ARRANGEMENTS
The importance of self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts on the effectiveness of flexible work arrangements.
Wouter Zijlstra S1729063
January 2015
Master Thesis MSc Programme of Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
2 ABSTRACT
When a company incorporates flexible work arrangements, this effects all the employees. However, employees are individuals with different needs and preferences. Based on previous
research that suggested the importance of individual differences on work-family conflict, a moderated mediation model was proposed. Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts was proposed as a mediator and need for segmentation was proposed as a moderator on
the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Quantitative analysis on this moderated mediation model among 100 Dutch employees confirmed a positive relationship between flexible work arrangements and Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. Also, a negative relationship was found between flexible work arrangements
and work-family conflict. Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts successfully mediated the negative relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. However, there was no evidence for a moderator effect of need for segmentation.
Theoretical and practical implications, research limitations and recommendations for future research are provided.
3 The importance of self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts on the
effectiveness of flexible work arrangements.
Flexible work arrangements (often referred to as telecommuting) are becoming more and more popular. In a recent survey of 200 executives of large corporations (>100 employees) 33% stated
that Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA) have increased compared to three years ago, whereas only 4% stated it had decreased. The executives reported better team moral, better work/family balances and higher productivity rates once FWA were introduced (The Creative Group, 2014).
FWA are work options that permit flexibility in terms of “where” work is completed (often referred to as telecommuting or flexplace) and/or “when” work is completed (often referred to as flextime or scheduling flexibility) (Rau & Hyland, 2002). As such, Flexible Work Arrangements can be divided up in two broad categories, temporal flexibility and spatial
flexibility. Temporal flexibility permits employees to adjust the times at which they work and how many hours per week they work. Job sharing (working part-time) and compressed work weeks are popular options of temporal flexibility. Spatial flexibility enables an employee to decide where to work. Employees might choose to do part of their work while commuting in public transport so that they use this time efficiently (Kossek & Friede, 2006).
FWA are of economic value to the companies that adopt them. Flexible Work
4 In a large survey (N= 6541) results indicated that job flexibility (flextime and flexplace) was related to improved work-family balance (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001). Employees are able to pick up their children from kindergarten, plan their daily commute with less stress and work during the commute. Encouraging results for the use of FWA were found in a meta-analysis by Byron (2005) when looking at the two aspects of flexible work arrangements (flextime and flexplace). The main effect of FWA was found to be negatively related to work-family conflict (WFC). Work-work-family conflict is defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressure from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Employees who use FWA were found to have less work-family conflicts (Byron, 2005).
Further evidence for the benefit of FWA was found in a meta-analysis regarding telecommuting (a form of FWA). FWA had small but mainly positive effects on work-family balance. FWA was found to reduce work-family conflict and was negatively related to employee’s role stress between work and family roles (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Small effects of FWA on WFC were also found in a meta-analysis by Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley (2013). Although they found a significant negative effect of FWA on WFC, they focused narrowly on workplace flexibility.
5 These inconsistent findings seem to indicate that there is a high variability in the implementation of FWA and the effectiveness of these arrangements.
Some evidence exists that confirm the benefits of FWA, although further research on this topic is required to better understand this relationship. It seems that there are variables that have not yet been taken into account. With the introduction of FWA, employees are assumed to be better able to manage their different roles and have a healthy work-family balance. There is however no empirical evidence that most employees manage these roles successfully. Employees who believe they can manage their work-family conflicts effectively were found to have a better work-family balance (Cinamon & Rich, 2002). This finding suggests that self-efficacy might play a role in reducing work-family conflicts.
In this thesis I argue that FWA provides a supportive structure that enable employees in their beliefs to manage their family conflicts. This in turn should lead to a better family balance. I therefor propose that the variable Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts (SEWFC) mediates the relationship between FWA and WFC. By adding this variable, the relationship between FWA and how employees manage their work-family balance can be better understood. This is important because when the benefits of FWA can be accurately measured, organisations will keep developing and integrating them into their organizational culture. This benefits both the employees and the organisation.
