, BWAs may be perceived as an implicit expectation to work overtime (Putnam et al., 2014). In this context, an important consideration is that individuals differ in their orientation to contextual elements, such as the opportunity for choice, when initiating/regulating their beha-viour (i.e., causality orientations; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Gagné, 2003). Individuals who have a strong autonomy orien-tation are likely to perceive autonomy-supporting contexts,
such as BWAs, as providing control rather than as controlling (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). We posit that a strong autonomy orientation makes individuals prone to identify/recognize BWAs as an opportunity to experience a sense of choice and to show self-determined behaviour (Gerdenitsch et al., 2015; Irak & Mantler, 2018). Autonomy-oriented individuals’ inclina-tion to choose contexts that offer autonomy, such as jobs that allow initiative and making choices (Gagné et al., 2018), sup-ports this assumption. Furthermore, Li et al. (2016) found that the association between perceived empowering leadership behaviour (i.e., being given more work-related control) and employees’ OCB varied as a function of employees’ autonomy orientation. Overall, individuals with a high autonomy orienta-tion are likely to perceive a fit with BWAs. On this basis, we expected:
Hypothesis 2. There is only a positive effect of BWAs, relative to
an absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions if autonomy orientation is high.
PNS as a moderator
Individuals with a high PNS have a strong preference for well- ordered, structured situations (M. M. Thompson et al., 2001), and therefore an aversion to ambiguous situations. Since BWAs lack the clear, predefined structures found in more traditional working arrangements, they create greater ambiguity (e.g., Gerdenitsch, 2017; Van Yperen et al., 2014). On this basis, it has been suggested that PNS should be considered a key individual difference variable when studying BWAs (Gerdenitsch, 2017).
In the absence of structure, individuals with a high PNS tend to experience discomfort (M. M. Thompson et al., 2001), which should logically make them prone to avoid participating in BWAs. In a similar vein, research has shown that employees who express a strong need for structure tend to perceive blended working as ineffective (Van Yperen et al., 2014). Other research found that a low tolerance for ambiguity (i.e., a strong PNS) was associated with more feedback-seeking behaviour (Ashford & Cummings, 1985). However, employees engaging in BWAs are usually expected not to rely on close supervision and to be capable of independently organizing and managing their work schedule and methods to fulfil their job requirements (Beauregard et al., 2019). Despite modern ICTs, working at non-traditional times and away from the main work site means it can take longer to receive feedback and help from co-workers and superiors, particularly if all or most staff, includ-ing supervisors, are also engaged in blended workinclud-ing. Overall, individuals with a high PNS are unlikely to perceive a fit with BWAs. On this basis, we posited:
Hypothesis 3. There is only a positive effect of BWAs, relative to
an absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions if PNS is low.
The moderating role of development support
For employees to be effective in autonomy-supporting con-texts, they need to be self-reliant and able to lead themselves
effectively (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). BWAs provide sub-stantial control over the work environment, requiring employ-ees to be able to manage their time and organize their activities well (Beauregard et al., 2019; Lapierre & Allen, 2012). In provid-ing development support, leaders aim to facilitate employees’ learning and development in order to enhance their skills in dealing with autonomous working (Amundsen & Martinsen,
2014). More specifically, development support involves demon-strating effective self-leadership behaviour so as to continu-ously enhance employees’ competences to independently plan and organize their workdays and activities (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). As such, development support could be regarded as a competence-supporting technique aimed at increasing employees’ sense of effectiveness. Individuals thrive when they experience a sense of both autonomy and effective-ness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Further, opportunities to make choices seem to be most beneficial to individuals who feel confident of making favourable decisions (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2010). Accordingly, it has been suggested that being given the opportunity for self-determination and decision-making should be accompanied by development support to ensure that employees can adequately deal with the resulting work-related autonomy (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). One might therefore expect that BWAs will only be evaluated favourably when development support is provided because employees will then perceive their organization as being interested in facilitat-ing their effective blended workfacilitat-ing experience. On this basis, we posited:
Hypothesis 4. There is only a positive effect of BWAs, relative to
an absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions if development support is provided.
