1
‘OUT OF LIMITATIONS COMES CREATIVITY’ OR NOT? THE MEDIATING INFLUENCE OF THE WORK-FAMILY DYAD ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS AND CREATIVITY
Master thesis, MScBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, faculty of Economics and Business
16 June 2019 PAULA BOS S3498905 Parkweg 147A 9727 HB Groningen Tel.: +31637322241 E-mail: p.j.bos.3@student.rug.nl Supervisor Prof. dr. O. Janssen University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
E-mail: o.janssen@rug.nl
Field of study: Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior Expertise: Leadership; Work motivation; Employee creativity and innovation
2 ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationship between flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and employee creativity and the possible mediating effect of work-family conflict (WFC), family-work conflict (FWC), family-work-family enrichment (WFE) and family-family-work enrichment (FWE) in this relationship. Two types of creativity are considered in this research, namely radical and incremental creativity. FWAs were hypothesized to contribute to employee’s creativity through enhanced WFE and FWE and decreased WFC and FWC. The hypotheses were tested by means of a survey, using a sample of around 130 employees from several industries. The outcomes show that FWAs are negatively related to WFC and FWC and positively related to WFE and FWE, and that FWE does have a mediating influence in the indirect relationship between FWAs and incremental creativity. This research will contribute to the literature by showing how and why FWAs and work-life balance plays a role in influencing radical and incremental creativity. The outcomes of this research can contribute to adjusting policies and practises of organizations tailored to employees’ work-family needs.
3
INTRODUCTION
Over the past century, the demands of both work and home have changed dramatically (Munsch, 2016). Family and work are of great significance in adult life, but the role expectations of those two are not always balanced. Work-life balance has therefore become a core issue in the professional world. A strongly related trend is the increase of women entering the workforce. This change majorly effects the work-family relation since partners now both have the responsibility for childcare (Giannikis & Mihail, 2011). To effectively deal with the work-life balance issues of their employees, organizations increasingly adopt one or multiple forms of flexible work arrangements (Dancaster, 2014; Beigi, Shirmohammadi & Stewart, 2018).
By using these flexible work arrangements (FWAs), employees have the opportunity to balance demands from multiple domains (Brough, O’Driscoll & Kalliath, 2005; Timms et al., 2015). An example of creating such a balance can be watching children during working at home. Understanding FWAs and work-life balance is crucial, since many positive outcomes for companies can be identified. From attracting and retaining talented employees, reducing stress and burnout to even improved productivity (Giannikis & Mihail, 2011).
The growing importance of work-life issues and FWAs has caused further research into those topics in recent years (Rudolph & Baltes, 2017). Current research mainly focusses on FWAs in relation to work attitudes, for example job satisfaction and turnover intentions (McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2009). Despite the growing importance for companies, not much research is conducted yet on the relationship of FWAs on performance outcomes. Moreover, the few studies that have been conducted are inconclusive about the impact of specific FWAs on performance and thus call for further exploration (de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011).
4
since resources (like time and environment), motivation and affect have already shown to have an impact on creativity (Blomberg, Kallio & Pohjanpää, 2017). FWAs can provide the employee with flexibility in work environment, time, motivation by family members and freedom which can put them in a good mood which in turn can be beneficial for creativity. Utilization of FWAs can therefore make the difference for the creativity outcome. Since employee creativity enhances competitive advantages and firm performance (Hon & Lui, 2014), it is important to understand what drives individual creativity in organizations. The present research moves to a better understanding of the conditions under which creativity, which can be divided in radical (radical breakthroughs) or incremental (small adaptations) (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), is stimulated and obstructed.
Also, the present research aims to address the call to conduct research simultaneously on work-family enrichment and work-family conflict, which is until now underrepresented in the literature. Work-family enrichment is recognized as conceptually distinct from work-family conflict (Frone, 2003), but research on enrichment remains scarce (McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2009; Vieira, Matias, Lopez & Matos, 2018). In current literature, there is a strong focus on the negative side of the work-family relationship (work-family conflict), while the positive side (work-family enrichment) has been neglected. This paper addresses this shortcoming. Moreover, previous research only recently acknowledged the dual side of both conflict and enrichment, which are work-family conflict, family-work conflict, work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment (Vieira et al., 2018). The current research takes both sides of conflict and enrichment into account, which means that family-work as well as work-family, enrichment and conflict are researched.
5
and therefore is not capable of caretaking for the family. FWC refers to the conflict that arises when family roles interfere with work (Rathi & Barath, 2013). For example, when an argument with the partner negatively influences performance at work. Using the Conservation of Resources (COR) model (Hobfoll, 1989; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999), I posit that conflict between employees' family and work lives exhausts resources leading employees to protect their remaining resources and invest less in creative work activities. However, FWAs might facilitate employees to reduce WFC and retain resources that can be invested in creativity at work. I therefore propose that creativity, a high performance outcome, is enhanced when WFC can be reduced by use of FWAs.
FWAs are, on the other hand, expected to promote creativity by an increase in work-family enrichment (WFE) and work-family-work enrichment (FWE). Work-work-family enrichment occurs when work experiences improve the quality of family life, either through favourable resources or through the arousal of positive affect (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Related to the COR theory, FWAs may play an important role in the resource generation process, thereby increasing work-family enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For example, individuals often report that their work provides them with energy or new skills that makes it easier for them to fulfil family roles (Hakanen, Peeters & Perhoniemi, 2011). Family-work enrichment occurs when family experiences improve the quality of work life by means of obtained resources. As an example, if an employee gains multitasking skills from his/her parenting role, these skills may positively effects his/her work performance (McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2010). There is expected that creativity may also be enhanced by gaining those resources.