Although there are several studies indicating the positive effects of FWA, some
researchers have also found negative effects. A study by the Boston College Center for Work and Family (2000) found that FWA can increase stress for those individuals who are unable to
6 of FWA and emphasized that future research should consider how “individual variables are useful at explaining differences in outcomes in the work–family literature.”
In this thesis I take the perspective of boundary management theory to address the gap in the empirical research literature regarding the role of individual differences on FWA. Boundary management theory states that individuals actively manage their work and life roles and have preferences for integration or separation of these roles (Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999). Individual differences in boundary management might explain the inconsistent findings in the literature regarding the benefits of FWA (Menezes & Kelliher, 2011).
I propose a moderating variable, Need for Segmentation (NforS), that provides conditions for the effectiveness of FWA. Employees have a preference for either keeping their work and family lives separate, or integrating their work and family roles. FWA makes the boundaries between work and family roles more flexible. I propose that employees who are forced to use FWA while this is not being congruent with need for segmentation do not benefit from FWA. Employees with a high need for segmentation will respond with lower levels of self-efficacy to manage their work-family conflicts, whereas those who have a preference for integrating their work and family roles might feel more empowered.
The research on the effectiveness of FWA is up till now not consistent. There is a high variability found in the results in the relationship between FWA and WFC. In most cases, FWA leads to less WFC but in others this effect is not significant. The aim of this study is to
7 academic benefit of this thesis lies in the further exploration of the relationship between FWA and WFC.
This thesis also gives a clear practical contribution. When companies take into account that there are individual differences that influence the effectiveness of their FWA policies, these differences can be managed and assessed to improve the utilization and effectiveness of FWA. The policies can then be better suited for the employees, which in turn has benefits for both the companies and their employees.
Theoretical model
In the following, the theoretical background, the variables and the corresponding hypotheses will be discussed. A graphical representation of the model can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research model
Flexible Work Arrangements and Work-family conflicts
As we’ve seen, FWA influence the balance between an employee’s work and family roles. When the balance between an employee’s work and family roles is disturbed, this results in Work-family conflict. Work-family conflict is defined as a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressure from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This can lead to job dissatisfaction, lowered organizational commitment, high turnover and low life satisfaction (Frone, Russel, & Cooper, 1992). It is therefore important that organizations support the work-family balances of their employees.
Flexible Work Arrangements
Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts
Work-family conflict
8 Inter-role conflicts can occur in both the work and the family domains. Work events can influence family roles (WIF) and family events can influences work roles (FIW). These two types of work-family conflict have been defined as work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013). There are three dimensions of work-family conflicts; time-based (time spent on one role interferes with time spent in other role), strain-based (stress from one role influences performance in other role) and behaviour-based conflicts (role behaviour in one role is incompatible with expectations from other role) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).
In the literature, several meta-analytical studies have use two types of work-family conflict; WIF and FIW (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran 2006; Gajendran & Harrison 2007; Michel et. al 2010 and Allen et. al 2013). It was found that FWA related more to reducing work interference with family than to reducing family interference with work (Shockley and Allen, 2007). However, as the research by Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, and Shockley (2013) showed, the relationship is far from consistent. This thesis focuses on WFC as a whole and measures both FIW and WIF factors.
Although there are differences between the influence of FWA on WIF and FIW, the mean effect of FWA on WFC was found to be negative. I therefore propose that Flexible Work Arrangements are negatively related to Work-family conflict.
Hypothesis 1: FWA is negatively related to WFC Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts
9 arrangements and work-family conflict. Having defined what is meant by both terms, I will now move on to the next variable: Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts is defined as an individual’s belief in her or his ability to manage WFC (Cinamon, 2006). When employees are given the freedom to chose their working times they are empowered to manage their work-family conflicts. In this thesis, I propose that FWA leads to employees with a higher Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. For example, when there is a stressfull situation in the family-domain such as the illness of a child, FWA make it possible for an employee to choose to work from home. This gives employees the self-efficacy that when neccesary, their flexible jobs allow them to manage their work-family conflicts. This fits perfectly with the definition of Self-efficacy: people’s beliefs in their ability to influence events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994). FWA give employees the belief that they can to influence their work such that they can manage their work-family conflicts.
