Human Resource Management Assignment 2

matador

Week4Chapter4_WATERINGTHEORGANIZATIONALLANDSCAPE.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Human Resource Management Assignment 2

CHAPTER 4

WATERING THE ORGANIZATIONAL LANDSCAPE

Meeting Employee Needs through HRM Flexibility

Alexandra E. MacDougall, Zhanna Bagdasarov, and M. Ronald Buckley

Change has always been with us, but it seems that the pace of change is accelerating.

—Yehuda Baruch (2004, p. 58)

Today’s human resource professionals are tasked with meeting the needs of an increasingly complex and diverse workforce. Socio-demographic changes such as an aging workforce (Morris & Venkatesh, 2000), increased ethnocultural diversity (Ng & Johnson, 2015), more women in the workforce, and an increasing num- ber of dual-career households (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999) require that companies remain ahead of legislative mandates with HR-initiated diversity and inclusion programs (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Growing expecta- tions and felt pressure for work-life balance (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013), moreover, suggests that to remain competitive, firms need to be responsive to workforce needs (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). Rapid technological

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 . I n f o r m a t i o n A g e P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Comprehensive Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS AN: 2006258 ; Ronald R. Sims.; Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: 'Now and Around the Corner' Account: s4264928.main.eds

82 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

advancements have led to a greater reliance on technology in business while dras- tically shifting the organizational landscape and the conditions in which work is completed (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001).

These observations indicate Baruch’s (2004) above commentary on change resonates across societal, demographic, and technological realms, especially as they relate to business. Such external factors have drastically changed the world of work (Burke & Ng, 2006), with careers becoming more open, multidirectional, and individualistic, while losing stability, structure, and employer control (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Baruch, 2004, 2006). Accompanying this transition is a shift in employee expectations and preferences (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010) that calls for rethinking the psychological contract as well as the effective man- agement of people at work (Lyons, Schweitzer, & Ng, 2015).

The current effort is intended to shed light on the changing organizational landscape and the corresponding implications for contemporary human resource management. Specifically, we begin with a brief description of how socio-de- mographic and technological changes are influencing employee expectations. In light of this discussion, and in line with the new career model (e.g., Lyons et al., 2015), we will make the case for flexible work arrangements that grant employees agency in deciding how, when, and where their work tasks are completed. Finally, we will provide a detailed review of four key types of flexible work arrangements that may be capitalized on by human resource professionals.

THE CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL LANDSCAPE

Socio-Demographic Changes

Over two decades ago, Jackson and Schuler (1995) highlighted the evolution in the U.S. labor market towards greater diversity, a trend we have continued to witness well into the 21st century. Workplace diversity “acknowledges the reality that people differ in many ways, visible or invisible” (Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, & Monga, 2009, p. 235). Although human resource managers have historically at- tended to more visible, conventional forms of diversity such as age, gender, and ethnicity, new concerns have emerged regarding other hidden forms of diversity including disability, sexual orientation, religion, individual differences, and cul- tural background, among others (Baruch, 2004; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Kossek, Lobel, & Brown, 2006; Shen, et al. 2009).

The changing demographic composition of the workforce calls for human re- source departments to proactively manage diversity and inclusion so as to em- power all members in their respective workplaces (Kossek et al., 2006). Likewise, given that a diverse workforce is necessarily comprised of individuals with varied values and beliefs, frames of references, experiences, and information (Shen et al., 2009), human resource professionals should be cognizant of the potentially distinct experiences and expectations of all employees. The following discussion breaks out some of these patterns for age, gender, and ethnicity.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 83

Today’s workforce is comprised of younger representatives from the Silent Generation (born 1925–1945) along with the Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1979), Generation Y or Millennials (born 1980–1994), and older members of Generation Z (born 1995–2012) (Ng & Parry, 2016). This multigenerational composition of the workforce, moreover, means employees in certain industries may be working with others who are nearly fifty years their se- nior or junior (McDonald, 2006). Accordingly, understanding how and if genera- tions differ with respect to work values, attitudes, and expectations could prove immensely useful in initiating HRM policy change (Ng & Parry, 2016). For ex- ample, members of the Silent Generation tend to place emphasis on intrinsic val- ues such as prestige, autonomy, and work centrality, whereas younger generations tend to appreciate extrinsic and social values such as working conditions, com- pensation, and their network of coworkers (Ng & Parry, 2016).

As compared to the Baby Boomers, members of Generation X value work- life balance, autonomy, and independence over organizational loyalty (Festing & Schafer, 2014). Known for their “work hard, play hard” mentality (Doverspike et al., 2000), Generation Xers are most attracted to firms that value personal and leisure time. Although Millennials share Generation X’s values regarding leisure time and work-life balance, Millennials value extrinsic, materialistic rewards to a greater extent (Ng & Johnson, 2015; Ng & Parry, 2016; Smola & Sutton, 2002). Moreover, in the wake of increasing protean and boundaryless careers, Millenni- als are concerned with corporate social responsibility, continuous learning oppor- tunities, and opportunities for mobility (Festing & Schafer, 2014). To summarize, younger generations, including Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z, tend to be more indi- vidualistic than are their older counterparts (Festing & Schafer, 2014). They value leisure time to a greater extent than did past generations (Lyons & Kuron, 2014), and tend to be technologically savvy having grown up with various technologies readily available to them.