6
This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, a new source of employee creativity is identified. The role of FWAs in relation to creativity has not yet or at least not extensively been addressed in the literature. Previous studies do have examined social relationships that facilitate employee creativity (Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi & Zhang, 2009; Baer, 2010). Extending this research, I propose that flexible work arrangements can be an important organizational source to enrich workplace creativity through its influence on the work-family relationship.
This research has important implications for practitioners. It will inform practitioners on how flexible work arrangements have an impact on the two types of creativity. This is of importance, because flexible work arrangements are increasingly utilized within organizations (Goudswaard & Andries, 2002). Employee’s creativity is also of major significance to an organization’s effectiveness as it can give companies a competitive advantage (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). A certain level of creativity is required in almost any job (Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2000; Unsworth, 2001). Therefore, understanding factors that influence creativity is crucial for those in a leading position since they have the power to implement changes regarding those factors. The knowledge that can be gained by incorporating the work-family dyad will give a more comprehensive overview of the factors which organizations can take into account. To conclude, this research may change the way that organizations handle their practices and policies regarding family and flexible working to foster the creativity outcome.
THEORY & HYPOTHESIS
7
employees to vary the amount, timing or location of their work (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011; Allen et al., 2013; Beigi, Shirmohammadi & Stewart, 2018) in such a way that they are enabled to balance the expectations of their work and non-work lives more effectively (Govender, Migiro & Kyule, 2018). It includes flexibility in the scheduling of workhours such as a compressed workweek and shifts, flexibility in the amount of work hours such as part-time work and job sharing, and flexibility in the place of work such as working at home and working with an online environment from various locations (Giannikis & Mihail, 2011).
Research increasingly suggests that greater flexibility at work due to FWAs will lead to enhanced work-life balance perceptions for employees (Baker, Avery & Crawford, 2007). Work-life balance has become increasingly important for organizations in recent years and implementation of FWAs has therefore grown to be more and more common (Hayman, 2009). This makes sense, since FWAs provide employees with a better ability or more resources to balance work and non-work responsibilities compared to traditional work arrangements (Hayman, 2009).
The relationship between FWAs and work-life balance can be explained by the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. The COR theory comprises that people seek to obtain and maintain resources. Resources can include objects, conditions and energies that people value. The theory states that individuals are motivated to protect their current resources (conservation) and acquire new resources (acquisition) (Hobfoll, 1988). This model is used as a guide to explain the relationships in this research.
Flexible Work Arrangements, Work-Family Conflict and Creativity
8
as work-to-family and family-to-work conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hammer et al., 2005). This distinction is explained by tensions caused in either the individual’s work (WFC) or in family domains (FWC) (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992; Watkins & Subich, 1995). Although WFC and FWC are seen as two distinct dimensions in this research, the term work-family conflict is used as an umbrella term that indicates conflict between work and work-family roles that not has a specific direction (Allen et al., 2013).
Several studies show that perceived work flexibility reduces work–family conflict (Hammer, Allen & Grigsby, 1997; Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002; Kossek, Lautsch & Eaton, 2006). FWAs can reduce WFC by providing employees with a greater degree of control and autonomy over their workday. Combining work and non-work duties is facilitated by FWAs, in such a way that the experienced amount of imbalance between the domains of work and nonwork is reduced (Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002). Further explanation can be derived from the COR model. Conflict between employees' home and work lives exhausts resources leading to negative outcomes such as lower job satisfaction and poor performance (Hobfoll, 1989; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). Availability and retainment of resources should lead to lower WFC and therefore an increased work-family balance. Resources like flexible work arrangements and their related positive work-family culture and family support can help employees to create that balance (Premeaux, Adkins & Mossholder, 2007). So employees can utilize FWAs to conserve relevant resources, so that they in turn can handle WFC.
On one hand, FWAs can help to reduce WFC by, for example being able to work at home and therefore being able to spend more time with family in the meantime which in turn will lead to conserved resources. On the other hand, FWAs can help to reduce FWC, by, for example, being able to manage problems at home by the flexibility that is offered by FWAs which can also cause retainment of resources.
9
Hypothesis 1: Flexible work arrangements are negatively related to work-family conflict (H1a) and family-work conflict (H1b).
Employee creativity entails the production of new and original ideas by employees that are potentially useful for improving or renewing products, services, processes and procedures (Amabile et al., 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). Innovation is different from creativity, which entails the implementation of these creative ideas (West, 2002).
One important form of work–family conflict is strain based. This is a form of conflict in which an employee is so mentally wrapped up in a given domain, that he or she may find it difficult to mentally engage in another domain. When resources are scarce, individuals ‘strive to develop resource surpluses in order to offset the possibility of future loss’ (Hobfoll, 1989: 517). Since creative tasks often require a great deal of cognitive focus (Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006), time (Baer & Oldham, 2006), and emotional energy (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw, 2005), creative behaviours are potentially in need for many resources.
10
During WFC, the demands of the work role exhaust psychological resources required to fulfil family roles (Lapierre & Allen, 2006; Carlson et al., 2012). This situation may therefore cause problems or conflict at home. Resource depletion is the result (Harrison & Wagner, 2016). This may lead to lower creativity at work, since the creativity process is in high demand of resources. It is therefore expected that the downward spiral that WFC tends to evoke, exhausts resources that are needed for creativity and therefore creativity is harmed.