10 By giving employees the freedom to choose and manage the time and place of their job, the Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts is increased. I therefor come to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: FWA is positively related to SEWFC.
Although the relationship between FWA and efficacy is new, the relationship between Self-efficacy and WFC exists in the form of Self-Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. Self-efficacy for the management of family conflicts was found to reduce work-family conflicts. Employees who believe they are able to manage their work-work-family conflicts, have less work-family conflicts. The research on SEWFC has shown that employees with high self-efficacy have less work-interference family (WIF) and less family-interference with work (FIW) (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). I therefor come to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: SEWFC is negatively related to WFC.
Having discussed how FWA and SEWFC are related and how SEWFC and WFC are related, the next section of this thesis focuses on the mediating role of SEWFC.
The importance of Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts is
supported by the finding that supportive practices (flextime, supportive structures) were found to have a positive effect on employee perceptions of control over work and family matters. These control perceptions, in turn, were associated with lower levels of work family conflict (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). This finding indicates a mediating role of SEWFC on the relationship between FWA and work-family balance.
11 seem to be better able to manage between their work and family roles (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000).
Flexible work arrangements have found to lead to less work-family conflict. I argue that employees who have more freedom and control over their work have increased self-efficacy in managing their work-family conflicts. Employees who believe that they are able to manage their work-family conflicts were found to have a less work-family conflicts. SEWFC is therefore a variable that is both supported by FWA and leads to less WFC. I therefore propose that SEWFC explains the relationship between FWA and WFC and propose the following mediation
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: SEWFC mediates the negative relationship between FWA and WFC. Need for Segmentation
Some employees keep their work and family lives highly separated, others enjoy the company of colleagues in their spare time. There is a clear difference between employees who prefer an integration strategy of their work and family roles and employees who prefer their roles to be separated. Depending on the organizational context, this leads to a certain work-family balance. A better work-family balance is achieved when the organizational context (for example the availability of flexible work arrangements) is congruent with the strategy chosen by the employee (Kossek, Barber, & Winters, 1999).
12 to keep their work and family lives separate. Other employees might leave their phones turn on, as they don’t mind colleagues calling them when they are off work. The need for segmentation is the opposite of the need for integration – where an employee combines two domains and lets them interact (Kreiner, 2006).
According to boundary management theory, individuals differ in their management of their roles. The construct of boundary management has been defined as the principles one uses to organize and separate role demands and expectations into the specific realms of home and work (Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999). Individuals manage multiple life roles through the creation of meaningful boundaries around each role (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000).
Employees who are willing to flexibly manage their work-family roles, and are able to (FWA), report a better work-family balance (Bulger, Hoffman, & Matthews, 2007). This is further enhanced if employees have a high integration of work and life roles. Switching between these roles then becomes easier and less stressful (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). An employee with a strong desire to integrate work and home domains would fit a workplace that allows such integration whereas a person with a strong segmentation preference would better fit in a different workplace environment.
I argue, that NforS is an individual difference variable that influences the Self-efficacy for the management of family conflicts. When employees have highly integrated work-family roles, they might not feel able to separate their work and work-family roles. Given that
13 suggests that organisations need to understand the segmentation needs of their employees and adjust their FWA policies accordingly.
When an employee has a segmentation preference, this preference may prevent the positive effect that FWA has on SEWFC. Employees with a high need for segmentation might not benefit from FWA as it does not increase their SEWFC. I hypothesize that FWA leads to higher self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts, but that this is moderated by the need for segmentation of employees. Need for segmentation therefor moderates the
relationship between FWA and WFC through SEWFC. I therefore conclude this moderated mediation model with the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5: NforS moderates the relationship between FWA and SEWFC such that this relationship becomes less positive for employees with high rather than low NforS. Hypothesis 6: NforS moderates the indirect relationship between FWA and WFC through SEWFC such that this indirect relationship becomes less negative for employees with high rather than low NforS.