The present research
We tested the above hypotheses in two survey-based experi-mental studies using the vignette methodology (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). We relied on written vignettes to manipulate the contextual variables (BWAs and development support) because this research methodology has the advantage of offer-ing both internal and external validity (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). That is, this methodology combines the merits of traditional lab experiments and traditional survey methods (Engelmann,
2017). In terms of achieving internal validity, if we had opted for real decision and judgement situations, we could not have isolated the effects of BWAs on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions from other factors that influence these desirable outcomes (see also Engelmann, 2017). In comparison, vignette studies allow an experimental design that manipulates the independent variable, which is crucial for making causal inferences (Rubin, 1986). Experimental vignette studies also ensure a certain degree of external validity because the research participants (i.e., the employees in the current research) are presented with concrete scenario descriptions. Here, specific and targeted judgements on organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions can be obtained, offering an advantage over responses to general survey questions (see also Engelmann, 2017).
Furthermore, findings from studies using the vignette meth-odology may provide strongest internal and external validity when both a between-subjects design and a within-subjects design are used. A between-subjects design is most appropri-ate when seeking to establish causal links because confound-ing effects can be excluded (Charness et al., 2012). As MacKinnon et al. (2012, p. 4) put it: “Random assignment of subjects to experimental conditions is the gold standard for making causal inference about the relationship between two variables”. Further, a between-subjects design also allows a conventional manipulation check on the manipulated factors because there are experimental conditions that can be com-pared based on the manipulation check scores. Conversely, a within-subjects design can optimize external validity in vign-ette research because, by administering multiple vignvign-ettes, individuals have a point of reference on which to contextually ground their judgements. Reference points enable individuals to appropriately judge the advantages and disadvantages of BWAs relative to an absence of BWAs. This enhances realism (i. e., external validity) because comparing organizational policies is what individuals would typically do during an actual job search.
Given the unique advantages of each design, we adopted both designs in the current research. Specifically, the first experiment (Study 1) used a between-subjects design including random assignment to the experimental conditions. Study 1 enabled us to (a) test a manipulation procedure for BWAs and development support through written vignettes and (b) pro-vide initial and clear epro-vidence that the hypothesized links between BWAs and organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions are indeed causal. The second experiment (Study 2) used a within-subjects design. Here, by administering multiple vignettes, participants could compare organizational policies as they could during an actual job search.
Study 1
Method
Participants and design
Participants were recruited through Prolific, a commercial crowdsourcing platform that is focused on providing a subject pool for online research (Palan & Schitter, 2018). The partici-pants received compensation equivalent to ₤2.20 for their time. We set system qualifications to only sample US citizens residing in the United States who were employed full-time and between 18 and 65 years of age. Of 355 submissions, 336 were complete. Complete submissions were removed from the dataset if at least one of the following criteria was met: Participants’ responses revealed that they did not meet all of the criteria requested through the system qualifications (n = 45), an atten-tion check item was failed (n = 72), or participants disqualified their own submission, for example, by indicating that they were sometimes dishonest (n = 49). Some of the removed submis-sions met multiple rejection criteria.
The final sample comprised 212 employees (57% male) who were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (blended working arrangements: yes vs. no) × 2 (development support: yes vs. no) between-subjects design. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to
62 years (M = 35.90, SD = 9.63) and their job tenure ranged between one and 33 years (M = 4.94, SD = 4.58). In terms of the highest education level achieved, more than half of the parti-cipants (51%) had completed a four-year bachelor’s degree to conclude their education, 17% had completed a master’s degree, 16% had some college education but no degree, 9% an associate college degree, 3% a professional degree such as a JD or MD, 3% a high school degree or equivalent, 2% had not completed a high school degree, and 1% had a doctoral degree. A slight majority of the participants did not work in a leadership position (51%). The participants worked in a variety of industries of which the information technology sector (15%), the healthcare and social assistance sector (13%), and the financial and business consultancy sector (13%) were the most prevalent.
Procedure, manipulation, and materials
The participants accessed a survey through a hyperlink pro-vided on Prolific. The survey software Qualtrics randomly assigned the participants to one of the four experimental con-ditions. At first, all participants completed measures assessing their autonomy orientation and their PNS before providing socio-demographic information. After that, they were adminis-tered an experimental manipulation involving BWAs and devel-opment support (see below). After the manipulation, the participants completed a measure of organizational attractive-ness and OCB intentions as well as an attentiveattractive-ness check, manipulation checks, and finally evaluated their own response behaviour. We describe the manipulation and measures below.