So lack of access to FWAs will lead to higher work-family conflict, which in turn has the potential to undermine creativity. The employee is more likely to lack the required resources and therefore less likely to think of new and original ideas. The psychological strain that WFC tends to evoke is expected to block creativity (Allen, Herst, Bruck & Sutton, 2000; Demerouti, Peeters & van der Heijden, 2012).
Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 2: WFC (H2a) and FWC (H2b) are negatively related to employee creativity.
Hypothesis 3: The indirect relationship between FWAs and employee creativity is mediated by WFC (H3a) and FWC (H3b).
Flexible Work Arrangements, Work-Family Enrichment and Creativity
11
dimensions in this research. But the term work-family enrichment is used as an umbrella term that indicates enrichment between work and family roles that is not direction specific. Despite the lack of research on work-family enrichment, a few findings related to flexible work arrangements are identified.
FWAs can have a positive influence on WFE (Kim & Gong, 2017). Greenhouse and Powell (2006) found that flexibility at work can drive the enrichment process. They state that resource gains caused by FWAs can explain why experiences in one role can promote performance in another role. This argumentation flows directly from the COR theory. According to COR, employees have the opportunity to generate resources by using flexible work arrangements which they utilize to handle family demands (McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2009). Resources (e.g. time) can cause increased control over family matters, thereby increasing positive attitudes at work that may transfer to more positive affect at home (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). An effect which is previously referred to as the ‘gain spiral’. (Hobfoll, 1989).
FWAs can also have a positive influence on FWE. FWAs can help employees to deal effectively with demands and responsibilities at home, which can also generate obtainment of resources. According to Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker (2012), resources can be categorized in contextual resources (e.g. home conditions and social support) and personal resources (e.g. knowledge and cognitive energy). Both types of resources can be obtained at home and can therefore spill over into the workplace.
On one hand, FWAs can have a positive effect on WFE by, for example, a gain of resources (f.e. energy or autonomy) that is derived from the flexibility, which in turn can lead to a better mindset at work and therefore can positively influence family life. On the other hand, FWAs can have a positive effect on FWE by, for example, increase in performance by working at home because of supporting family members.
12
Hypothesis 4: Flexible work arrangements are positively related to work-family enrichment (H4a) and family-work enrichment (H4b).
Work-family enrichment has the potential to be a breeding ground for creativity. The gain of resources that is provided by WFE is expected to positively influence creativity. Gained resources of psychological nature can stimulate employees’ creative thinking (Fredrickson, 2013). Since resources can support employees’ creative efforts, it can enable them to take action which leads to creative work performance (Ford, 1996).
The most relevant resource gains for creativity can be found in the family to work inference. During FWE, family roles enrich psychological resources that are required to fulfil work roles. The obtained resources may improve work performance by facilitating work functioning. Family can help to enhance creativity by means of two factors: positive mood (support) and cognitive stimulation (information). First, family may encourage an employee’s creativity by providing support and assistance for new ideas (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002). They can for example encourage the ventilation of ideas at work or provide the employee with confidence about the quality of the new ideas. There is already shown that social relationships can be an important source for creativity (Baer, 2010). Also, Hakanen et al. (2011) found that home resources, like social support of the partner, stimulates FWE. Second, family may stimulate creativity by presenting new input and knowledge to the employee and arousing cognitive processes, which in turn can trigger creative ideas (Mumford et al., 2002; Perry-Smith, 2006; Madjar et al., 2011). So, it is argued that family support influences employees’ creativity by means of its effects on positive mood and that information and ideas provided by family may enhance creativity by serving as sources of cognitive stimulation.
13
the family life (Matapurkar & Bhargava, 2019). Research has already shown that WFE leads to improved job performance by means of resource expansion (Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, Ferguson & Whitten, 2011). An aspect of the COR theory adds to this, namely that the possession of resources creates options for resource replenishment. Thus, those in possession of resources are able to gain additional resources at an increased rate and therefore maintain a better general wellbeing which can positively influence family life, but also has an impact back into work life. This resource replenishment is expected to be beneficial for creativity, since creativity is fostered during access to and gain of many resources (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). The gain of communication skills as a resource for example, may cause an employee to improve the information exchange with family members. This increased cognitive stimulation may help to explore different perspectives and considering new ideas which in turn can benefit creativity at work.
So access to FWAs will lead to increased FWE which in turn has the potential to provide the employee with support and new ideas which can help to increase employee creativity. Also, the resources that an employee tends to acquire from WFE are expected to foster creativity. Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 5: WFE (H5a) and FWE (H5b) are positively related to employee creativity. Hypothesis 6: The indirect relationship between FWAs and employee creativity is mediated by WFE (H6a) and FWE (H6b).
Overview of Study
14
changes to existing products, work or processes and offer mostly minor modifications (Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011). The hypotheses are tested for both types of creativity in order to provide a robust test of the research model. Thus, I exploratively examine whether FWAs, WFC and WFE have the same or different effects on the two different forms of creativity.
Figure 1
Conceptual model
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure
In order to test the hypotheses, an online survey was conducted with around 177 employees from several companies by means of Qualtrics Survey Software. The recruiting for filling in the questionnaires was done in several ways: by contacting companies, but also by use of my own personal circles. The only requirement for participating in the study was that the respondent needed to be employed.
