The Design of Flexible Work Schedules and Employee Responses: Relationships and Process Author(s): Jon L.

Pierce and John W. Newstrom Source: Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 247-262 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3000314 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 09:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Occupational Behaviour.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONALBEHAVIOUR,Vol. 4, 247-262 (1983)

The design of flexible work schedules and employee responses: relationships and process1
JON L. PIERCE
University of Minnesota, Duluth

and JOHN W. NEWSTROM

University of Minnesota, Duluth

SUMMARY This study examines the relationship between six dimensions of flexible work schedules and employee attitude and behaviour variables. Results reveal a positive association between work schedule flexibility and employee performance and absenteeism, and no significant relationship with job satisfaction. It is observed that employee perceptions of time autonomy represent an intervening variable in the flexible work schedule-employee attitude relationship. Implications for the design of flexible working hour systems are provided.

During the past decade there has been a rapidly increasing interest in flexible forms of work scheduling. The current literature (e.g. Swart, 1974; Fields, 1974; Nollen

and Martin, 1978; Orpin, 1981; Schein, Mauner, and Novak 1977; Kim and Campagna, 1981) suggests that organizational attachment, attendance, and job attitudes are favourably associated with flexible work schedules. Performance results appear to be inconsistent (reflecting either no change or favourable changes), while experienced symptoms of stress appear to decline subsequent to the implementation of a flexible working hour arrangement. However, the majority of the available literature (see the Golembiewski and Proehl, 1978; and Glueck, 1979 reviews) is strongly characterized by: its atheoretical nature, anecdotal reports of flexible working hour systems, the use of non-standardized research scales, the failure to include statistical treatment of reported data, and the absence of other systematic data collection strategies. Consequently, it is difficult to discern whether the observations are a function of change per se or artifacts, thereby casting doubt on the internal validity of the research findings. To date, the practitioner and researcher have been provided with relatively little understanding of: (1) the flexible working hour construct; (2) the means by which
1Funding for this research was provided by the Graduate School and the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and a grant from the National Council on Employment Policy (SR-80-27-001). 0142-2774/83/040247-16$01.60

? 1983 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received5 August 1982 Revised28 October1982

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

working hour system; and (4) the process by which flexible working hours influence employee attitudes and behaviours. This study will operationalize the flexible working hour construct as the basis for the empirical identification of the salient features of a flexible work schedule. In addition, this study will identify and examine one process by which flexible hours influence employee attitudes and behaviours.

FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES AND EMPLOYEE RESPONSES Concept I definitions of flexible working hours, an identification and understanding of the salient flexible working hour dimensions, and theoretical explanations of the process by which flexible working hours influence the employee are in an embryonic state. Three frameworks (a commitment model, a quality of life approach, and a work adjustment model) have been identified that provide an initial insight into this definition and process problem. Cohen and Gadon (1978) employed a commitment model to explain the flexible working hour-employee response relationship. Specifically, they argued that flexible working hours permit a closer alignment between people's work schedules and the timing and the amount of their desire for work and leisure. They proposed that greater levels of employee commitment will result from the greater harmony achieved between the demands on an employee's time stemming from the job and personal matters. This enhanced psychological attachment to the organization and to work contributes to favourable employee attitudes and behaviours. The key element defining flexible working hours in the Cohen and Gadon framework appears to be the degree of flexibility or autonomy available to employees to harmonize work and non-work demands upon their time. Ronen (1981) focused on the conditions under which employees experience a favourable quality of life. Three models (i.e. spillover, compensatory, and complementary), each reflecting varying degrees of experienced quality of life, were examined. The complementary model suggests that quality of life is achieved as a result of need fulfilment in both the work and non-work domains. Ronen argued that flexible working hours provide the employee with an expanded opportunity for need fulfilment in the non-work domain via the opportunity to respond to personal time demands through the flexibility provided for the scheduling of work. Flexible working hours can also contribute to quality of working life through expanded work-related autonomy and responsibility. Provision of expanded autonomy and responsibility can contribute to the satisfaction of the higher order needs of esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization. Like Cohen and Gadon, Ronen implicitly suggests that the degree of flexibility and autonomy available to the employee to define hours of work and non-work time represents the major work schedule feature contributing to experienced quality of life. Pierce and Newstrom (1980) provided an elaboration of the Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1968) theory of work adjustment to provide a conceptual explanation linking flexible working hours and employee attitudes and behaviours. Pierce and Nestrom suggested that a flexible working hour arrangement can provide the context for a more efficient utilization of the human 24-hour clock (i.e.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