Beyond generational values, it is also important to note the impending change to the organizational landscape as the roughly 77 million workers to be aged 65 or older by 2040 near retirement (Johnson, 2004). As noted by Beinhocker, Far- rell, and Greenberg (2008), “the twilight of the U.S. baby boom generation is ap- proaching, and with it deep, structural economic shifts whose impact will be felt for decades to come” (p. 1). This comes as little surprise, given that the youngest members of the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers are now 73 and 54, respec- tively. Yet, many individuals from these older generations would actually like to continue working, and in doing so, would face a number of barriers related to health care, labor law, retirement regulations, as well as negative perceptions regarding older workers (Beinhocker et al., 2008; Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). In searching for best HR practices, then, practitioners must be cognizant of employee values and attitudes as well as potential constraints on the employment context.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

84 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

Another change to the organizational landscape is the rising percentage of women in all sectors of the U.S. workforce (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014; Harel, Tzafrir, & Baruch, 2003). In fact, there is an apparent “cracking” (albeit not break- ing) of the glass ceiling (Baruch, 2006), which is beneficial to organizations for a number of reasons. Perhaps most notably, the integration of women into manage- rial positions not only signals fairness in selection and promotion processes, but also high-quality HRM practices and overall organizational effectiveness (Harel et al., 2003). Nevertheless, women and minorities remain underutilized in many roles, and particularly in management.

Beyond these initial strides for women in the workplace, we are also witness- ing more dual-career couples and working parents, whether married or not, with young children (Allen, 2001; Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). According to the Em- ployment Characteristics of Family Survey, the 2017 labor participation rate of mothers with children under 18 years (71.1%) increased ever so slightly from 2013 (70.5%). A similar trend was found for mothers with children under 6 years, with the 2017 estimate at 65.5% compared to the 2013 estimate of 64.8% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). Dual-career couples and working parents, both male and female, certainly have a balancing act between work, home, and familial responsibilities (Allen, 2001). Although not discussed here in depth, this is also true for those caring for their aging or sick elders (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014).

A final note with respect to socio-demographic changes is increasingly diverse nature of the workforce, both in terms of surface (demographic) and deep (at- titudinal) factors (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). As noted by Harrison and col- leagues (1998), roughly 80% of entrants into the U.S. workforce today are women or ethnic minorities. There is not a “one size fits all” approach to managing di- versity, and there is not a place for “monoculturalism” in the workplace (Lynch, 2017). Rather, human resource professionals should take care to identify the dif- fering needs of varying employees, taking care to revisit and modify standards set by past generations in a predominantly white, male workforce. The future is promising in this regard, as Millennials tend to hold more egalitarian attitudes towards women and minority groups and are more likely to have been exposed to racial and cultural diversity from a young age (Ng & Johnson, 2015)

Technological Advancements

Organizations have rapidly gained access to highly sophisticated informa- tion technology with major implications for work design and job definition more broadly (Fenner & Renn, 2004; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). As summarized by Guest (2004), “advances in technology are primarily responsible for an apparent speeding up of the world of work; and speed and flexibility of response is an im- portant basis for competitive advantage (p. 543). Staying up to date with technol- ogy will only become more important for companies, as technological progress may very well restructure the labor market as we know it (Baruch, 2004).

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 85

Technological developments such as increased affordability, computer por- tability, and Internet availability made work readily available to employees in and out of the office (Parker et al., 2001). In this way, technology is blurring the boundaries of a “normal” work day, increasing the ease with which employees can extend their working hours outside their traditional workspace (Fenner & Renn, 2004). Technology has further changed the way in which work is orga- nized and communicated. Large quantities of data are easily shareable across the globe in a nearly instantaneous fashion (Burke & Ng, 2006; Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014), contributing largely to the recent push for added flexibility through uncon- ventional work arrangements.

Challenges for Contemporary Human Resource Management

Given the diverse organizational landscape in contemporary workplaces, it is clear that companies benefit from the effective management of diversity (Ba- ruch, 2006). This notwithstanding, there are several corresponding challenges for human resource professionals including (1) a perceived mismatch in employee needs and workplace policies, (2) reluctance of technology innovations, and (3) pressure for enhanced work-life balance and workplace flexibility. Below, we pro- vide a brief overview of each potential challenge and offer suggestions as to how those challenges may be addressed within human resources.

HR Challenge 1: Aligning Employee Needs and Workplace Policies. Em- ployees may express concern about a mismatch between their needs and prefer- ences with workplace policy. This is a valid concern, as Johnson (2004) reports that both workplace policies and employment structures have remained largely unchanged over time. In this regard, there appears to be a “structural lag” due in part to the multigenerational makeup of today’s workforce, such that old poli- cies remain intact despite becoming outdated and/or growing obsolete with time (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). To address this challenge, human re- source professionals are encouraged to revisit existing psychological contracts with respective organizational members. A psychological contract is defined as a set of “individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an ex- change agreement between individuals and their organizations” (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). As noted previously, employees are increasingly balancing multiple roles and commitments (Baruch, 2004; Halpern, 2005). Accordingly, granting employ- ees voice and agency in discussing psychological contract terms, albeit informal, would signal that human resources is a true partner and alliance. HR professionals could further strengthen this partnership by offering support to employees and consulting them, rather than telling them, about impending policy changes (Ba- ruch, 2003, 2004).

HR Challenge 2: Encouraging Technological Advancements and Use. Companies often face backlash from employees when undergoing change, which means that evolving technologies may be met with recoil. Although technology has clear advantages from an organizational perspective by way of attracting and

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

86 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

retaining younger employees (McDonald, 2006), older workers in particular may be wary of technological advancements out of a concern for becoming obsolete (e.g., Noe, 2017). Interestingly, evidence indicates that the extent to which one responds positively or negatively toward adopting a new form of technology is the extent to which he or she views the technology as useful or instrumental to successful job performance (Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). Accordingly, HR profes- sionals are advised to offer regular training and development programs to ensure all employees remain relevant and up to date on available technologies and to communicate the respective utility of newly introduced forms of technology.