15
The employees were asked to fill in an online questionnaire containing statements about flexible work arrangements, work-family conflict, work-family enrichment and creativity. Participants were requested to indicate their personal level of agreement or disagreement with the statements. The language of the survey was in Dutch and English. The survey took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
The filtered sample consists of 129 employees (MAge = 31 years, SD = 11.59; 63.8 %
female). The questionnaires with incomplete responses are eliminated (48 from the 177 employees). The most frequently occurring education levels are HBO (41.5%) and WO (26.9%). Respondents have an organizational tenure of approximately 5 years (SD=7.33), working on average 33 hours (SD=12.59) per week. Respondents work in a wide range of sectors, with governance (9.3%), engineering (7.7%), retail (7%) and financial services (6.2%) as most frequently occurring. There is also a large amount of respondents that worked in different sectors than given (30.8%), where the hospitality industry and employment agencies where most common. Most respondents are in a relationship (49.2%) or married (22.3%) and 23.1% of them had kids, mostly two (18.5%).
Measures
16
Work-family conflict. A ten-item scale developed by Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian (1996) was used to measure the work-family conflict participants experienced. These items asked the participants to indicate the extent to which they experience family to work conflict and work to family conflict on a five-point response scale varying from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. An example of an item of FWC is ‘I have to put off doing things at work, because of demands of my time at home.’ And a specific item for WFC is for instance: ‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for WFC is high (α = .84), just as the alpha for FWC (α = .85).
Work-family enrichment. This variable was measured using an 18-item scale developed by Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne and Grzywacz (2006). Respondents needed to indicate their answer on a five-point Likert scale varying from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ A specific item for FWE includes: ‘My involvement in my family puts me in a good mood and helps me to be a better worker’. An item for WFE includes: ‘My involvement in my work helps me to acquire skills and this helps me to be a better family member.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for WFE is high (α = .89), just as the alpha for FWE (α =.85).
17
Control variables. In the survey, participants provided information about their sex (0 ‘Male’, 1 ‘Female’, 2 ‘Different’), age (in years), organizational tenure (in years), marital status (0 ‘Single’, 1 ‘In a relationship’, 2 ‘Married’, 3 ‘Divorced’), children (0 ‘Yes’ 1 ‘No’), workhours per week (in hours) and educational level (0 ‘High school not completed’ 1 ‘High school’ 2 ‘MBO’ 3 ‘HBO’ 4 ‘WO’). These demographics were utilized as control variables in the statistical analyses to see if they showed relations with the main variables.
It is expected that gender may play a role in how FWAs are related to WFC, WFE and creativity. Previous work shows that gender has a significant effect on the ability to juggle work and family. Women experience more challenge balancing their work and family life than men. This is mainly due to men’s non-involvement in the household, cultural norms and gender biases that still exist in the workplace until this day (Karkoulian, Srour & Sinan, 2016).
The amount of children an employee has is expected to show relationships with the main study variables as well. FWAs are seen as advantageous to working parents since the flexibility allows them to balance childcare and work responsibilities (Alexander & Baxter, 2005; Baxter, 2011). Children are also expected to have an influence on the creativity process. On one hand by causing conflict (strain), which will cause lower creativity. There is already shown that the greater the problems with a child, the harder managing work and care is and the worse the work performance (Kossek & Nichol, 1992). On the other hand, enrichment (inspiration) by children is expected to cause higher creativity outcomes. Previous research shows that creativity of children is different than that of adults. They tend to make more use of their imagination (Kudryavtsev, 2011). Therefore they have the potential to inspire adults.
18
(1967) reported correlations between intelligence and creativity scores consistently higher in women than in men.
The amount of hours an employee works is also expected to have an influence on the mediating relationship. The expectation is that increased workhours cause more conflict and therefore less creativity. Previous research shows that long work hours can cause increased work-family conflict (Samad, Reaburn & Di Milia, 2015). Higher demands at work are found to be associated with less time for resource restorage that is needed for creativity (Geurts, Beckers, Taris, Kompier & Smulders, 2009).
Data analysis
The hypotheses were tested using the statistical program SPSS. The reliability of the variables were tested by calculating Cronbach alpha for each variable. Furthermore, preliminary analyses was conducted to provide the descriptive statistics, which included basic information about the variables by showing the means and standard deviations. A bivariate Pearson Correlations test provided the relationships between the study and control variables. Finally, a main analysis with a regression analysis by Hayes PROCESS Macro was executed to test the hypotheses. For mediational testing, the four mediators of WFC, FWC, WFE, FWE were simultaneously included in the mediation analysis (mediation: model 4). All analyses were based on 5000 bootstrap samples and a 95% confidence interval. For the incorporation of covariates in the analysis, I followed Becker’s (2005) recommendation to only control for variables that significantly correlate with the dependent variable or mediator variable.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
20
First of all, the Cronbach’s alphas were found to be acceptable to high for all the study variables, except for the relatively low alpha for incremental creativity. The most important findings from Table 1, which provide the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations, are discussed. Flexible work arrangements are found to be positively associated with family-work enrichment (r=.23, p<.01), work-family enrichment (r=.35, p<.01), incremental creativity (r=.28, p<.01), and radical creativity (r=.26, p<.01). Both work-family enrichment (r=.20, p<.05) and family-work enrichment (r=.20, p<.05) are positively associated with radical creativity. Work-family enrichment (r=.27, p<.01) as well as family-work enrichment (r=.41, p<.01) are positively associated with incremental creativity.