employee circadian rhythms) and can decrease the amount of stress (e.g. work arrival-related stress, and stress over work and non-work time demands) experienced by some employees. Both of these processes (i.e. capturing circadian rhythms and reducing stress) may contribute to work adjustment by permitting an increased alignment between the employee's abilities and the ability requirements of the job, resulting in an increase in performance and organizationally-encouraged tenure. In addition, flexible working hours can reinforce the employee's need for autonomy (independence) and decision participation, and the need for an appropriate balance between work and personal time demands. Consequently, flexible working hours are seen as one dimension of the work environment capable of providing fulfilment of a particular employee need. Under conditions where flexible work schedules reinforce specific employee needs, a contribution to satisfaction (Dawis et al., 1968), job involvement (Allport, 1947), organizational commitment (Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977), and work attendance (Dawis et al., 1968; Steers and Rhodes, 1978) should be made. There are important similarities among the three frameworks reviewed here. None of the three conceptual formulations define explicitly the flexible working hour construct, nor do they explain completely how its various features influence employee attitudes and behaviours. In each case the primary focus is on the flexible working hour-employee response relationship. All three conceptual frameworks implicitly suggest that it is the degree of flexibility (i.e. freedom, independence, or autonomy) provided for scheduling work and non-work time that is the key element accounting for variance in employee attitudes and behaviours. Specifically, this line of reasoning (a la Cohen and Gadon, 1978; Pierce and Newstrom, 1980; and Ronen, 1981) suggests that flexible working hour arrangements provide flexibility (an experienced psychological state) which in turn impacts employee attitudes and behaviours. Thus, they suggest that flexibility (i.e. the freedom and independence provided for the scheduling of work) mediates (i.e. intervenes in) the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship. More specifically this argument suggests that as the work schedule provides the employees with the opportunity to manage a portion of their work and non-work time they will come to perceive (i.e. experience) work schedule flexibility. The more time autonomy that employees perceive that they have for scheduling their work and non-work time the more their work-related attitudes and behaviours will be influenced. Unfortunately, each conceptual model fails to explicate which objective design features provide flexibility and autonomy, and therefore which design features play a salient role influencing employee behaviour and shaping employee attitudes. Golembiewski and Proehl (1978), in their review of the empirical flexible work schedule literature, identified a number of design features (e.g. bandwidth, flexible time, schedule variability) that characterize the design differences among flexible work schedule arrangements. Golembiewski and Proehl postulate that each design feature contributes to the amount of flexibility available to the employee for defining their work and non-work time. They did not indicate, however, which of these design features makes the most potent contribution to the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship. Conceptually, it is apparent that there is an interdependence among these variables even though each is cast as making a unique contribution to flexibility.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

operationalize design (i.e. time, bandwidth, bank length, schedule flexibility, schedule variability, and supervisor role) identified by Golembiewski and Proehl.2 Each design feature will be associated with a set of employee attitude and behaviour variables (i.e. satisfaction, commitment, stress, performance, and absenteeism). This study will answer the following research questions: (1) How much variance in employee attitudes and behaviours can be accounted for by this set of six flexible work schedule features? (2) Which design features are most salient in accounting for variance in employee attitudes and behaviours? and (3) Is the amount of time autonomy as perceived by the employee an intervening variable in the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship?