HR Challenge 3: Adopting Work-Life Initiatives and Workplace Flexibil- ity. Younger generations are increasingly identifying work-life balance as a key contributor to their job satisfaction (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). The Society for Hu- man Resource Management’s 2016 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement Survey, for example, indicated that more than half (53%) of respondents indicated that work-life balance was “Very Important” to their job satisfaction. Perhaps more notable, however, is that work-life balance was reported as equally impor- tant to base pay in determining job satisfaction (SHRM, 2016). Working parents, in particular, tend to express work-life and work-family tensions stemming from demanding jobs and blurred boundaries between work and home (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). Older workers comprise another group expressing concern re- garding rigid work schedules (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008). For exam- ple, the Taskforce on the Aging of the American Workforce (2008) indicated that workplace flexibility, or the lack thereof, is a main reason for retirement among older workers. Likewise, the Taskforce described a lack of flexible working ar- rangements as a barrier to employment for older workers wishing to remain in the workforce.

As with HR Challenge 1, we advise HR professionals to give up control, to the extent possible, through implementation of family friendly policies and in- creased workplace flexibility. Employees are regularly experiencing escalating commitments to multiple, distinct roles resulting in growing expectations and felt pressure for work-life balance (Allen, et al., 2013; Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). Such initiatives would further serve to keep older generations involved in the workforce. In fact, evidence suggests that many Baby Boomers would remain in the workforce if flexible or alternate work arrangements were made available (Beinhocker et al., 2008). This is not surprising, as Kossek (2006) indicated work- family tensions have continued to rise for all demographic groups and occupations across the nation. Taken together, it would behoove human resource departments to empower and invest in their workers through the adoption of family-friendly policies made possible through increased flexibility and alternative work arrange- ments (Baruch, 2004).

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 87

MAKING THE CASE FOR HUMAN RESOURCE FLEXIBILITY

Workplace flexibility is broadly defined as “the ability of workers to make choices influencing when, where, and for how long they engage in work-related tasks” (Hill et al., 2008, p. 152). Central to this definition is that flexibility provides an opportunity for employees to exercise agency (Seeck & Parzefall, 2008). Employ- ees are granted the freedom to determine how best to arrange their core work re- sponsibilities so long as they attend to the broader organizational context, culture, and structure in doing so (Hill et al., 2008). In this way, human resource flexibility can reframe the employment relationship as a true partnership as opposed to top- down policies based on control and command (Baruch, 2004). According to the Society for Human Resource Management (2014), this partnership contributes to a mutually beneficial agreement between employees and employers regarding the manner in which the work will be completed, and how it will meet organizational needs.

The growing preference for flexibility among employees is a trend witnessed across geographical location and business sector (Baruch, 2006; Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). Indeed, workplace flexibility is typically framed as an employee benefit. Yet, organizations have much to gain from using flexibility as a management tool as well (SHRM, 2014, 2016). Flexible work arrangements have been met with a great deal of success at multiple levels. The following discussion makes the case for the broad classification of flexible work arrangements by high- lighting benefits to employees, organizations, and local communities.

Individual Benefits

One of the primary areas in which flexible work arrangements have been shown to benefit employees is through reduced work-family conflict (Masuda et al., 2011; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010). Work-family conflict occurs when role demands at work interfere with one’s role demands at home, or vice versa (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This is not surprising, as workplace flexibility has been specifically touted as a method to help employees manage their work and family roles (Allen et al., 2013; Hill et al., 2010). Because employees may adjust job features to meet personal needs and goals (Putnam, Myers, & Gailliard, 2014), flexible work arrangements en- able workers to better “juggle” their work and life commitments (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). Beyond work-life enrichment, workplace flexibility has also been linked to enhanced personal vitality (Hill et al., 2008), improved health and well-being (SHRM, 2014), higher life satisfaction, and fewer mental health problems (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008).

In the work domain, flexible work practices have been shown to bolster job sat- isfaction, employee engagement, and commitment (e.g., Bal & De Lange, 2015; Golden, 2006; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Masuda et al., 2011; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010), while reducing job stress (Halpern, 2005). In fact, according

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

88 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

to the Society for Human Resource Management’s 2016 Job Satisfaction Report, 53 percent of employees rate the flexibility to balance home and work responsi- bilities as a key aspect of their job satisfaction, a seven percent increase from the 2010 survey (SHRM, 2010, 2016). Moreover, although there are mixed views, prior research has indicated that flexible work practices may lead to “career pre- miums,” or greater success in terms of salary and job level (Gariety & Shaffer, 2001; Weeden, 2005), particularly for employees who are viewed as committed and productive by their direct supervisors (Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012). Taken together, employees have much to gain from flexible work options.

Organizational Benefits

From an organizational perspective, flexible work arrangements can provide a strong competitive advantage and support towards strategic business objectives (Allen, 2001; SHRM, 2014). For example, advertising a firm’s workplace flex- ibility may help human resource departments attract and retain top talent (Beau- regard & Henry, 2009; Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002). Scholars have pointed to the utility of flexibility in reducing absenteeism and turnover (Golden, 2006; Masuda et al., 2011; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010), and have highlighted the cor- responding cost savings (SHRM, 2014). Flexible work has been further linked to improvements in productivity, performance, profits, and customer service (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Cascio, 2000; Hill et al., 2008). Draw- ing from social exchange theory, Kelliher and Anderson (2010) highlighted that flexible arrangements may result in work intensification due to the perception that employees should trade flexibility for effort.