For the covariates children, age and tenure, no significant correlations were found with the main study variables. For the covariates gender, education and workhours, there were some correlations found with mediators of the dependent variables. Gender is found to be positively correlating with FWAs (r=.19, p<.05) and radical creativity (r=.26, p<.01). Workhours are positively associated with FWAs (r=.30, p<.01) and WFC (r=.38, p<.01). Education is positively associated with FWAs (r=.22, p<.05), WFE (r=.22, p<.05) and incremental creativity (r=.20, p<.05). On basis of research of Becker (2005), only gender, education and workhours are therefore included in the main analysis.
Main Analysis
21 Table 2 Regression Analysis
WFC FWC WFE FWE Incremental Creativity
Radical Creativity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Intercept -.86+ (.49) -.46 (.56) .08 (.52) -.28 (.54) -.84 (.51) -.1.12* (.53) Gender -.31+ (.18) .06 (.20) -.33+ (.19) .02 (.20) .03 (.19) .44* (.20) Workhours .04** (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) -.00 (.01) .01 (.01) .00 (.01) Education .02 (.10) .00 (.11) .16 (.10) .07 (.11) .13 (.10) .13 (.10) FWAs -.19* (.09) -.20* (.10) .40** (.09) .21* (.10) .14 (.10) .17+ (.10) WFC .00 (.11) .05 (.11) FWC -.14 (.09) .12 (.10) WFE -.02 (.12) .10 (.12) FWE .34** (.11) .10 (.12) R² .21 .05 .19 .05 .24 .17
Notes. N = 129. Standard errors between parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Hypotheses testing. In support of H1a, as indicated in table 2, flexible work arrangements were significantly and negatively associated with work-to-family conflict (β=-.19, p<.05), meaning that usage of FWAs negatively influences WFC. Workhours (β=.04, p<.01) were significantly and positively associated with work-family conflict, so the more an employee worked the higher their family related conflict is. Gender (β=-.31, p<.10) marginally showed a negative correlation with WFC, meaning that women experience somewhat more work-family conflict than men.
22
experienced conflict from family to work. No significant relations were found regarding the covariates.
In support of H4a, the availability of flexible work arrangements significantly and positively relates to work-to-family enrichment (β=.40, p<.01). Thus, an increased use of FWAs can cause more experienced family enrichment. Gender (β=-.33, p<.10) relates to work-family enrichment marginally and negatively, so there is some indication that women benefits more from FWAs for work-family enrichment than men.
In support of H4b, the availability of flexible work arrangements significantly and positively relates to family-work enrichment (β=.21, p<.05). Thus, the more FWAs are utilized, the higher the experienced family-work enrichment. No significant relations were found regarding the covariates.
No support is found for hypothesis H2a, since WFC did not significantly relate to either incremental creativity (β=.00, p=.99) or radical creativity (β=.05, p=.63). There has also not been found any support for H2b, as FWC did not relate to incremental creativity (β=-.14, p=.14) or radical creativity (β=.12, p=.22). No support is found for hypothesis H5a, since there is no significant relation found for WFE with incremental (β=-.02, p=.89) or radical creativity (β=.10, p=.43).
For H5b, which predicted a positive relation of FWE with incremental creativity, a significant positive relation is found (β=.34, p<.01). This indicates, that the more family-work enrichment is present, the more incrementally creative an employee is. For H5b (β=.10, p=.38), which predicted a positive relation of FWE with radical creativity, no significant relation is found. Gender showed a positive relation with radical creativity (β=.44, p<.05), which indicates that men show more radical creativity than women.
23
between FWAs and incremental creativity. Likewise, neither WFC (Effect size=-.01, 95% CI = [.-.09, .03]) nor FWC (Effect size=-.02, 95% CI = [-.11, .01]) mediates the indirect relationship between FWAs and radical creativity. Therefore, there is no support found for respectively H3a and H3b. Furthermore, there is no evidence found that WFE (Effect size=-.01, 95% CI = [-.11, .09]) mediates the indirect relationship between FWAs and incremental creativity. So there is no support found for H6a. There is significant support that FWE (Effect size=.07, 95% CI = [.01, .19]) mediates the relationship between FWAs and incremental creativity. So support has been found for H6b. Finally, there is no support found that either WFE (Effect size=.04, 95% CI = [-.06,.17]) or FWE (Effect size=.02, 95% CI = [-.02, .10]) mediate the indirect relationship between FWAs and radical creativity.
Direct effects. The direct relationship between flexible work arrangements and radical creativity (β=.17, 95 % CI = [.-.03, .37], p=.09) was found to be marginally significant, whereas the direct relationship between flexible work arrangements and incremental creativity (β=.14, 95% CI = [-.05, .33], p=.15) was not significant.
DISCUSSION
24
indicate that flexible work provides an employee with more input or resources for creativity. What also stood out from the results is that the covariate gender shows relationships with WFC and WFE, which may indicate that women experience more WFC and WFE in general. Also, gender shows a relationship with radical creativity, indicating that men demonstrate more radical creativity than women do.