Method Participants and Procedure
To answer the research questions of this thesis, a survey was sent out at a large secondment agency in the IT sector with over 3000 employees. This agency places temporary
projectmanagers and engineers at their customers. This company is continuously developing their arrangements to better suit their employees. FWA are important in this company because employee wellbeing is considered crucial to the success of the company.
14 colleague. The survey was distributed digitally and published on the intranet. Every few days, a blog was posted on the intranet reminding the employees the benefits of answering the survey. After two weeks, the business unit directors sent a direct request to the employees via e-mail for their cooperation with the survey.
The survey lead to 100 respondents in the data set. 81% of all respondents was Male (N = 81) and 19% of all respondents were Female (N = 19). The average age was 41 years. The respondents were diverse in education level. 44% had a ‘HBO (of vergelijkbaar)’ education and 33% had a “Universiteit (of hoger)” education.
Measures
Flexible Work Arrangements is measured by means of the Flextime and Flexplace usage scale (Shockley & Allen, 2007). This scale contains four items. An example item for this scale is: “I have the freedom to vary my work schedule.“ (α = .94). The response format is a five point Likert scale with options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Work-family Conflict is measured with nine items for work interference with family (WIF) and nine items for family interference with work (FIW) (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000). An example item for the WIF scale is: “My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like.” An example item for the FIW scale is: “The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities.“ (α = .89). Response format is a five point scale with options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
15 ”Attend to your family obligations without it affecting your ability to complete pressing tasks at work”. An example item for the SEFIW scale was “Invest in your job even when under heavy pressure due to family responsibilities.” (α = .93). Response format is a 10 point scale with options ranging from not at all confident to very confident.
Need for Segmentation is measured by means of the Workplace segmentation preference scale (Kreiner, 2006). This scale contains four items. An example item for this scale was: “I don’t like to have to think about work when I'm at home.“ (α = .75). Response format is a seven point scale with options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Control variables were gender, education and age. These variables were found to influence the utilization of FWA by employees (Sivatte & Guadamillas, 2011; Kossek et. al. 1999). Also, women were found to have more WFC than men, and their Self-efficacy to manage their work-family conflict was lower (Cinamon, 2006). It is therefore important that we control for these individual differences. Control variables were measured by single items such as “What is your education level?” and “What is your age?”.
Results
Descriptive statistics
16 When looking at the moderator, there was a negative correlation between Need for
Segmentation and Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts (r=.-32, p < .01). Interestingly, Need for Segmentation correlated negatively with Flexible Work Arrangements (r=.-21, p < .05) and positively with Work-family conflict (r=.31, p < .01).
None of the control variables correlated significantly with the dependant variable Work-family conflict. For that reason, I have chosen to exclude them from further analyses.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and Correlations for the model variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Flexible Work Arrangements
3.56 1.18 2. Self-efficacy for the
management of work-family conflicts
5.28 1.05 .26*
3. Work-family conflict 2.53 .76 -.21* -.68**
4. Need for Segmentation 3.36 .82 -.21* -.32** .31**
5. Gender 1.81 .39 .05 -.02 .03 .02
6. Education 4.96 1.06 .19 .24* -.18 -.10 .10
7. Age 41.01 10.31 .04 -.18 .16 -.04 .26** -.03
Note. *Significant at the 0.05 level. **Significant at the 0.01 level.
Factor analysis
The factorability of the items used in this thesis were examined with a principal component analysis. This analysis was done using a varimax rotation on the factor loading matrix. A principal component analysis showed that for all of the used scales, the factors FIW and WIF could not be distinguished.
17 Second, a PCA was done on the eight-item scale of Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. 62% of the variance was explained by the initial eigen value of the first factor. There was no distinction to be found between SEWIF and SEFIW.