Experimental manipulation of BWAs and development sup-port. Given our 2 (blended working arrangements: yes vs. no) × 2 (development support: yes vs. no) between-subjects design, we used four vignettes of hypothetical organizations that participants might well encounter when job searching (see Appendix). Some of the general instructions and vignettes were adopted from R. J. Thompson et al. (2015). When vignettes are used in between-subjects designs, providing context has been recommended because each participant only reads one vign-ette, thereby disabling a referent point when making judge-ments (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). To this end, we provided background information in the general instructions that was identical for all participants. Specifically, participants were asked to imagine they were seeking employment in a position that did not have leadership/manager/supervisor responsibil-ities and that they would be supervised by a line manager. To provide further context, participants were informed about the benefits package and salary (adopted from R. J. Thompson et al., 2015). This information also enhanced the realism of the vignettes since it informed the participants about relevant aspects in a job search (see also Harold & Ployhart, 2008).
The experimental manipulations addressed the working arrangements and leadership practices in the organization to manipulate the BWAs and development support factors. In the BWAs conditions, participants read that employees could decide when and where they worked, provided they got their work done. This description reflects the core features of blended working (i.e., time- and location-independent working; Van Yperen et al., 2014). Participants were informed that this
working arrangement involves dealing with flexible working conditions (i.e., variable schedules for performing work-related activities, varied work settings, and blurred boundaries between work and non-work). In the no BWAs conditions, participants read that employees are required to work a fixed (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) schedule at the main work site. Participants were informed that this working arrangement involves dealing with structured working conditions (i.e., a predictable and rou-tine schedule for performing work-related activities, a fixed work setting, and clear boundaries between work and non- work).
In the conditions offering development support, partici-pants read that their line manager’s primary function was to be an observable role model who regularly displays effective self-leadership skills, with the goal of continuously developing employees’ skills and competences to independently structure, schedule, and organize their workdays and work-related activ-ities (see Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). In the no development support conditions, participants read that their line manager’s primary function was to be an advisor who could be reached out to, with the aim that employees can reliably receive assis-tance when questions or issues arise concerning work-related activities.
Manipulation check. As a check on the BWAs manipulation, participants were asked to respond to four items (α =.98) on the nature of their working arrangement. The items being: “Employees are free to work at any time they want to, provided they get their work done”, “Employees are required to work at the main work site” (reversed item), “Employees are required to adhere to a traditional (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.) work schedule” (reversed item), and “Employees deal with flexible working conditions”.
To check on the development support manipulation, parti-cipants were asked to respond to another four items (α = .74): “Your line manager’s primary function is to be an observable role model by regularly displaying effective self-leadership skills”, “Your line manager’s goal is to reliably provide assistance to employees when questions or issues arise concerning work- related activities” (reversed item), “Your line manager’s goal is to continuously develop employees’ skills and competences to independently structure, schedule, and organize their work-days and work-related activities”, and “Your line manager’s primary function is to be an advisor who can be reached out to” (reversed item). The participants responded using a seven- point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly
agree to respond to both manipulation check scales. The
respective items were averaged after recoding reversed items to compute a manipulation check scale score for the BWAs and development support factors.
Organizational attractiveness. To measure perceptions of organizational attractiveness, we used five items developed by Highhouse et al. (2003). Using a seven-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree, the participants responded to items such as “This organization is attractive to me as a place for employment”. The item scores were averaged to create a scale score (α = .95).
OCB intentions. To measure intentions to show organiza-tional citizenship behaviour directed towards the organization, we slightly adapted the eight-item scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). Using a seven-point scale ranging from (1) strongly
disagree to (7) strongly agree, the participants responded to
items such as “I would attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.” The item scores were averaged to create a scale score (α = .93).
Autonomy orientation. We used the 12-item General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS-12; Deci & Ryan, 1985) that includes scenarios of social situations. For each of the 12 sce-narios, the GCOS-12 includes a response to assess the respon-dent’s autonomy orientation. For example, the participants read the scenario “You had a job interview several weeks ago. In the mail you received a form letter which states that the position has been filled. It is likely that you might think:”. The inserted corresponding response is designed to assess the respondent’s autonomy orientation. In the above example the response is “Somehow they didn’t see my qualifications as matching their needs.” The participants responded by using a seven-point scale ranging from (1) very unlikely to (7) very likely. The item scores were averaged to create a scale score (α = .71).