Theoretical Implications
This study has several theoretical implications. First, the current results show that FWAs do have an influence on the work-family dyad, both positive (for work-family enrichment) as well as negative (for work-family conflict). This study extends previous research (e.g. Hayman, 2009) which shows that FWAs can help employees manage work and personal life balance. Especially, it answers the call of Greenhouse & Powell (2006), to further examine FWAs in relation to work-family enrichment. The outcomes also indicates that FWAs can provide even more advantages, since FWAs show to have a positive effect on radical creativity. This may also suggest that other resources than just family can contribute to creativity, like for example inspiration from other environments, lack of time pressure (Amabile et al., 2003) and the opportunity to work at employees most beneficial hours. Work contextual factors and especially job resources have already been shown as important for employees’ creativity (Eder & Sawyer, 2007; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Flexible working also leaves more room open for experimentation and space for processing, which are important for radical creativity. This finding provides the literature with an additional insight in what drives radical creativity specifically.
25
literature with a two-sided, and therefore more specific, image of the work-family interface in relation to FWAs and creativity. Moreover, the subdimensions of the work-family interface: WFC, FWC, WFE and FWE do deliver separate effects and therefore contribute to the proper understanding of how these concepts work. This finding serves as an extension of the research of Gareis, Barnett, Ertel and Berkman (2009), who also stress the importance of the work-family subdimensions. Where most research is still mainly focused on work-work-family conflict (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux & Brintley, 2005), this research also highlights the positive side of the work-family dyad by taking work-family enrichment into account. Since there was shown an effect of FWE on incremental creativity, it adds to research of Gareis et al. (2009) in which was also shown that work-family relations can also positively contribute to outcomes.
26
Furthermore, the current results indicate that family-work enrichment facilitated by FWAs plays an important role for employee incremental creativity. Since there are only few studies that examined FWE in relation to employee creativity, this outcome contributes to the understanding of the positive role of family in the incremental creativity process. This contributes to findings of Tang, Huang and Wang (2017) suggesting that the positive role of FWE can be explained by the importance of social relationships as resources for creativity, in particularly that good family relations can enhance creativity. This finding also provides the literature with a new insight, namely that family can be an important resource for incremental creativity specifically. Family can provide input in two ways: by providing support or information. The input of family can therefore be classified as shallow and external. Since the main focus is on adapting for incremental creativity, this form may be in need of more shallow resources. In contrast to radical creativity, where the main focus is on deeper processing and mental persistence and therefore more profound resources can make the difference. Where family as an external influence can be a key driver for incremental creativity, the internal process of the employee needed for radical creativity may not be sufficiently influenced by family.
27
support for the notion that employees need to have a certain, but not abundant amount of resources for creativity.
Moreover, the findings show that making a distinction between incremental and radical creativity is certainly useful, since they seem to have different driving mechanisms. This adds to research of Gilson, Lim, D'Innocenzo and Moye (2012), which state that creativity is not a unitary concept (as mostly proposed), but that it should be considered as a construct with two dimensions. This is supported by earlier findings in which is found that incremental creativity may be in need for other resources than radical creativity (Unsworth, 2001). The current research shows that incremental creativity can be positively influenced by family, where radical creativity is not. This indicates that incremental creativity can be driven more by situational or extrinsic mechanisms, where radical creativity may need intrinsic mechanisms. This finding can therefore be seen as an extension of the research of Madjar, Greenberg & Chen (2011) which also found that depth of resources (e.g. career commitment) were a strong predictor for radical creativity, where more shallow resources (e.g. presence of creative co-workers) best predicted incremental creativity. A positive impact of FWAs on radical creativity is also shown, but not on incremental creativity. This may build on the previous indication that other resources than family trigger radical creativity specifically.
28
demonstrated that men show more radical creativity than women. This may be explained by the dominance of the masculine stereotype in which men are more likely to take risks and to be confident about their ideas than women (Walton & Kemmelmeier, 2012). These findings provide the literature with an additional understanding under which conditions men and women deal with creativity and work-life issues.
Practical Implications
The findings of this study lead to a few practical recommendations. There is confirmed that FWAs can cause more work-family enrichment and a decrease in work-family conflict. This indicates that usage of FWAs are really beneficial for an organization and their employees. Since FWAs are already increasingly utilized in organizations, these findings would encourage further implementation of FWAs as well in order to provide employees with an increased work-life balance. For managers, this would mean implementing programs or options in which employees can decide to what extent they want to utilize a variation in amount, timing of location of their work.
There is demonstrated that flexible work arrangements are positively associated with incremental creativity through family-work enrichment. Practically, this would mean that managers can benefit from increasing creativity outcomes if FWAs are utilized. Especially when those FWAs cause an employee to be in increased contact with family. The specific flexible working practice of working remotely, especially at home, would therefore be recommended to increase the resources that can be gained from family. The insights and support provided will work in favour of employees’ creativity.
29
input that can be useful. For radical creativity, employees need to be internally stimulated. Managers can achieve this by providing support for intrinsic motivation and provide more time for processing.
For the control variable gender, interesting recommendations can be made. Women are somewhat more susceptible to work-family conflict and enrichment. Of course, this raises the question if women feel more conflict or enrichment by the prevailing stereotype or that it may have another cause. What can be derived is that organizations (and therefore managers) should pay more attention to the work-life balance needs of their employees, and especially for women. Managers are stimulated to tailor this balance to personal preferences. Recurring personal meetings with employees can contribute to knowledge about these preferences. This can help employees to gain sufficient resources in order to increase performance. Since men show more radical creativity, women in particular should be stimulated and supported by managers to ventilate their radical ideas in organizations.
Limitations and Future Research
First, there were some limitations regarding the method. The data was gathered by means of self-reports of creativity for the ease of the research. Evaluating one’s own creativity, may have given same source bias which in turn could have harmed the reliability. For future research, supervisor or peer reports are recommended for an increased objective judgment.