Last, a PCA was done on the 17-item scale of Work-family conflict. The PCA showed that there were five components with an intial eigen value above one. After inspecting the varimax rotation, the five components did not lead to a logical grouping of variables. The second way of interpreting an PCA is to look at the drop-off in explained variance. The first factor had an initial eigen value that explained 38% of the variance. The drop-off after the first factor was the highest and therefor only one factor will be used. There was no clear distinction to be made between FIW and FIW. There was also no clear distinction to be made between Time-, Strain- and Behaviour-based interference. The results of this analysis can be found in Appendix 1. Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1 predicted that FWA negatively related to WFC. The results confirm a significant negative relationship between FWA and WFC (B=-.21, p <.05). Hypothesis 2 predicted that FWA is positively related to SEWFC. This effect was found to be significant (B=.26, p <.01). Hypothesis 3 predicted that SEWFC negatively related to WFC, this was significant (B=-.68, p <.00). The regression analysis for hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
Results of regression analysis for testing hypothesis 1,2 and 3.
Predictor Dependant variable: WFC
18
Predictor Dependant variable: SEWFC
Hypothesis 2
Constant .00 .09 .00 1.00
FWA .26 .09 2.61 .01
Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 were testing using model 7 of A.F. Hayes’ interactive PROCESS tool (available from www.afhayes.com). These models can be used to test mediation,
moderation, and moderated mediation. The results can be found in Table 2 and 4.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that SEWFC mediates the negative relationship between FWA and WFC. As shown in table 3, there was a significant mediation effect found on the negative relationship between FWA and Work-family conflict (indirect effect =-.17, 95% CI -.33 to -.02).
Table 3
Results of mediation analysis for testing hypothesis 4.
Predictor Indirect relationship between FWA and WFC through SEWFC
Indirect effect SE 95%LCI 95%UCI
Hypothesis 4
-.17 .08 -.33 -.02
Hypothesis 5 predicted that NforS moderates the relationship between FWA and SEWFC. There was no evidence for a moderation effect of NforS found in the relationship between FWA and SEWFC as the interaction between Flexible Work Arrangements and NforS was not significant (B=.04, p= .61), as shown in table 4. However, there was a significant main effect of Need for Segmentation on SEWFC (B=-.28, p=.00).
Table 4
Results of moderation analyses for testing hypothesis 5
Predictor Mediator variable SEWFC
B SE t p R2 Model F Model p
Model Hypothesis 5
.14 5.36 .00
19 Flexible Work Arrangements .18 .09 1.84 .07
Need for Segmentation -.28 .09 -2.92 .00
Flexible Work Arrangements x Need for Segmentation
.04 .09 .51 .61
Hypothesis 5 predicted that NforS moderates the indirect relationship between FWA and WFC through SEWFC. As there was no significant moderation effect on the relationship
between FWA and SEWFC, it was impossible that a significant effect would be found for moderated mediation.
As table 5 shows, there was no moderated mediation effect of NforS on the indirect relationship between FWA and WFC through SEWFC as the confidence intervals of the
bootstrapping procedures were not significant at low (M -1 SD; indirect effect .09, 95% CI =-.26 to .02), middle (M; indirect effect =-.12, 95% CI = -.25 to .01) and high values (M +1 SD; indirect effect =-.15, 95% CI = -.38 to .05) of the moderator.
Table 5
Results of moderated mediation analysis for testing hypothesis 6
Predictor
Indirect relationship between WFC and WFC through SEWFC at low, middle and high values of Need for Segmentation
Conditional indirect effect SE 95%LCI 95%UCI
Hypothesis 6 Need for Segmentation Low (M - 1SD) -.09 .07 -.26 .02 Middle -.12 .06 -.25 .01 High (M + 1 SD) -.15 .11 -.38 .05 Discussion
20 between FWA and WFC. Also, need for segmentation was proposed to have a moderating
relationship on the relationship between FWA and SEWFC.
An initial objective of this research was to verify the relationship between FWA and WFC. The results of this study confirmed that FWA is negatively related to WFC.
The second question in this study sought to determine the relationship between flexible work arrangements and Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. The current study found that FWA has a positive relationship to SEWFC.