In addition to these beneficial outcomes, flexible work options should further promote employee extra-role behavior. Flexible HR practices communicates to employees that their organization cares and wants to invest in them, constructs that have long been known to predict organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Organ & Ryan, 1995). Similarly, as noted by Jiang, Lepak, Hu, and Baer (2012), increased flexibility may trigger employees’ intrinsic motivation, which in turn should lead such employees to seek out challenges. The increased flexibility af- forded by FWA may accommodate such endeavors, allowing for added creativity in when and how employees engage in extra-role behavior.

Community Benefits

Beyond advantages of flexible work practices on employees and employers, local communities may benefit as well. For example, given that flexibility affords employees greater work-life balance (e.g., McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010), employees may find themselves engaging more freely in volunteer initiatives with the community. Likewise, time spent with family and friends may in turn enrich the local community through increased visibility at local schools and events (e.g., SHRM, 2014). Moreover, when employees are able to cut back on their driving

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 89

due to flexible work arrangements such as telework or compressed workweeks, they are helping to reduce commuting mileage and corresponding carbon dioxide emissions (Cascio, 2000), supporting a more sustainable environment.

Summary

Workplace flexibility is gaining traction as a human resource strategy due to its mutually beneficial outcomes for employees and employers, alike (Allen et al., 2013). Management scholars have referred to flexibility as “a necessity in the con- temporary workplace” (Halpern, 2004, as cited by Hill et al., 2008), forecasting its impending adoption across organizations. Employers will soon be evaluated on whether or how they implement flexible work practices, and these evaluations will signal the extent to which companies are aware of and responsive to work- force needs (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). Yet, many U.S. companies have been slow to move towards greater flexibility, due in part to a general lack of awareness or availability of established policies to easily incorporate across industry (SHRM, 2014). Accordingly, we turn next to a more detailed discussion of specific types of flexible work arrangements.

AN OVERVIEW OF PROMINENT FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS

Flexible work covers a range of “working patterns,” or options for employees seeking nontraditional means for work completion (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). As there are multiple dimensions to workplace flexibility (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008), the following section provides an introduction to four specific arrangements including (1) flextime, (2) compressed workweek, (3) telecommut- ing, and (4) job sharing. Each flexible work arrangement is first defined and then discussed with respect to corresponding benefits for employees and organizations, respectively, and may be referenced human resource professionals wishing to pro- vide employees with enhanced flexibility.

Flextime

Flextime (Flexible Working Hours) Defined. “With a flextime work arrange- ment, employees may choose the starting and ending time of their workday as long as they work the appropriate number of hours per day or week” (Lepak & Gowan, 2016, p. 127). Although employees are given considerable leeway in scheduling their work, generally, flextime scheduling is built around special core hours, such as 11 A.M. to 2 P.M., during which employees are required to be present (Dessler, 2015; Snell, Morris, & Bohlander, 2016). Therefore, with these particular core hours, workers may choose to work from 7 A.M. until 3 P.M., or from 11 A.M. until 7 P.M., all the while ensuring that they are in attendance dur- ing the specified core hours. It is important to understand that flextime work ar-

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

90 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

rangements do not shorten work time but simply rearrange them to accommodate workers’ needs (Hochschild, 1997).

Benefits of Flextime. Allowing for alternative work scheduling by means of flextime arrangement has been touted by organizations to be beneficial to both employees and employers alike. At the individual level, flextime allows employ- ees to accommodate their specific lifestyles, resulting in decreased work-family conflict (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work- family conflict has been consistently associated with various destructive personal and professional outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), marital satisfaction, family satisfaction, as well as a slew of stress-related outcomes (e.g., Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Thus, managing this inter-role conflict should be of paramount importance for organizations in order to maintain a healthy and productive workforce.

In addition to improved work-family balance, deviations from commuting dur- ing peak hours due to some latitude in departure times not only mitigates heavy traffic congestion caused by employees forced to adhere to fixed work schedules (Mun & Yonekawa, 2006), but also allows employees to spend less time on the road. Moreover, work by Lucas and Heady (2002) has indicated that commuters on flextime schedules reported less driver stress and decreased feelings of time pressure compared to workers with fixed work hours. Consequently, improved commuting and decreased driver stress are yet additional individual-level advan- tages of flextime cited by employees in extant literature (Ralston, 1989).

Finally, flextime arrangements have also been associated with various im- provements in employee attitudes (Hicks & Klimoski, 1981). A number of studies to date have investigated the relationship between flextime and job satisfaction. Majority of this work corroborates the notion that flextime scheduling leads to increased job satisfaction for employees. In fact, Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) conducted a meta-analysis examining this specific relation- ship and concluded that, in general, flexible work hours had a positive impact on job satisfaction. Following this meta-analysis, others have confirmed the positive association between these two variables across diverse samples and settings (e.g., Allen, 2001; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010). More recently, a quantitative review of 43 studies and 22,882 employees revealed that flexible work arrange- ments—among them flextime—were positively associated with job satisfaction and psychological health (Kröll, Doebler, & Nüesch, 2017).