METHOD Sample One hundred and eighty-eight employees, working under eight different work schedules, represent the data base for this investigation. They were drawn from the word processing or records maintenance departments in five multiple line insurance companies located in the mid-west and eastern part of the United States. Each employee in the identified work unit was invited to participate in the study. Over 90 per cent of these employees chose to participate. The flexible work schedule systems represented in the study ranged from a staggered start system where employees could exercise a choice of 7:00, 7:30, 8:00, 8:30, or 9:00 a.m. starting time four different times a year-to a staggered start system with 15 minute intervals between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., changeable four times a year-to a system where employees can arrive at work any time between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. (i.e. 7:00, 7:01, 7:02, 7:03, ..., 9:00 a.m.) changeable every two weeks-to a system where there is a daily free choice of any starting time between 7:00 and 9:30 a.m. (i.e. 7:00, 7:01, 7:02, ..., 9:30) and a flexible lunch period between 11:00 and 1:00 p.m. In each case these flexible schedules had been in operation for at least two years. Data collection and variables Measures on the attitude variables were derived from the administration of a paper and pencil questionnaire. The employees were given job release time for the administration of the survey instrument. Data for the two behavioural variables were derived from a supervisory performance appraisal and organizational absenteeism records. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for the criterion and predictor variables. Organizational commitment (total sample alpha = 0.90; subsample alphas = 0.76-0.95) was measured by the Porter et al., (1974) 15-item research scale. Symptoms of psychological stress (total sample alpha = 0.67; subsample alphas =
2Length of the work week has been excluded from consideration in this investigation. This variable is more frequently associated with -and central to the compressed work schedule as a distinctly different approach to work scheduling (Nollen and Martin, 1978).

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Time Bank Core Change General Intrinsic Extrinsic Schedule Schedule Bandwidth job job length Performance Absenteeism job Psychological minutes Organizational autonomy approval flexibility stress variability satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction commitment 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 6 12 20 3 15 Items

Mean 1281.1 83.25 19.35 7.31 1.29 337.82 43.92 16.86 2.32 7.78 70.27 298.96 3.96 71.00 Std. 4.21 3.25 0.45 5.35 1777.30 1.73 12.08 45.36 4.58 112.77 5.00 67.36 7.00 15.44dev. 187 187 187 8 8 8 8 8 8 188 180 184 182 188 size Sample NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.86 0.67 0.90 0.84 0.90 0.90

Table 1.

Descriptive

statistics and

Total sample 1 reliability 2

0.89 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.76 0.93 0.86 0.90

0.85 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.76 0.85 0.83 0.76 0.90 0.82 3 0.91 0.77 0.78 0.58 0.86 4 0.71 0.85 0.81 0.69 0.86 5 0.85 0.66 0.80 0.47 0.84 6 0.91 0.95 0.86 0.88 0.62 7 0.91 0.80 0.86 0.64 0.89 8 0.93 0.80 0.86 0.90 0.89

coefficients

Alpha subsample

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

items) of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967) was employed to measure general job satisfaction (total sample alpha = 0.90; subsample alphas = 0.85-0.93). Twelve of these 20 MSQ items combine to measure intrinsicjob satisfaction (total sample alpha = 0.86; subsample alphas = 0.71-0.90), and six items form to measure extrinsic job satisfaction (total sample alpha = 0.84; subsample alphas = 0.66-0.86). Absenteeism datum (i.e. total time not worked for the quarter just completed prior to the administration of the questionnaire) for each employee was taken from company records. Employee performance datum (produces a volume of work consistent with established standards-anchored in ten gradations such as '0 to 10 per cent of the time' to '91 to 100 per cent of the time') was provided by a performance appraisal given by each employee's immediate supervisor. Perceived time autonomy (total sample alpha = 0.90; subsample alphas = 0.76-0.93) was measured by a five-item scale, where the employees were asked to think about their opportunity to exercise a choice in defining the hours and patterns of hours that they work. The five-item scale (e.g. how much are you left on your own to define your own work schedule; to what extent are you able to act independently of your supervisor in defining your work schedule; to what extent are you able to define your work schedule independently of others; to what extent can you exercise independent thought, judgement, and action in determining when you will work; how much discretion can you exercise in defining your work schedule), was anchored on a five-point Likert scale (very little, a moderate amount, very much). Measures on six flexible work schedule features, identified in the Golembiewski and Proehl (1978) review, were taken from organizational documents. Core minutes was measured by totalling the number of mandated and specified work minutes, on a daily basis, when all employees are required to be at work. Change approval (supervisory role) defines whether or not employees must formally seek managerial/supervisory approval before a change in their work schedule can be exercised (a dichotomous variable where a high score means that no approval is needed for employees to make a change in their hours of work). Schedule variability represents the number of 'when-to-start work' and 'when-to-stop work' decisions that an employee can formally make on a yearly basis. Bank length measures the length of the time accounting period. Employees who are required to work a full day each and every day have a zero bank length. Employees who are permitted to debit and/or credit time and carry it forward are working under a time banking system. The maximum number of work days that elapse before the debit or credit must be cleared defines the length of the banking period. Schedule flexibility represent the size of the flexible bands (starting, mid-day, and end-of-the-day) made available to the employee. Bandwith reflects the amount of time between the earliest possible starting time and the latest possible quitting time provided by the flexible working hour arrangement. Analysis The unit of analysis in this research is the individual employee (i.e. a set of attitude and behaviour variables will be treated as the criterion). To assess employee reactions to work schedule features, all employees were assigned work schedule dimension scores corresponding to the schedule under which they worked. Thus, all individuals exposed