The third question in this research was whether self-efficacy of the management of work-family conflicts influences work-work-family conflicts. In the current study, SEWFC was found to relate negatively to WFC.
The most interesting finding was that this study found a significant mediation effect for Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts on the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-family conflicts. Being the first model in which SEWFC is used as a mediator, it can be said that this result extends our knowledge of the relationship between FWA and WFC.
The study did not find any evidence for the moderating variable Need for Segmentation. However, Need for Segmentation did have a main effect on SEWFC. These finding were unexpected and suggest that even though NforS is not a moderator, it still has a negative influence on Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts.
Next, the theoretical implications, potential limitations, suggestions for future research and practical implications will be discussed.
21 As mentioned in the literature review, the research on the benefits of Flexible Work
Arrangements is largely inconsistent up till now. There are many studies that find the benefits of FWA on WFC, but also plenty of studies that do not find this effect or find very weak effects (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001; Byron, 2005; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2006; Chen, Powell, and Greenhaus, 2008; Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013).
The findings in this thesis further support the idea that flexible work arrangements are beneficial in reducing work-family conflict. This finding is in agreement with Byron (2005), Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2006), Gajendran and Harrison (2007), Michel et. al (2010) and Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley (2013).
The majority of meta-analytical studies on WFC split up WFC in WIF and FIW (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Michel et. al, 2010 & Allen et. al, 2013). In contrast to earlier findings, however, no evidence for this split was detected as factor analysis showed that this scale should be combined into one. I consider this a theoretical implication that is important for the further simplification of the model by Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley (2013).
22 The second proposition of this thesis is that self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts has a negative relationship with work-work-family conflicts. This study confirms that SEWFC is negatively related to WFC. This suggests that self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts can help employees better manage their work-family conflicts. The present findings is consistent with other research such as the study of Netemeyer, Boles and McMurrian (1996).
This is the first study to investigate the mediating effect of SEWFC on the relationship of FWA and WFC. The mediation found in this thesis suggests that employees who have more freedom and control over their work-family balance, have increased self-efficacy in managing their work-family conflicts and as a result experience less work-family conflict. These results are consistent with those of other studies and suggest that SEWFC plays an important explanatory role in the relationship between FWA and WFC (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate, 2000). This finding is an important implication for the future development of a more complete model for the benefits of flexible work arrangements.
Contrary to expectations, this study did not find a significant moderator effect of need for segmentation on the relationship between FWA and SEWFC. Unfortunately, there was no evidence found for the proposition that need for segmentation inhibits the positive effect that FWA has on self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts.
It is interesting to note that even though there was no moderation or moderated mediation model to be found in this research, need for segmentation did have a significant main effect on self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts. It seems that need for segmentation negatively influences an employee’s self-efficacy to manage work-family conflicts.
23 Several limitations to this research need to be acknowledged. The first limitation of this research is the availability bias, as this survey was done at a single company. Also, a high percentage of employees were male (81%), which made the female sample rather small. Because this research focused on the work-family domain, both female and male respondents should have enough statistical power to achieve reliable results. With the small sample size of the research, the statistical power of the female sample was low. However, this does not mean that these results are not accurate, they just limit the generalizability of these results.
In this research there was no distinction to be made between work interference with family and family interference with work (WIF/FIW). One of the reasons may be the sample bias mentioned previously. Next to that, the scales for WIF/FIW were recently new (2013) and the sample of this study was entirely different than the sample for which it was originally developed. Feedback from the organization indicated that the questions were long, difficult to understand and often repetitive. Future research should focus on improving and simplifying the scale as to achieve better results in a wider population.
For the measurement of Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts, a scale was used that also utilized the division of WFC in WIF and FIW. The findings in this thesis show that there was no division in the measurement of WFC in WIF and FIW and that the scale should be combined to one scale. A possible explanation for this could be the sample. The scale was originally developed in Israel and so far only validated amongst students with an equal gender distribution. Even though the scale was unable to distinguish between SEWIF and SEFIW, it did reliably measure self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts.