30
Moreover, only a few items were used to measure radical and incremental creativity. Both of these variables only included three measures which caused a respectively acceptable and low alpha. This may be due to translation of the items, but also to their quantity. As a recommendation for future research, an increased range of valid items may enhance the representation and therefore reliability of the creativity variables.
Also, the cleared data involved only 129 employees. Originally, 48 more respondents filled in the questionnaire, but their answers turned out to be incomplete. This might indicate that the questionnaire was too lengthy and this led to a reduced amount of data, thereby limiting the study’s statistical power. For future research, the lengthiness should be reconsidered in such way that the maximal potential of the questionnaire will be reached
31
There were no mediating effects found for work-family conflict. As discussed in the theoretical implications, it may be that conflict has two working mechanisms: loss of resources and arousal/cognitive stimulation. For future research, it would therefore be recommended to take those both mediation mechanisms into account to test if the proposed ‘neutralization’ effect proves to be valid.
For work-family enrichment specifically, there is still a lot left to be explored. Since enrichment by family turned out to have a positive influence on incremental creativity, it would be interesting for future research to examine this relationship more thoroughly. Expected is that certain aspects of family, for example stability and intensity of relationships, may provide a more detailed insight in this influence. The proposed statement that family acts a ‘shallow resource’ for creativity can be accepted or rejected.
Furthermore, there is recommended to conduct research on work-family enrichment and creativity in relation to gender. Gender showed some interesting results in this research and is therefore expected to have an influence as a moderator. There is expected that women may benefit more from family as a resource than men do, since my findings show that women experience more work-family enrichment. Some gender research has been done in relation to creativity (e.g. Baer & Kaufman, 2008), but the literature has been divided about the outcomes. In relation to work-family enrichment, it may give some new insights.
Since I found different outcomes for incremental and radical creativity, there is recommended to keep those two types separately for future research. Creativity is mostly viewed as one variable in research (Gilson & Madjar, 2011), but this research showed that the two distinct variables make various contributions. This confirms earlier work of Sternberg (1999), who also stated that it is not possible to grasp creativity in one variable.
32
In sum, the findings show that flexible work arrangements are closely intertwined with work-family enrichment and work-family conflict. Also, flexible work arrangements show to have a direct impact on radical creativity. To advance understanding of the influence of work-life balance in the emergence of employee creativity, I examined the role of WFC and WFE. The present findings show that flexible work arrangements influences creativity through family-work enrichment. However, this relationship is only found for incremental creativity specifically. The control variable gender also shows some interesting relations with the study variables. Thus, the present study clarifies if and how (through enrichment or conflict reduction) flexible work arrangements are positively related to radical and incremental creativity. Therefore this paper contributes to the existing research on this topic.
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. & Baxter, J. 2005. Impacts of work on family life among partnered parents of young children. Family Matters, 72: 18.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for further research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 278–308.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. 2013. Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2): 345–376.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367–403.
33
Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L. 2003. Time pressures and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study. HBS Working Paper, 2-73.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. 2002. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of management, 28(6): 787-810.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25: 147–173.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5): 1297-1333.
Baer, M. 2010. The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 592–601.
Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1102-1119.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. 2008. Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 42(2): 75-105.
34
Baker, E., Avery, G.C., & Crawford, J. 2007. Satisfaction and perceived productivity when professionals work from home. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15(1): 37-62.
Baxter, J. 2011. Flexible work hours and other job factors in parental time with children. Social Indicators Research, 101(2): 239-242.
Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3): 274-289.
Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M., & Stewart, J. 2018. Flexible Work Arrangements and Work– Family Conflict: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies Among Academics. Human Resource Development Review, 17(3): 314-336.
Blomberg, A., Kallio, T., & Pohjanpää, H. 2017. Antecedents of organizational creativity: drivers, barriers or both?. Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1): 78-104.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2005. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 740–748.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M.P., and Kalliath, T. J. 2005. The ability of ‘family friendly’ organizational resources to predict work–family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress and Health, 21: 223–234.
35
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 201.
Caniëls, M. C., De Stobbeleir, K., & De Clippeleer, I. 2014. The antecedents of creativity revisited: A process perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2): 96-110.
Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., & Whitten, D. 2012. Abusive supervision and work– family conflict: The path through emotional labour and burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 849–859.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. 2006. Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68(1): 131-164.
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. 2011. Work-family enrichment and job performance: A constructive replication of affective events
theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3): 297.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, 39.
Dancaster, L. 2006. Work-life balance and the legal right to request flexible working arrangements: management. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 9(2): 175-186.
36
De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. 2011. Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4): 452-474.
Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., & van der Heijden, B. I. 2012. Work–family interface from a life and career stage perspective: The role of demands and resources. International Journal of Psychology, 47(4): 241-258.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science, 32(11): 1422-1433.
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. 1991. Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of applied psychology, 76(1): 60.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124–197.
Eder, P. and Sawyer, J.E. 2007. A meta-analytic examination of employee creativity. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 178-199.
Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. 2006. Enhancing creativity through “mindless” work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17: 470–483.
Ford, C. M. 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review, 21(4): 1112-1142.
37
Frone, M. R. 2003. Work–family balance. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, 143–162.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. 1992. Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 65–78.
Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., Ertel, K. A., & Berkman, L. F. 2009. Work‐family enrichment and conflict: Additive effects, buffering, or balance?. Journal of marriage and family, 71(3): 696-707.