Personal need for structure (PNS). PNS was measured using the 12-item PNS scale developed by M. M. Thompson et al. (2001). Using a response scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree, participants rated their level of agreement with items such as “I find that a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more.” The item scores were averaged to create a scale score (α = .90).
Statistical analysis
We used separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses for the dependent variables (organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions) to test the hypotheses. We included the mea-sured individual difference variables (autonomy orientation and PNS) in separate regression models. Following guidelines provided by Cohen et al. (2003), we mean-centred autonomy orientation and PNS before computing the interaction vari-ables. In the first step of the model building, we entered the BWAs and development support factors as well as the mean- centred autonomy orientation or PNS variable. Hypothesis 1 was tested in this step. In the second step, we added the two-way interaction variables to the model to test Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the continuous variables are shown in Table 1.
Manipulation checks
A 2 (blended working arrangements: yes vs. no) × 2 (develop-ment support: yes vs. no) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the manipulation check scores of the BWAs revealed only a signifi-cant main effect of BWAs, F(1, 208) = 1443.24, p < .001, η2
p = .87. Participants given the BWAs conditions scored higher (M = 6.35,
SD = 1.01) on the manipulation check than participants given
the no BWAs conditions (M = 1.53, SD = 0.81). A similar two-way
ANOVA on the manipulation check scores of development support revealed only a significant main effect of development support, F(1, 208) = 102.19, p < .001, η2p = .33. Participants given the development support conditions (M = 4.48, SD = 1.24) scored higher than participants given the no development support conditions (M = 2.78, SD = 1.22). These results clearly indicate that the experimental manipulations were effective.
Hypotheses testing
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are shown in
Table 2 (including autonomy orientation) and Table 3 (includ-ing PNS). In Hypothesis 1, we posited that, relative to no BWAs, there would be a positive effect of BWAs on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions. Indeed, BWAs resulted in higher organizational attractiveness ratings (M = 6.03,
SD = 0.98) than no BWAs (M = 4.81, SD = 1.36) and also in
stronger OCB intentions (M = 5.43, SD = 1.02 vs. M = 4.88,
SD = 1.02). As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the regression slopes corresponding to both mean differences differed significantly from zero. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
There was no evidence for an interaction effect between BWAs and autonomy orientation on either organizational attractiveness or OCB intentions. Similarly, the results did not provide evidence of an interaction effect between BWAs and PNS on either organizational attractiveness or OCB intentions. Therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were rejected. Furthermore, we did not obtain evidence for an interaction effect between BWAs and development support influencing either organizational attractiveness or OCB intentions. Consequently, Hypothesis 4 was also rejected.
Study 2
Contrary to our expectations, the results of Study 1 did not provide evidence that the effects of BWAs on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intention vary as a function of autonomy orientation, PNS, or development support. A possi-ble explanation is that the employees did not have the oppor-tunity to compare all four organization descriptions as they could do during an actual job search. If there had been an opportunity to compare the organizations, the individual jud-gements might have been more realistic because the employ-ees would have more points of reference when making judgements (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014; Charness et al., 2012). During comparisons, the features of each arrangement that are important to each employee may become more salient, and this may facilitate or lead to more accurate judgements and perceptions (such as of subjective fit). We therefore posit that comparing organization descriptions will be conducive to revealing the moderating influence of third variables. Therefore, we conducted a conceptual replication study in which we used a within-subjects design that allows organiza-tions to be compared.
Method
Participants and design
Participants were recruited through Amazon’s crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk (hereafter MTurk), which has been
evaluated as a reliable source for obtaining good quality data (e.g., Buhrmester et al., 2011). The participants received monetary com-pensation of 2.50 USD for their time. We sought to obtain a comparable sample to that used in Study 1. We again set system qualifications such that, to be able to participate, one had to be from the United States and employed full-time (35 or more hours per week). Following recommendations for obtaining good data quality using MTurk samples (Mason & Suri, 2012; Peer et al., 2014), we also set system qualifications that participants needed to have a record of at least 50 approved tasks on MTurk and a high ratio (above 97%) of approved versus submitted tasks.