24 explicitly clear about the context and nature of the study, it cannot be assured that none of the employees filled in their experiences at company that the employee is posted at rather than their own company. For example, several flexible work arrangements are available at the secondment agency, but those might not be available at the customer where the employee works. Future studies could research the influence that the HR-policies of customers have on the posted workers of the agency.
Future research on work-family conflict should include self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts as this was found to be an important mediating factor. A future study investigating the influence of other individual differences variables on the relationship between flexible work arrangements and family conflict would be very interesting.
More research is required to determine the role of need for segmentation in the workplace. Even though there was no evidence for the proposed moderation or mediated moderation model, need for segmentation was still found to have a negative effect on SEWFC. Future research could focus on the importance of integration and segmentation styles of
employees for different individual variables such as employee satisfaction or stress. Practical implications
The findings of this study have a number of practical implications. First, this study adds to the growing evidence that flexible work arrangements are beneficial in reducing work-family conflicts.
25 Companies should help their employees manage their work-family roles and offer
training for employees who feel like they are not able to manage their different roles. Employees can be taught that there are different types of interference and trained in managing these
frictions.
A final point that can be drawn from this research is the importance of the fit between the organisation and the employee. It might be beneficial for companies to consider the segmentation or integration preference of a job candidate so that it fits with the organisation.
26 References
Albion, M. J. (2004). A Measure of Attitudes Towards Flexible Work Options. Australian Journal of Management, 275-294.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Personnel psychology, 345-376.
Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 207-242.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transition. Academy of Management Review, 472-491.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Chicago: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51-57.
Boston College Center for Work and Family. (2000). Measuring the impact of workplace flexiblity. Boston: Boston COllege.
Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work. Lexington Books. Bulger, C. A., Hoffman, M. E., & Matthews, R. A. (2007). Work and Personal Life Boundary
Management: Boundary Strength, Work/Personal Life Balance, and the Segmentation– Integration Continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 365-375.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 169-198.
27 Cinamon, R. G. (2006). Anticipated Work-Family Conflict: Effects of Gender, Self-efficacy, and
Family Background. The Career Development Quarterly, 202-215.
Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: implications for work-family conflict. Sex Roles, 531- 541.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 580-590.
Erdwins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O'Brien, A. S. (2001). The relationship of women's role strain to social support, role satisfaction and Self-efficacy. Family Relations, 230-238.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model; a review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 287-322.
Frone, M. R., Russel, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of applied psychology, 65-78.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26-30.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the uknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and indivual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1524-1541.
Gianikkis, S. K., & Mihail, D. M. (2011). Flexible work arrangements in Greece: a study of employee perceptions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 417-432.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implcations for organizational Behaviour and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 472-485.
28 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hill, J. E., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an Extra Day a Week: The Positive Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance. Family Relations, 49-58.
Kossek, E. E., & Friede, A. (2006). The business case: Managerial perspectives on work and the family. In E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweets, The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E., & Winters, D. (1999). Using Flexible Schedules in the Managerial World: The Power of Peers. Human Resource Management, 33-46.
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, 347-367.
Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. J. (1999). Work-family role synthesis: individual and organizational determinants. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 102-129.
Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work–home segmentation or integration: A person– environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 485-507.
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, 452–474.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How Family-Friendly Work Environments Affect Work/Family Conflict: A Meta-Analytic Examination . Journal of Labour research, 555-574.
29 Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and Validation of
Work-Family Conflict and Work-Family-Work Conflict Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 400-410.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2011). Een verkenning van macro economische effecten van het nieuwe werken. Retrieved from www.hetnieuwewerkendoejezelf.nl:
http://www.hetnieuwewerkendoejezelf.nl/media/48867/rapport_economische_baten_hnw .pdf
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, M. B. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 413-440.
Rau, B. H., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 111-136.
Rothbard, N. P., Philips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing Multiple Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals' Desires for Segmentation. Organization Science, 243-258. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability
of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 479-493.
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2009). Investigating the missing link in flexible work arrangement utilization: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 131-142.