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to the same schedule had identical scores. This analytic strategy is consistent with that used by Oldham and Hackman (1981) and Rousseau (1978). The relationships between the predictor and criterion variables were examined through bivariate and multivariate procedures. Due to different data collection reference points (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly) and different response scales (e.g. five, seven, and nine point) each variable was standardized through Z-transformations. Following a standardization of each variable, zero-order correlations were employed to examine the relationship among the six work schedule variables, and among the work schedule and employee attitude and behaviour variables. Multiple regression was used to examine the relationship between the set of flexible work schedule variables and each employee attitude and behaviour variable. The procedure employed by Oldham and Hackman (1981) to test the role of an intervening variable was followed here. To directly test whether the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship is mediated by perceived time autonomy, a series of multiple regression analyses were used. Each employee reaction measure was first regressed on the intervening variable. Second, each employee response measure was regressed on the set of flexible work schedule feature variables. Finally, each reaction variable was regressed on the combined set of the flexible work schedule variables and proposed intervening variable. If the intervening variable explains the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship well, then the multiple correlations between that variable and the reaction variables should not differ significantly from those computed using both the flexible work schedule measures and the intervening variable as predictors. That is, adding the flexible schedule measures should not increase the variance explained over that already explained by the intervening variable. Furthermore, the multiple correlations between flexible schedule variables and the reaction measures should be smaller in magnitude than those obtained using the flexible schedule variables and the intervening variable. In essense, the proposed intervening variable should explain variance in the reaction measures in addition to that explained by the flexible feature variables operating alone. The technique described by Cohen (1970) was employed to test for significant differences in the coefficients of determination (RJ2). RESULTS Flexible work schedule features With the exception of the negative relationship between work schedule bandwidth and each of the other five work schedule features the intercorrelations among the flexible work schedule dimensions are very strong, ranging between 10.46 and 0.991. On the assumption that each variable contributes to (i.e. reflects in part) the total amount of work scheduling flexibility (Golembiewski and Proehl, 197F' these strong correlations are somewhat unavoidable. The direction of these relationships (see Table 2) suggests that flexibility was provided by certain dimensions and constrained by others. There is a positive association, suggesting high levels of flexibility, among the following variables: schedule flexibility, schedule variability, change approval, and core minutes (reverse scored). Bandwidth has a negative relationship with each of the other flexible features as does bank length.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tp *p c tCore 0.01. 0.05.

16.15.14.13.12.11.10. 9.

8. 7.

6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

Time Bank Core Change General Intrinsic Extrinsic Schedule Schedule Composite Bandwidth has job job length Performance Absenteeism job Psychological Discretionary minutest Organizational autonomy been approval time variability flexibility stress flexibility satisfaction satisfaction reversed satisfaction
minutes

commitment
scored. A high value

0.01 0.08 -0.08 -0.04 0.12t -0.17t 0.21t 0.94t -0.46t 0.29t 0.93t 0.77t 0.77t 0.21t 0.92t -

indicates a small

0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.12 -0.06 -0.16* 0.04 -0.25t -0.15* -0.26t 0.20t 0.22t 0.23t -0.15* 3 0.01 0.10 -0.03 0.09 0.03 0.28t 0.92t 0.72t 0.22t -0.19t 0.86t 0.99t -0.60t Table 2.

amount of core

-0.01 -0.06 0.05 0.00 0.03 -0.33t-0.67t 0.64t -0.43t 0.22t 0.15* -0.61t -

4 Correlations 5

minutes.