At the organizational level, granting employees flextime has been associated with a reduction in tardiness and general absenteeism (Zeidner, 2008). Early lon- gitudinal work by Ralston and Flanagan (1985) compared female and male em- ployees on and off flextime, postulating a decrease in absenteeism and turnover for employees with flextime arrangements. Although no significant differences were found for turnover, significant decreases in absenteeism were found for both female and male worker on flextime. The authors concluded that flextime reduced

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 91

employees’ need for absenteeism and thus ultimately positively contributed to work-life balance, as well. Similarly, Rainer and Wolf (1981) conducted an ex- periment at the U.S. Social Security Administration and found that along with generally favorable appraisals of flextime by employees, they saw a significant decline in tardiness. On top of these organizationally-relevant benefits, many em- ployers name flextime as a strong recruitment and retention tool (Snell et al., 2016). Mitchell, Brooks, Holtom, and Lee (2001), for instance, argue that allow- ing employees to craft their own work hours by deciding when to start and quit each day, can aid in creating a solid fit between employees and their off-the-job environments, permitting employees to maintain their recreational and interper- sonal lives. Flextime has even been hyped as an important retention tool in non- profit organizations—often discussed in terms of a coveted nonfinancial benefit (Ban, Drahnak-Faller, & Towers, 2003).

Finally, and perhaps of greatest significance to most organizations, flextime has been linked to improved productivity and overall performance. For one, pro- ductivity can improve simply because employees can arrange to work during hours they believe to be their most alert and productive (Snell et al., 2016). Oth- ers have found that, consistent with tenets of Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics theory, flextime contributes to employees’ job autonomy, result- ing in increased job performance. For example, Eaton (2003) demonstrated the positive association between workplace flexibility policies, among them flextime, with self-reported productivity. On a larger scale, in their quantitative review of flexible work arrangements literature, Baltes et al. (1999) upheld that flextime had a positive effect on employee productivity.

Compressed Workweek

Compressed Workweek Defined. In this particular work arrangement, the number of days in the workweek is reduced (compressed) as a result of increasing the number of hours worked per day (Snell et al., 2016). Specifically, employees may choose to work only four days (Monday–Thursday), but be required to put in 10 hours a day in order to maintain their 40-hour workweek. This particular arrangement is commonly referred to as 4/10 or 4/40. Other variations of the compressed workweek exist. A much less common variant consists of working a 12-hour shift (Venne, 1997), while others may involve working 80 hours spread over nine days (9/80), allowing for a day off every other week (Snell et al., 2016).

Benefits of compressed workweek. At the individual level, one of the most obvious benefits of the compressed workweek arrangement is the acquisition of one business day a week away from work. Having a day off during a workweek allows employees to schedule and attend to personal business—medical, dental, financial—as well as accommodate recreational activities and time with family and friends (Pierce & Dunham, 1992; Ronen & Primps). Akin to the benefits of flextime, compressed workweek schedules have also been touted as useful trans- portation demand management (TDM) strategies. Ho and Steward (1992), for ex-

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

92 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

ample, examined travel logs completed by employees before and after implemen- tation of the 4/40 compressed workweek arrangement in a busy metropolitan city and found a significant reduction in the average number of vehicle miles traveled over the course of a week, leading to an inevitable reduced carbon footprint. Ad- ditional individual-level benefits include improvements in employee job satisfac- tion, morale, and satisfaction with work schedules (Baltes et al., 1999; Breaugh & Frye, 2007). Even an early review of literature on behavioral and attitudinal consequences of compressed workweeks indicated improvements in employees’ satisfaction with their jobs (Ronen & Primps, 1981).

When it comes to organizationally-relevant outcomes, most managers cite im- provements in recruitment and retention of employees (Gurchiek, 2006), although surprisingly, no reduction in absenteeism was observed in a review of flexible work arrangements literature (Baltes et al., 1999). With respect to performance, summaries of research on compressed workweeks have revealed mixed results (Baltes & Sirabian, 2017). Although several studies have indicated an improve- ment in performance and productivity following the implementation of a com- pressed workweek schedule (Ronen & Primps, 1981), meta-analytic evidence on this relationship is more ambiguous. Specifically, the review of literature showed that compressed workweeks improved supervisory ratings of performance, yet had no positive effects on objective measures of productivity. Of studies that in- dicate a decrease in productivity, fatigue acquired due to long work shifts is as- sumed to be the culprit for the negative relationship (Baltes & Sirabian, 2017).

Telecommuting

Telecommuting Defined. According to Gajendran and Harrison (2007) “Tele- commuting is an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks elsewhere that are normally done in a primary or central workplace, for at least some portion of their work schedule, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organization” (p. 1525). Although telecommuters commonly work from home, there are other variations of this arrangement to note. Some telecommuters may be found working from satellite offices—located outside the home and the organization—while other telecommuters may work from neighborhood offices—occupied by employees from various organizations (Blanchard, 2017). Yet another variation of this involves working entirely on the go, the so-called mobile workers—conducting business from planes, vehicles, and hotel rooms. All four types of telecommuters are still considered to be performing distributed work, or work being done away from the organization’s physical loca- tion (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), so all four are types of telecommuters. This widespread practice is just one outcome of drastic advancement in technology and its impact on how today’s organizations conduct business.

Benefits of Telecommuting. As with other flexible work arrangements, tele- commuting bears both individual- and organizational-level benefits. At the in- dividual level, telecommuting promotes a better work-life balance (Snell et al.,

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 93

2016). This positive effect is facilitated mainly by the improved flexibility for em- ployees, leading to reduced work-family conflict (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden, Veiga, & Simsek, 2006). Additional advantages include increased job sat- isfaction, lower turnover intent, and reduced role stress (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Some work on these relationships indicates that job satisfaction associated with telecommuting was due to fewer interruptions and less time spent on office politics (Snell et al., 2016). Beyond these, employees also find the reduction in stress due to minimal commuting and control over one’s work environment to be added benefits (Piskurich, 1996).