We obtained 312 submissions of which 280 were complete. Completed submissions were removed from the dataset if participants met at least one of the following criteria: indicated that they were not employed for at least 35 hours per week (n = 27), were older than 65 years (n = 3), disqualified their submission at the end of the study, for example, by indicating
that they were sometimes dishonest (n = 18), provided an incorrect response to an instructed response item designed to detect careless responding (Meade & Craig, 2012; n = , p. 17), or provided an incorrect response to an attention check item (n = 88). A submission was also excluded from the dataset if a participant did not correctly respond to five items that referred to the experimental manipulation (n = 117; see also the descrip-tion of the items in the Procedure and Measures secdescrip-tion below). Some of the rejected submissions met more than one of removal criteria and thus appear in multiple counts. Such high rates of inattentiveness are not unusual in online research and do not pose a problem if inattentive respondents are removed from the dataset (Fleischer et al., 2015).
The final sample comprised 114 (52% male) employees. All these employees indicated that they were US citizens. Participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 65 years (M = 41.11,
SD = 11.41) and their job tenure ranged from one to
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Continuous Variables in Study 1.
Variable M SD 2 3 4
1. Autonomy orientation 5.70 0.62 −.19 .05 .17 2. Personal need for structure 4.66 0.99 - .12 −.00 3. Organizational attractiveness 5.46 1.32 - .62
4. OCB intentions 5.18 1.05
-N = 212. Correlations above.13 and.18 (in absolute values) are significant at the p =.05 and p =.01 level, respectively.
Table 2. Results of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Including Autonomy Orientation in Study 1.
Organizational attractiveness OCB intentions
Step Predictor 1 2 1 2
1 Blended working arrangements (BWAs) 1.23*** (0.16) 1.29*** (0.23) 0.58** (0.14) 0.65*** (0.20) Development support (DS) 0.05 (0.16) 0.09 (0.23) 0.21 (0.14) 0.27 (0.20) Autonomy orientation 0.19 (0.13) −0.40 (0.24) 0.32** (0.11) 0.12 (0.20) 2 BWAs × DS −0.05 (0.32) −0.10 (0.28)
BWAs × autonomy orientation 0.30 (0.26) 0.03 (0.22) DS × autonomy orientation 0.77** (0.26) 0.32 (0.23)
Fchange 19.52*** 3.34* 9.08*** 0.74
df Fchange 3, 208 3, 205 3, 208 3, 205
R2 .22*** .26*** .12*** .13***
∆R2 .22*** .04* .12*** .01
N = 212. Unstandardized coefficients (b) and standard errors (SE; in parentheses) are shown. Blended working arrangements and development
support were both coded 0 = no (reference condition), 1 = yes. * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.
Table 3. Results of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Including Personal Need for Structure in Study 1.
Organizational attractiveness OCB intentions
Step Predictor 1 2 1 2
1 Blended working arrangements (BWAs) 1.19** (0.16) 1.22** (0.24) 0.55** (0.14) 0.68* (0.21) Development support (DS) 0.06 (0.16) 0.06 (0.24) 0.23 (0.14) 0.33 (0.21) Personal need for structure (PNS) 0.10 (0.08) 0.30 (0.16) −0.03 (0.07) 0.01 (0.14) 2 BWAs × DS −0.07 (0.33) −0.23 (0.29) BWAs × PNS −0.30 (0.17) −0.15 (0.15) DS × PNS −0.08 (0.17) 0.07 (0.15) Fchange 19.25** 1.10 6.09* 0.63 df Fchange 3, 208 3, 205 3, 208 3, 205 R2 .22** .23** .08* .09* ∆R2 .22** .01 .08* .01
N = 212. Unstandardized coefficients (b) and standard errors (SE; in parentheses) are shown. Blended working arrangements and development
support were both coded 0 = no (reference condition), 1 = yes. * p <.01, ** p <.001.