0.73 -0.09 0.07 -0.04 -0.00 0.28t 0.93t 0.22t 0.27t 0.83t 0.12* 6 0.01 0.01 0.09 -0.04 0.03 0.29t 0.93t 0.22t -0.19t 0.85t 7 0.01 0.19t -0.90t -0.05 -0.03 0.06 0.21t 0.30t -0.15* 8 0.01 0.08 -0.04 0.02 0.31t 0.27t 0.12* -0.17* 9 0.05 0.05 0.25t 0.24t 0.24t 0.29t -0.21t

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Two approaches to the construction of this model are evident. First, the strong intercorrelations, coupled with Golembiewski and Proehl's (1978) argument that each contributes to flexibility, suggest that a single factor may best represent the data. Inadequate sample size, however, precludes an empirical confirmation of this factor structure. For exploratory purposes, a composite flexibility scale was constructed by standardizing and combining each variable in a unit weight linear model. This composite scale has a significant (p < 0.01) zero-order correlation with each of the original variables (I > 0.431) with the exception of the association with bandwidth. The second approach toward the construction of a more parsimonious model is driven by the previous literature. That is, an examination of the conceptual definitions of flexible work schedules (e.g. Gordon and Elbing, 1971; Allenspach, 1972; Baum and Young, 1974; Nollen and Martin, 1978), as well as the experimental manipulations (e.g. Orpin, 1981; Kim and Campagna, 1981; Schein, Mauner, and Novak, 1977) suggests that the designs of flexible work schedules primarily revolve around two features. Golembiewski and Proehl (1978) and Harvey and Luthans (1979) define these features as schedule flexibility and schedule variability. The flexibility dimension reflects the size of the flexible time bands, while variability reflects the frequency with which a person can choose work and non-work time from these flexible bands. Each of these two variables were standardized and combined through a unit weight linear model defining a new variable-discretionary time. Table 2 shows that the discretionary time variable has a significant correlation (p c 0.01) with each of the a priori work schedule variables. The strength of association between the two exploratory parsimonious flexible work schedule scales (composite flexibility and discretionary time) and each of the six a priori flexible schedule variables are nearly the same. Flexible Schedules and Employee Responses Multiple regression analyses (see Table 3, Column A) identify only three criterion variables that have a significant multiple correlation with the set of six flexible work schedule variables. Organizational commitment, performance, and absenteeism were significantly related to the work schedule variables accounting for 10 to 17 per cent of the criterion variance. Job satisfaction (general, intrinsic, and extrinsic) and experienced symptoms of psychological stress were unrelated to the flexible work schedule variables. The composite measure of flexible working hours (see Table 3, Column F) has a significant multiple correlation with both behavioural variables, while the discretionary time variable (Table 3, Column G) has a significant multiple correlation with stress and absenteeism. The results from the parsimonious models of flexible working hours do not completely match the results of the full (six variable) model. The zero-order correlations (Table 2) reveal that performance is positively associated with a narrow core, a broad bandwidth, and schedule flexibility. Absenteeism also is positively associated with each work schedule dimension with the exception of the negative association with the length of the banking period. The two summary scales also suggest that the greater the flexibility of the schedule, or the greater the amount of discretionary time the higher the level of performance and absenteeism. Organizational commitment has a significant negative association with

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

F. E. D. C. B. A.*p < Time the General Test Test Intrinsic Extrinsic 0.05; job of of Performance Absenteeism Psychological Organizational jobjob predictor. autonomy Regression Regression Regression Regression Regression tp stress predictor. < G. model model significant model model model significance 0.01; with with with n = time 0.38 consisting consisting difference difference 165. in of of in composite 0.15 R2 R2 the core discretionary for autonomy for 0.00t time flexibility variables minutes, serving (the (the in regression as regression the Model model A supervisory model B summation summation B of of vs. role, vs.predictor along A. (9 the the C. = with bank time length, perceived standardized standardized scorescore for for each of schedule the six flexibility flexible and work schedule schedule time autonomy). bandwidth, df
1. satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction commitment R 0.11 0.31 0.41 0.21 0.11 0.37 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.41 0.22 0.86 0.83 0.00t 0.01t 0.00t R2 Sig A

R 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.42 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.00t 0.00t 0.05* 0.03* 0.00t 0.01t 0.01t R 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.54 0.49 0.00t 0.01t 0.00t 0.00t 0.00t F F F F F F= F= = = = = = RI2 Sig R2 Sig B

Table 3.