Organizationally, meta-analytic evidence regarding the link between job per- formance and telecommuting indicates that this work arrangement is associated with higher supervisory ratings or archival records of performance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Interestingly, no relationship between telecommuting and self-rated performance was observed. Additional work in this domain suggests that telecommuting also reduces absenteeism, overtime, and sick time on the part of the employee (Piskurich, 1996). Resembling flextime and compressed work- weeks, telecommuting helps attract and retain valued employees—serving as a vital recruitment and retention tool for companies (Piskurich, 1996). Telecom- muting has also been found to impact the physical space of the organization, with managers and HR professionals citing reduced office space (Snell et al., 2016) and maximization of office space (Piskurich, 1996) as two important advantages for the company. Cascio (2000) highlights the potential cost savings associated with reduced office space and corresponding real-estate expenses, and notes additional opportunities for cost savings as a result of decreased travel and lodging needs

Job Sharing

Job sharing defined. Job sharing refers to an arrangement whereby one full- time job is performed by two part-time employees (Olmsted, 1979). The success of this particular type of flexible work arrangement depends highly on consistent and effective interaction and collaboration between the two part-time employees in order to get the work done (Thomas, Spitzmueller, & Sady, 2017). Job sharers must work as a team and pick up where the other leaves off mainly because both employees are responsible for the same job (Thakur, Bansal, & Maini, 2018). According to Snell et al. (2016), job sharers commonly work three days a week, overlapping one day in order to facilitate effective communication. Given this scheduling, job sharers are paid three-fifth of a normal, full-time salary.

Benefits of Job Sharing. Although literature on job sharing discusses fewer overall advantages than that of flextime, compressed workweeks, and telecom- muting, the benefits are nonetheless there and are not trivial. Most of those who opt for this arrangement do so because they either do not want to work full-time (as in the case of older workers wishing to phase into retirement) or they can- not work full-time (as in the case of parents of young children needing to work part-time in order to be mindful of their family responsibilities). Thus, one of

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

94 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

the biggest pros to job sharing is the achievement of a better work-life balance (Stables & Watton, 2017). Employees engaged in job sharing often cite the ability to balance work and family demands, raise children, conduct personal business, advance their education, and attend to other interests and goals as the main ben- efits of this work arrangement (Thomas et al., 2017).

Managers, on the other hand, tout having a second trained employee who can always fill in for the first if one is on vacation or out sick (Thomas et al., 2017), minimizing the inevitable disruption to productivity associated with illness and vacation. Employers also relish job sharing because they can schedule the part- time employees to work during peak hours of workload, maximizing productivity (Snell et al., 2016). And, if hard times arise, employers can institute job sharing in order to keep both workers employed, reducing the need for layoffs (Snell et al., 2016).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is our hope that the current effort helps reframe the way businesses think about flexible work options. Rather than viewing flexible work as solely an employee or employer benefit, organizations should highlight the utility of flexible work practices as both a management tool (via enhanced efficiency and productivity) and a means to meet employee interests (via work-life enrichment) (Reilly, 1998; SHRM, 2014). Through this lens, workplace flexibility is best viewed as a mutu- ally beneficial employment arrangement.

The current effort delved into workplace flexibility through discussion of four flexible work arrangements including (1) flextime, (2) compressed workweek, (3) telecommuting, and (4) job sharing. Although important in and of themselves, these arrangements only constitute part of what it means to enact a flexible work- place. For example, Pitt-Catsouphes and Matz-Costa (2008) deconstructed the flexibility construct into multiple key dimensions including formal versus infor- mal policies, attitudes and values characterizing the broader organizational cli- mate and culture, work design and employment structure, and interpersonal in- teractions. Kossek, Lewis, and Hammer (2010) condensed these dimensions into two factors. According to the authors, structural components entail the actual flex- ible job design and corresponding HR policies, whereas cultural components are comprised of supportive supervisors and climates. Inherent in both of the above conceptualizations of workplace flexibility is the need for social support in addi- tion to structural changes, and we certainly echo this sentiment.

Before concluding, several practical implications of this chapter are worth not- ing. First, managers seeking to integrate flexible work arrangements should first decide whether they will do so in a standardized or individualized fashion. Com- panies may opt to include alternate work arrangements within benefits packages made available to all employees, thereby ensuring equal access to such programs. Others may choose to accept “I-Deals,” or idiosyncratic terms in employment (Hornung, Rosseau, & Glaser, 2008). I-Deals allow employees to customize, or

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 95

negotiate, for employment conditions that best align with their personal needs and preferences. Often, I-Deals take place at the time of hire, although some or- ganizations are willing to accept them on an ongoing basis. Determining whether standardized or individualized approaches to flexible work arrangements is likely to depend on the nature of the job as well as the organization as a whole.

Second, human resource professionals should be cognizant of how best to manage employees on flexible work arrangements, inclusive of regular commu- nications to incentivizing and measuring performance. Prior to the start of a new flexible work arrangement, managers are encouraged to meet with employees to jointly determine (1) how best to communicate with one another, (2) how work will get done, and (3) how performance will be evaluated (see SHRM, 2014 for a detailed list of support activities for flexible workers). Moreover, flexible work arrangements should not come with an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. Rath- er, managers should be equipped with regular check-in questions focused on the work (task completion, time management) as well as the worker (general well- being, level of comfort working alone) (SHRM, 2014).