42 years (M = 6.12, SD = 6.22). In terms of the highest educa-tion level achieved, more than half (53%) of the participants had completed a four-year bachelor’s degree, 16% a master’s degree, 11% had a college education but no degree, 10% an associate college degree, 6% a high school degree or equiva-lent, 3% a professional degree such as a JD or MD, and 2% had completed education without a high school degree. Slightly more than half (54%) of the participants did not work in a leadership position. The participants worked in a variety of industries of which the information technology sector (18%) and the retail trade and catering sector (also 18%) were the most prevalent. We used a full-factorial 2 (blended working arrangements: yes vs. no) × 2 (development support: yes vs. no) within-subjects design.
Procedure and measures
Participants accessed the study via a hyperlink provided on MTurk, followed a similar procedure to that described for Study 1, and were asked to respond to the same measures of the study variables. More specifically, the participants first responded to measures assessing their autonomy orientation (α = .75) and PNS (α = .94). Each participant was then provided with all four vignettes (i.e., organizational descriptions) and were then expected to complete the measures of organiza-tional attractiveness for each description (Cronbach’s alphas were between .91 and .95) and OCB intentions (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .93 to .95). To counteract order and sequence effects, the four vignettes were presented to the participants in a random order. Until the participants had sub-mitted their ratings of organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions for all four hypothetical organizations, they could, at any time, revisit the vignettes, which were presented on a single screen. Once this task was completed, participants were expected to respond to five items that assessed whether the participants discriminated between manipulated character-istics of the organizations and charactercharacter-istics that were held constant (see also R. J. Thompson et al., 2015). The items were: “Did the organizations differ on whether or not they allowed employees to decide when they work?” Did the organizations differ on whether or not they allowed employees to decide where they work?”, “Did the organizations differ in terms of the leadership practice?”, “Did the organizations differ on whether or not they offered a competitive salary?”, and “Did the orga-nizations differ on whether or not they offered a benefits package?” The last two items were adopted from R. J. Thompson et al. (2015) and the first three were self-developed. Responses to these items could be either “yes” or “no”. A conventional check on the manipulation was not feasible because, by the nature of the within-subjects design, the parti-cipants were not assigned to different experimental conditions.
Statistical analysis
As the dependent variables (organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions) were each assessed four times, we had a total of 456 observations/repeated measures nested within 114 indi-viduals. This hierarchical structure of the data produces depen-dencies in the four ratings of organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions by each participant. To take account of this
dependence, we carried out a multilevel regression analysis (Snijders & Bosker, 2012) using the nlme package (Pinheiro et al., 2020) developed for the statistical software R (R Core Team,
2019) to test our hypotheses. As we had predicted interaction effects involving the continuous variables (autonomy orienta-tion and PNS), we grand-mean-centred these variables before computing the interaction variables to facilitate interpretation of the interaction effects (Cohen et al., 2003).
As in Study 1, separate analyses were conducted for auton-omy orientation and for PNS. Then, separately for the depen-dent organizational attractiveness and for OCB intentions variables, several nested random-intercept regression models were computed (Hoffman & Rovine, 2007). First, we fitted a null model that did not include any predictor variables. The null model served as a baseline/comparison for evaluating later model fits. In two subsequent steps, as in Study 1, we first entered the main effects and then the two-way interaction variables. Significant interaction effects identified were fol-lowed up through an analysis of simple slopes. We examined the slopes at a high (i.e., one SD above the mean) and a low (i.e., one SD below the mean) value of the continuous moderator variable (Cohen et al., 2003). In all models we used the recom-mended restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator (Snijders & Bosker, 2012). We applied a deviance test to com-pare the fit of the models (Finch et al., 2014; Snijders & Bosker,
2012). This deviance test assesses whether adding predictor variables to a model results in a statistically significant improve-ment in model fit. To perform the deviance tests, we first had to re-specify all the models using maximum likelihood estimations (see Finch et al., 2014; Snijders & Bosker, 2012).
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the con-tinuous variables are shown in Table 4.
Hypotheses testing
The results of the multilevel regression analysis related to the dependent organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions variables are summarized in Table 5 (including autonomy orien-tation) and Table 6 (including PNS). In Hypothesis 1, we posited that, relative to an absence of BWAs, there would be a positive effect of BWAs on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions. Indeed, on average, participants rated an organiza-tion as more attractive if BWAs were provided (M = 5.91,
SD = 1.18) than if they were not (M = 5.04, SD = 1.27).