Sivatte, I. d., & Guadamillas, F. (2013). Antecedents and outcomes of implementing flexibility policies in organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1327-1345.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 1442-1465. Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
30 The Creative Group. (2014, January 22). Remote working on the rise. Retrieved from
Mediaroom.com: http://creativegroup.mediaroom.com/remote-working
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of Family-Supportive Work Variables on Work-Family Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6-15. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Towards a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 271-360.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An Examination of the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relations Between the Job, Interpersonal
31 Appendix 1
Factor analysis
Total Variance Explained: Flexible Work Arrangements
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.37 84.43 84.43 3.38 84.43 84.43
2 .29 7.29 91.72
3 .21 5.14 96.86
4 .13 3.14 100.00
Total Variance Explained: Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 4.93 61.58 61.58 4.93 61.58 61.58 2 .99 12.31 73.89 3 .58 7.23 81.12 4 .54 6.72 87.85 5 .34 4.18 92.03 6 .32 4.01 96.03 7 .18 2.25 98.28 8 .14 1.71 100.00
Total Variance Explained: Work-family conflict
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 6.39 37.59 37.59 6.39 37.59 37.59 3.27 19.29 19.29 2 2.30 13.54 51.13 2.30 13.54 51.13 2.75 16.19 35.48 3 1.84 10.85 61.98 1.84 10.85 61.99 2.68 15.78 51.26 4 1.36 8.01 69.99 1.36 8.01 69.99 2.29 13.51 64.78 5 1.02 5.97 75.96 1.02 5.97 75.96 1.90 11.19 75.96
Rotated Component Matrix for Work-family conflict
Component
32 timewif2 .14 .81 .31 .17 timewif3 .14 .89 .16 .15 timefiw1 .17 .83 .15 .26 .16 timefiw2 .36 .44 -.20 .56 timefiw3 .12 .38 .79 strainwif1 .10 .12 .28 -.10 .85 strainwif3 .22 .37 .16 .81 strainfiw1 .26 .14 .19 .72 strainfiw2 .11 .89 .19 strainwif2 .84 .29 .17 strainfiw3 .17 .41 .26 .71 behaviorwif1 .24 .22 .81 .19 behaviorwif2 .69 .15 .18 behaviorwif3 .82 .19 .17 behaviorfiw1 .71 .18 .22 .18 -.23 behaviorfiw2 .83 .11 behaviorfiw3 .79 .15 .16 .13 Appendix 2
Items in measurement scales after reliability analysis
Flexible Work Usage
I have the freedom to vary my work schedule.
I have the freedom to work wherever is best for me - either at home or at work.
I can change the times that I begin and end my workday to fit my personal preferences and needs.
I can change the location of where I conduct my work to fit my personal preferences and needs.
Need for Segmentation
33 I don’t like work issues creeping into my home life
I like to be able to leave work behind when I go home
Self-efficacy for the management of work-family conflicts
Attend to your family obligations without it affecting your ability to complete pressing tasks at work.
Removed
Fulfill all your work responsibilities despite going through a trying and demanding period in your family life.
Fulfill your family role effectively after a long and demanding day at work. Invest in your job even when under heavy pressure due to family responsibilities. Succeed in your family role although there are many difficulties in your work. Succeed in your role at work although there are many difficulties in your family. Invest in your family role even when under heavy pressure due to work responsibilities. Focus and invest in work tasks even though family issues are disruptive
Work-family Conflict
My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like. Removed The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in household
responsibilities and activities.
I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work responsibilities.
The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities. The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at work that could be helpful to my career.
Removed
34 responsibilities.
When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/ responsibilities.
Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy.
Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work.
Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time concentrating on my work.
I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family.
Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job.
The problem-solving behaviours I use in my job are not effective in resolving problems at home.
Removed
Behaviour that is effective and necessary for me at work would be counterproductive at home.
The behaviours I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a better parent and partner.
The behaviours that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work.
Behaviour that is effective and necessary for me at home would be counterproductive at work.
The problem-solving behaviour that work for me at home does not seem to be as useful at work.
Control variables
35 What year were you born?