Lastly, it is important to note that workplace flexibility may not be appropriate for all people or contexts (Cascio, 2000). Not all workers will prefer flexible work to traditional work, as individual differences may impact whether an employee chooses to opt into such arrangements (Lambert, Marler, & Gueutal, 2008). For example, individuals who exhibit personal innovativeness, or a tendency to ex- plore new and unfamiliar forms of technology (Fenner & Renn, 2004), may re- spond very well to flexible arrangements. Employees who exhibit openness to experience, known for their intellectual curiosity, creative thought, and willing- ness to accept change (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009) are likely to respond in a similar fashion. Not everyone exhibits such characteristics, however, and many employees may be reluctant to transition into such novel working conditions. In this regard, it is important to consider “flexibility fit,” or the extent to which em- ployees perceive that their employer is offering a flexible arrangement that meets their needs (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2000). Although work-family ten- sions are on the rise across all demographic groups (Kossek, 2006), the types of flexibility needed by older workers may very well differ from those preferred by younger generations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The 21st century workforce bears little resemblance to the workforce of the past, and continued change, whether radical or incremental, is certain to contribute to an ever-changing organizational landscape. A company’s willingness to remain flexible and adapt to changing times not only signals its responsiveness to work- force needs, but moreover, its long-term viability (Matz-Costa & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2010). Human resource departments are often the first stop in heeding and ad- dressing employee concerns. Staying abreast of changing values and preferences among new generations can thus contribute to favorable HR policies and practices

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

96 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

that facilitate a positive organizational environment for all (Westerman & Yama- mura, 2007). Accordingly, the current effort made a case for increased flexibil- ity within human resource departments as a mutually beneficial arrangement for employers and employees. It is our hope that the evidence provided herein will encourage HR professionals to implement flexible work arrangements, granting employees agency in determining how to perform their work, and in turn facilitat- ing enhanced work-life balance.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational per- ceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414–435.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.278

Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work-family con- flict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 66(2), 345–376.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1006). The boundaryless career. New York, NY: Ox- ford University Press.

Bal, P. M., & De Lange, A. H. (2015). From flexibility human resource management to em- ployee engagement and perceived job performance across the lifespan: A multisam- ple study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 126–154.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-re- lated criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496–513.

Baltes, B. B., & Sirabian, M. A. (2017). Compressed workweek. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ban, C., Drahnak-Faller, A., & Towers, M. (2003). Human resource challenges in human service and community development organizations: Recruitment and retention of professional staff. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 133–153.

Baruch, Y. (2003). Career systems in transition: A normative model for organizational ca- reer practices. Personnel Review, 32(1), 231–251.

Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers - from linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspective. Career Development International, 9(1), 58–73.

Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 125– 138.

Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9–22.

Beinhocker, E. D., Farrell, D., & Greenberg, E. (2008). Why baby boomers will need to work longer. The McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.incomesolver. com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/why_baby_boomers_will_need_to_work_longer. pdf

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 97

Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employee’s use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813–845.

Blanchard, A. (2017). Telecommuting. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Manage- ment, 33(4), 592–610. doi: 10.1177/0149206307302552

Breaugh, J. A., & Frye, N. K. (2007). An examination of the antecedents and consequences of the use of family-friendly benefits. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(1), 35–52.

Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 86–94.

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Execu- tive, 14(3), 81–90.

Dessler, G. (2015). Human resource management (14th ed.). Pearson Education. Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., Shultz, K. S., & McKay, P. F. (2000). Responding to

the challenge of a changing workforce: Recruiting nontraditional demographic groups. Public Personnel Management, 29(4), 445–459.

Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Soci- ety, 42(2), 145–167.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity per- spectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.

Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology‐assisted supplemental work: Construct definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2–3), 179– 200.

Festing, M., & Schäfer, L. (2014). Generational challenges to talent management: A frame- work for talent retention based on the psychological-contract perspective. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 262–271.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and indi- vidual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. doi:10.1037/00219010.92.6.1524

Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2001). Wage differentials associated with flextime. Monthly Labor Review, 124(3), 68–75.

Golden, T. D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vo- cational Behavior, 69(1), 176–187.

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psycholo- gy, 91(6), 1340–1350. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1340

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Kossek, E. E. (2014). The contemporary career: A work-home per- spective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behav- ior, 1, 361–388.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

98 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

Gurchiek, K. (2006). Good news for moms reconsidering work. HR Magazine, 51(7), 39. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. Halpern, D. F. (2005). How time‐flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health,

and save money. Stress and Health, 21(3), 157–168. Harel, G., Tzafrir, S., & Baruch, Y. (2003). Achieving organizational effectiveness through

promotion of women into managerial positions: HRM practice focus. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 247–263.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1981). The impact of flexitime on employee atti- tudes. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 333–341.

Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life conflict: Finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family Psy- chology, 24(3), 349–358.

Hill, E. J., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S., & Pitt- Catsouphes, M. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Com- munity, Work, & Family, 11(2), 149–163.

Ho, A., & Stewart, J. (1992). Case study on impact of 4/40 compressed workweek program on trip reduction. Transportation Research Record, 1346, 25–32.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. Journal of Labor and Society, 1(2), 21–29. Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements

through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in

the context of organizations and their environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237–264.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. (2012). How does human resource manage- ment influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294.

Johnson, R. W. (2004). Trends in job demands among older workers, 1992–2002. Monthly Labor Review, 127, 48–56.

Joice, W. (2007). Implementing telework: the technology issue. Public Manager, 36(2), 64–68.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875.

Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106.