Likewise, OCB intentions were stronger if BWAs were provided
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Continuous Variables in Study 2.
M SD
Level 2
1 2
1. Autonomy orientation 5.77 0.67 –
2. Personal need for structure 4.67 1.25 −.33*
M SD
Level 1
1 2
1. Organizational attractiveness 5.48 1.30 –
2. OCB intentions 5.19 1.08 .59* Note. Level 1: N = 456. Level 2: N = 114. * p <.001 (two-tailed).
(M = 5.41, SD = 1.06) than if they were not (M = 4.97, SD = 1.06). As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the multilevel regression results supported a positive effect of BWAs on both organizational attractiveness and OCB intentions (as evidenced by positive regression slopes that differed statistically significantly from zero). Thus, the results again supported Hypothesis 1.
In Study 2, in contrast to Study 1, we found evidence for the predicted two-way interaction effects which we posited in
Hypotheses 2 and 3. In Hypothesis 2, we proposed that there
would only be a positive effect of BWAs, relative to an absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB inten-tions if autonomy orientation was high. Here, the results did support an interaction effect between BWAs and autonomy orientation on organizational attractiveness and on OCB inten-tions. Figure 2 shows that BWAs had a positive effect on orga-nizational attractiveness when autonomy orientation was high, γs = 1.42, SE = 0.18, p < .001 but that there was no evidence for such an effect when autonomy orientation was low, γs = 0.22,
SE = 0.18, p = .21. Similarly, Figure 3 shows that BWAs had a positive effect on OCB intentions when autonomy orientation was high, γs = 0.73, SE = 0.12, p < .001 but no such effect when autonomy orientation was low, γs = 0.18, SE = 0.12, p = .13.
In Hypothesis 3, we posited that there would only be a positive effect of BWAs, relative to an absence of BWAs, on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions if PNS was
low. The results indeed supported an interaction effect between BWAs and PNS on organizational attractiveness and on OCB intentions. Figure 4 shows a positive effect of BWAs on organizational attractiveness when PNS was low, γs = 1.51,
SE = 0.17, p < .001. However, when PNS was high, there was
no evidence for a positive effect of BWAs on organizational attractiveness, γs = 0.13, SE = 0.17, p = .45. Similarly, Figure 5 shows that the results supported a positive effect of BWAs on OCB intentions when PNS was low, γs = 0.83, SE = 0.11, p < .001 but not when PNS was high, γs = 0.08, SE = 0.11, p = .47. Further, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, no evidence was found for an interaction effect between BWAs and development support that influenced either organizational attractiveness or OCB intentions. Consequently, Hypothesis 4 was again rejected. Discussion
Blended working arrangements (BWAs) provide employees with substantial control over where and when they do their work and are proliferating following societal and technological developments. We have investigated whether BWAs, relative to traditional working arrangements, increase employees’ percep-tions of organizational attractiveness and their intention to show OCB directed towards the organization. Moreover, we have investigated whether these effects vary as a function of
Table 5. Results of the Multilevel Regression Analysis Including Autonomy Orientation in Study 2.
Organizational attractiveness OCB intentions
Step Predictor 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 “None” (null model)
2 Blended working arrangement (BWAs) 0.87** (0.11) 0.82** (0.14) 0.44** (0.07) 0.46** (0.10) Development support (DS) −0.15 (0.11) −0.20 (0.14) −0.07 (0.07) −0.06 (0.10) Autonomy orientation 0.14 (0.10) −0.27 (0.15) 0.52** (0.11) 0.33* (0.13)
3 BWAs × DS 0.10 (0.20) −0.02 (0.13)
BWAs × Autonomy orientation 0.90** (0.15) 0.41** (0.10) DS × Autonomy orientation −0.08 (0.15) −0.04 (0.10) Level 1 variance (σ2) Level 2 variance (τ00) 1.55 1.30 1.19 0.61 0.54 0.52 0.13 0.19 0.22 0.57 0.47 0.48 Deviance 1526.78 1461.86 1428.30 1242.68 1181.31 1164.59 df 3 6 9 3 6 9 ∆Deviance 64.93** 33.56** 61.36** 16.73**
N = 456 observations are nested in N = 114 employees. Unstandardized coefficients (γ) and standard errors (SE; in parentheses) are shown. Blended working
arrangements and development support were both coded 0 = no (reference condition), 1 = yes. * p <.05. **p <.001.