Geurts, S. A., Beckers, D. G., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., & Smulders, P. G. 2009. Worktime demands and work-family interference: Does worktime control buffer the adverse effects of high demands?. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2): 229-241.
Giannikis, S. K., & Mihail, D. M. 2011. Flexible work arrangements in Greece: a study of employee perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(2): 417-432.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., D'Innocenzo, L., & Moye, N. 2012. One size does not fit all: Managing radical and incremental creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3): 168-191.
Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. 2011. Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 5(1): 21.
38
Govender, L., Migiro, S. O., & Kyule, A. K. 2018. Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction and Performance. Journal of Economics and Behavioural Studies, 10(3): 268-277.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1999. The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54: 350-370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10: 76-88.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G. 2006. When Work and Family Are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 72-92.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. 2000. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1): 111.
Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R. 2011. Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84: 8–30.
Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. 1997. Work–family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of vocational behaviour, 50(2): 185-203.
39
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. 2006. Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of occupational health psychology, 11(3): 249.
Harrison, S. H., & Wagner, D. T. 2016. Spilling outside the box: The effects of individuals’ creative behaviours at work on time spent with their spouses at home. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 841-859.
Hayman, J. R. 2009. Flexible work arrangements: Exploring the linkages between perceived usability of flexible work schedules and work/life balance. Community, Work & Family, 12(3): 327-338.
Hermens, S. L. W., Geurs, K. T., Snellen, D., & Thomas, T. 2015. Het succes van stationsgebieden: cross-sectioneel versus longitudinaal onderzoek. Tijdschrift vervoerswetenschap, 51(4): 128-144.
Herold, D. M., Jayaraman, N., & Narayanaswamy, C. R. 2006. What is the relationship between organizational slack and innovation?. Journal of Managerial Issues, 372-392.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1988. The ecology of stress. Taylor and Francis.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513-524.
Hon, A. H., & Lui, S. S. 2016. Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: Review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(5): 862-885.
40
Kim, H., & Gong, Y. 2017. Effects of work–family and family–work conflicts on flexible work arrangements demand: a gender role perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(20): 2936-2956.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. 2006. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68(2): 347-367.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. 1992. The effects of on‐site child care on employee attitudes and performance. Personnel psychology, 45(3): 485-509.
Kudryavtsev, V. T. 2011. The phenomenon of child creativity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1): 45-53.
Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. 2006. Work-supportive family, family supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 169–181.
Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., & Buck, M. L. 2002. Reduced load work arrangements: Response to stress or quest for integrity of functioning. Gender, work stress, and health, 169-190.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4): 730.
41
Matapurkar, R., & Bhargava, S. 2019. Work-Family Enrichment: A Unique Dyadic Experience. Journal of Management Research, 19(1).
McNall, L.A., Nicklin, J.M., & Masuda A.D. 2009. Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment, The Journal of Psychology, 144(1): 61-81.
McNall, L.A., Nicklin, J.M., and Masuda, A.D. 2010. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3): 381-396.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological bulletin, 103(1): 27.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The leadership quarterly, 13(6): 705-750.
Munsch, C. L. 2016. Flexible work, flexible penalties: the effect of gender, childcare, and type of request on the flexibility bias. Social Forces, 94(4): 1567-1591.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. 1996. Development and validation of work– family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4): 400.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607–634.
Pelz, D. C. 1988. Creative tensions in the research and development climate. Managing professionals in innovative organizations, 37–48.
42
Premeaux, S. F., Adkins, C. L., & Mossholder, K. W. 2007. Balancing work and family: a field study of multi‐dimensional, multi‐role work‐family conflict. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28(6): 705-727.
Rathi, N., & Barath, M. 2013. Work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction: Moderating effect of social support among police personnel. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(4): 438-454.
Rudolph, C. W., & Baltes, B. B. 2017. Age and health jointly moderate the influence of flexible work arrangements on work engagement: Evidence from two empirical studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1): 40–58.
Samad, A., Reaburn, P., & Di Milia, L. 2015. The contribution of job strain, social support and working hours in explaining work–family conflict. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53(3): 281-295.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. 2000. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 215 – 223
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 15(1): 33-53.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6): 933-58.
43
Sternberg, R. J. 1999. A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3: 83–100.
Tang, Y., Huang, X., & Wang, Y. 2017. Good marriage at home, creativity at work: Family– work enrichment effect on workplace creativity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38(5): 749-766.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. 2012. A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7): 545–556.
Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Prabhu, V. 2011. Development and validation of the New Ways of Working Scale. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Savannah, USA, November 9-12.
Timms, C., Brough, P., O'Driscoll, M., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. 2015. Flexible work arrangements, work engagement, turnover intentions and psychological health. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 53(1): 83-103.
Torrance, E. P. 1967. The Minnesota studies of creative behaviour: National and international extensions. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 1(2): 137–154.
Unsworth, K. 2001. Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 289 – 297.
Van Dyne, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. 2002. Differential effects of strain on two forms of work performance: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(1): 57-74.
44
Walton, A. P., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2012. Creativity in its social context: The interplay of organizational norms, situational threat, and gender. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3): 208-219.
Watkins, C. E., & Subich, L. M. 1995. Career development, reciprocal work/non-work interaction, and women’s workforce participation. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 47: 109–163.
Welter, M.M., Jaarsveld, S., van Leeuwen, C., & Lachmann, T. 2016. Intelligence and creativity: over the threshold together? Creativity Research Journal, 28(2): 212-218.
West, M.A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3): 355-87.