Kossek, E. E. (2006). Work and family in America: Growing tensions between employ- ment policy and a change workforce. In E. Lawler & J. O’Toole (Eds.), America at Work: Choices and Challenges (pp. 53–72). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2010). Work-life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Human Relations, 63(1), 3–19.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 99

Kossek, E. E., Lobel, S. A., & Brown, J. (2005). Human resource strategies to manage workforce diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. M. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 53–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life sat- isfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139–149.

Kröll, C., Doebler, P., & Nüesch, S. (2017). Meta-analytic evidence of the effectiveness of stress management at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol- ogy, 26(5), 677–693. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1347157

Lambert, A. D., Marler, J. H., & Gueutal, H. G. (2008). Individual differences: Factors af- fecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 107–117.

Lepak, D., & Gowan, M. (2016). Human resource management: Managing employees for competitive advantage (2nd ed.). Chicago Business Press.

Leslie, L. M., Park, T-Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1407–1428.

Lucas, J. L., & Heady, R. B. (2002). Flextime commuters and their driver stress, feel- ings of time urgency, and commute satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychol- ogy, 16(4), 565–571.

Lynch, F. R. (2017). The Diversity Machine: The drive to change the “White Male Work- place.” New York, NY: Routledge.

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behav- ior, 35, S139–S157.

Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. W. (2015). How have careers changed? An inves- tigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 8–21.

Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., Spector, P. E., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., . . . Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2011). Flexible work arrangements availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover inten- tions: A comparison of three country clusters. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 1–29.

Matz-Costa, C., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2009). Workplace flexibility as an organizational response to the aging of the workforce: A comparison of nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(1), 68–80.

McDonald, P. (2006). The quest for talent. Internal Auditor, 63(3), 72–77. McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2010). Flexible work arrangements, job

satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrich- ment. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61–81. doi:10.1080/00223980903356073

Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., Lee, T., & Ted Graske. (2001). How to keep your best employ- ees: Developing an effective retention policy. The Academy of Management Execu- tive, 15(4), 96–109. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165789

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403.

Mun, S. I., & Yonekawa, M. (2006). Flextime, traffic congestion and urban productiv- ity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 40(3), 329–358.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

100 • MACDOUGALL, BAGDASAROV, & BUCKLEY

Ng, E. S., & Johnson, J. M. (2015). Millennials: Who are they, how are they different, and why should we care? In R. J. Burke, C. B. Cooper, & A. G. Antoniou (Eds.), The mutigenerational workforce: Challenges and opportunities for organizations (pp. 121–137). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ng, E. S., & Parry, E. (2016). Multigenerational research in human resource management. In M. R. Buckley, J. Halbesleben, & A. R. Wheeler (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 33, pp. 1–41). Emerald Group Publishing.

Noe, R. (2017). Employee training and development (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Olmsted, B. (1979). Job sharing: An emerging work-style. International Labour Re- view, 118(3), 283–297.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and prac- tice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413–440.

Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1992). The 12-hour work day: A 48-hour, eight-day week. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 1086–1098.

Piskurich, G. M. (1996). Making telecommuting work. Training & Development, 50(2), 20–28.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Work- place flexibility and engagement. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 215–229.

Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in work- place flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413–440.

Rainey, G., & Wolf, L. (1981). Flex-time: Short-term benefits; long-term...? Public Admin- istration Review, 41(1), 52–63. doi:10.2307/975724

Ralston, D. A. (1989). The benefits of flextime: Real or imagined? Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 10(4), 369–373.

Ralston, D. A., & Flanagan, M. F. (1985). The effect of flextime on absenteeism and turn- over for male and female employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(2), 206– 217.

Reilly, P. A. (1998). Balancing flexibility—Meeting the interests of employer and employ- ee. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 7–22.

Ronen, S., & Primps, S. B. (1981). The compressed work week as organizational change: Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 61–74.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seeck, H., & Parzefall, M. R. (2008). Employee agency: challenges and opportunities for psychological contract theory. Personnel Review, 37(5), 473–489.

Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through hu- man resource management: An international perspective and conceptual frame- work. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Watering the Organizational Landscape • 101

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.

Snell, S. A., Morris, S. S., & Bohlander, G. W. (2016). Managing human resources (17th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2010). 2010 Employee job satisfaction: Ex- amining employee benefits in the midst of a recovering economy. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.

Society for Human Resource Management (2014). Leveraging workplace flexibility for engagement and productivity. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.

Society for Human Resource Management (2016). 2016 Employee job satisfaction and engagement: Revitalizing a changing workforce. Alexandria, VA: SHRM.

Stables, S., & Watton, E. (2017). The benefits of job sharing: A practice-based case study. In Overcoming challenges to gender equality in the workplace (pp. 67–77). Rout- ledge.

Thakur, M., Bansal, A., & Maini, R. (2018). Job sharing as a tool for flexible work systems: Creating opportunities for housewives in the Indian labor market. Gender in Man- agement: An International Journal. doi:10.1108/GM-08-2016-0149

Thomas, C. L., Spitzmueller, C., & Sady, K. (2017). Job sharing. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Employment characteristics of families summary. Economic News Release, Apr. 19. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.re- lease/famee.nr0.htm

Venne, R. (1997). The impact of compressed workweek on absenteeism: The case of On- tario prison guards on a twelve-hour shift. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Rela- tions, 52(2), 382–400.

Weeden, K. A. (2005). Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the United States. Social Science Research, 34(2), 454–482.

Zeidner, R. (2008). Bending with the times. HR Magazine, 53(7), 10.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/20/2021 9:24 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use