Multiple
C

regression
B Sig vs. C D

1.11 0.85 3.00 0.56 0.88 autonomy 157 4.67* 6.00* (f flexibility, =

models

and flex

df 1,

157

F F F F F B Sig F= F= = = = = = vs. 0 A 2.00 6.67* 10.00t 11.67t 11.67t 15.00t

features R variability + 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.03 (f time flex
=

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.83 0.76 0.35 0.10 0.70 0.01t 0.02t 0.00t

R2 Sig

variability)

autonomy). features).
0.11 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.74 0.50 0.15 0.29 0.05* 0.00t 0.00t

dimensions) serving as serving the as

R2 Sig

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

measures has a significant association with organizational commitment. Both composite flexibility and the discretionary time measures suggest that a decrease in experienced symptoms of psychological stress is associated with increasing flexible work schedules. Perceived time autonomy as the intervening variable Each of the six flexible work schedule variables has a significant (p < 0.01) zero-order correlation with employee perceptions of time autonomy (r = 10.16 to 0.331). Both of the parsimonious scales positively correlate (r = 0.01) with perceived time autonomy, with the discretionary time measure having the strongest association (r = 0.31). Time autonomy was positively associated with a small set of core hours, a narrow bandwidth, no supervisory approval for a change in the work schedule, a short banking period, expanded flexible bands of time, and frequent work schedule change opportunities. When time autonomy was regressed on the work schedule variables a significant (p < 0.01) multiple correlation (R = 0.38) was produced accounting for 15 per cent of the variance in this perceptual variable. Both of the parsimonious variables have significant, though weaker, association with time autonomy (R = 0.18 and 0.28). Time autonomy also has a significant correlation (r = -0.21 with psychological stress to r = 0.29 with general job satisfaction) with each employee attitude variable. The direction of these relations suggest that employee satisfaction and organizational commitment increase with increasing degrees of perceived time autonomy, while experienced symptoms of psychological stress decline. Both behavioural variables failed to have a significant association with this perceptual variable. Each of the perceived time autonomy-employee attitude associations are stronger than the associations between these attitude variables and the six flexible work schedule variables. This pattern of correlations is consistent with the pattern that would be reflected if perceived time autonomy was an intervening variable in the flexible schedule-employee response relationship. Time autonomy did not have a significant association with either of the two behavioural variables. This suggests that time autonomy does not mediate the flexible schedule-behaviour relationship. Regression analyses (see Table 3, Columns D and E) provide consistent results suggesting that perceived time autonomy mediates the flexible work schedule-employee attitude (general job satisfaction, intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and experienced symptoms of stress relationships. In each case when the multiple correlations from the time autonomy model (see Table 3, Column D) are compared with the time autonomy plus the original predictor variable models there is no significant difference in the coefficients of determination. When the flexible feature-employee response regression models are compared to the flexible schedule plus time autonomy models (see Table 3, Column E) the latter accounts for a significantly greater portion of the criterion variance. Data from the regression models for the two behaviourvariables clearly suggest that time autonomy does not mediate the flexible schedule-behaviour relationship. The variance in performance and absenteeism attributed to the six schedule variables is not significantly increased as a result of the inclusion of time autonomy into the regression models. Thus, there appears to be a direct flexible work schedule-performance, and flexible work schedule-absenteeism relationship.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

regression model with each of the two parsimonious models (Column A vs. F, and A vs. G) produced the following results. There were no significant difference in the amount of variance in employee attitudes and absenteeism accounted for by the full versus the parsimonious models. Both the composite and the discretionary time models, however, accounted for significantly less variance in performance than that accounted for by the full regression model. The full model accounted for 17 per cent of the criterion variance while the reduced models were able to account for only 4 and 1 per cent respectively. The composite flexibility model also accounted for significantly less variance in employee perceptions of time autonomy (15 vs. 3 per cent).