Table 6. Results of the Multilevel Regression Analysis Including Personal Need for Structure in Study 2.
Organizational attractiveness OCB intentions
Step Predictor 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 “None” (null model)
2 Blended working arrangement (BWAs) 0.87* (0.11) 0.82* (0.14) 0.44* (0.07) 0.46* (0.09) Development support (DS) −0.15 (0.11) −0.20 (0.14) −0.07 (0.07) −0.06 (0.09) Personal need for structure (PNS) 0.04 (0.05) 0.29* (0.08) −0.03 (0.06) 0.12 (0.07) 3 BWAs × DS 0.10 (0.20) −0.02 (0.13) BWAs × PNS −0.55* (0.08) −0.30* (0.05) DS × PNS 0.05 (0.08) −0.01 (0.05) Level 1 variance (σ2) Level 2 variance (τ00) 1.55 1.30 1.15 0.61 0.54 0.50 0.13 0.20 0.24 0.57 0.59 0.61 Deviance 1526.78 1463.15 1417.78 1242.68 1201.85 1170.95 df 3 6 9 3 6 9 ∆Deviance 63.63* 45.37* 40.84* 30.90*
N = 456 observations are nested in N = 114 employees. Unstandardized coefficients (γ) and standard errors (SE; in parentheses) are shown. Blended working
individual differences in autonomy orientation and PNS as well as contextual development support aimed at facilitating auton-omous working. By considering these potential contingency factors, we have nuanced understanding of the organizational benefits (i.e., perceived organizational attractiveness and employees’ OCB intentions) associated with BWAs.
Across two experimental vignette studies, both utilizing samples of full-time employees, using a between-subjects design (Study 1) and a within-subjects design (Study 2), we provide consistent evidence that organizations that offer BWAs, rather than traditional working arrangements, are per-ceived as more attractive potential employers. This finding conceptually replicates the main effect found by R. J. Thompson et al. (2015). Replications are “critical for establishing
the generalizability of an initial observation and the theory it purports to support” (Crandall & Sherman, 2016, p. 94). Whereas R. J. Thompson et al. (2015) used a student sample, our findings generalize the existence of the effect to the popu-lation of full-time employed individuals. Both of our studies also show that BWAs elicit stronger intentions to show organiza-tion-directed OCB, that is, discretionary behaviours that benefit an organization (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2009). This finding dove-tails with previous findings on potential organizational benefits of new ways of working, such as greater organizational com-mitment and lowered turnover intentions (Eaton, 2003; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
Future research could seek to identify the mechanisms underlying the effects of BWAs on perceived organizational
Figure 3. Moderating effect of autonomy orientation on the effect of blended working arrangements on OCB intentions in Study 2. “Low” and “high” represent values of 1 SD below and above the mean, respectively.
Figure 2. Moderating effect of autonomy orientation on the effect of blended working arrangements on organizational attractiveness in Study 2. “Low” and “high” represent values of 1 SD below and above the mean, respectively.
attractiveness and on OCB intentions. On the affective level, a theoretically conceivable explanation is that positive affective- motivational states mediate these effects. Specifically, auton-omy-supporting work contexts, such as BWAs, are likely to elicit positive affect linked to the anticipated experience of work- related self-determination and choices. This is likely to trigger both a positive attitude towards the organization and a moti-vation to show positive work behaviours (see Deci et al., 2017).
On a rational level, being offered BWAs rather than traditional arrangements will likely increase perceptions of fairness and/or support (Lee & Kim, 2018; R. J. Thompson et al., 2015). Such perceptions may not only increase the perceived organizational attractiveness but, based on the social-exchange principle, also OCB intentions (e.g., Baran et al., 2012).
However, our main finding is that BWAs, relative to tradi-tional working arrangements, do not always evoke positive
Figure 5. Moderating effect of personal need for structure (PNS) on the effect of blended working arrangements on OCB intentions in Study 2. “Low” and “high” represent values of 1 SD below and above the mean, respectively.
Figure 4. Moderating effect of personal need for structure (PNS) on the effect of blended working arrangements on organizational attractiveness in Study 2. “Low” and “high” represent values of 1 SD below and above the mean, respectively.