DISCUSSION A large body of literature extols the value of flexible working hours as a means of increasing employee job satisfaction and organizational attendance, strengthening organizational commitment, occasionally increasing performance, and decreasing experienced symptoms of stress. This literature also illustrates a wide variation in the nature of flexible working hour programmes (e.g. staggered start, staggered week, flexitime, variable hours, and the variations within each) that have been devised and implemented. However, our conceptual understanding of the flexible hour-employee response relationship is still at an embryonic level. Empirically we have observed attitude and behaviour changes following a shift from fixed to flexible working hour arrangements. Previous studies have failed to explore which flexible working hour features are salient to employee attitudes and behaviours, or the process through which this association occurs. This study has attempted to examine empirically the relationship between a number of employee attitude and behaviour variables with different design features of flexible working hour arrangements. This study also examined one process by which flexible working hour systems influence employee attitudes and behaviours. Employee perceptions of time autonomy (i.e experienced work scheduling flexibility) were examined as an intervening variable in the work schedule-employee response relationship. Study observations In sharp contrast to almost all the previous literature, one of the most startling observations emerging from this investigation is the absence of a significant relationship between the flexible work schedule variables and employee job satisfaction. With regard to the other employee attitudes, the data suggest that the flexible work schedule variables may have an association with the level of employee commitment to the employing organization. In addition, experienced symptoms of psychological stress may be less under a flexible working hour arrangement. The weakness of the relationships observed between the flexible working hour design features and the attitude variables may be a function of the process through which this association occurs. It was proposed that as work schedules become increasingly flexible employees will experience increased work schedule flexibility (time autonomy). As employees experience increased time autonomy, they will become increasingly job satisfied, organizationally committed, and they will

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

time autonomy acts as an intervening variable in the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship. In the process of testing the intervening variable relationship it was observed that the flexibility of the work schedule (especially flexibility stemming from schedule variability, schedule flexibility, the freedom to schedule work time without supervisory approval, and a small set of core times) was positively associated with employee perceptions of time autonomy. Time autonomy was also significantly associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and experienced symptoms of psychological stress, while not related to either behavioural variable. Testing the full intervening variable model provided consistent and strong evidence that time autonomy mediates the flexible work schedule-employee attitude relationship. The employees who experienced increased time autonomy were increasingly job satisfied, organizationally committed, and experienced fewer symptoms of psychological stress. Results from the study suggest that perceived time autonomy does not mediate the flexible work system-employee behaviour relationship. It is noted that a significant main effect for schedule flexibility exists for absenteeism and performance. Both of the behavioural variables have a positive association with the work schedule variables, suggesting increases in performance and absenteeism with increasingly flexible working hour arrangements. A detailed understanding of these main effects awaits further inquiry. Managerial implications The results from this investigation have important implications for the design or modification of flexible working hour systems. These implications centre around the value of flexible hour systems, their multidimensionality, the critical design features to be included, and the necessity to ensure employee perceptions of time autonomy. The conclusions are offered here under the assumption that prevailing organizational conditions permit their implementation. First, these results support the continued use of flexible working hour arrangements. This continues the line of support for the non-traditional approach to work scheduling as summarized by Glueck (1979), Golembiewski and Proehl (1978), Cohen and Gadon (1978), Pierce and Newstrom (1980), and Ronen (1981). Second, the designer of a flexible working hour system must be aware that flexible working hour arrangements are multidimensional systems. As a consequence the designer must not only consider the signals being sent to the employee from the total system, but consideration must also be given to the independent messages being transmitted from each of its component parts. (That is, are consistent messages being transmitted to the employee, or are some features giving autonomy while others restrict this autonomy?). Third, four design features appear to be particularly salient for favourable employee attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and experienced symptoms of psychological stress) and behaviours (i.e. performance and absenteeism). The results suggest that the flexible schedule should be designed with a relatively narrow set of core hours and multiple bands of flexible time, coupled with the option of change frequently the pattern of hours worked without the necessity of obtaining

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

designed and implemented so as to provide maximum assurance that employees will understand its component parts and the totality, identify the degree of autonomy that the system provides, and experience the inherent flexibility. These results may be achieved by involving all employes in the design of a work schedule that is conducive to the coordination of work, that is in harmony with one's personal rhythms (i.e. social, personal, and circadian rhythms), and that encourages the employee to continually use the flexibility provided by the system. Limitations of the study and research needs This study has a number of methodological limitations that need to be recognized. The design of this study attempted to control for effects attributable to a single organization, organization type, size, and core technology. As a consequence the external validity of the study is limited by the fact that all eight samples derive from organizations operating in the same industry. Controlling for job classification gives rise to another and possibly more significant external validity problem. The sample is not only small, but it is exclusively clerical in nature. The control for certain threats to internal validity raises concern about whether the results are a function of other organizational, individual, or community-based factors which were not identified or accounted for by the design of the study. Future research should constructively replicate this study so as to extend its internal and external validity. Time autonomy conceptually and empirically plays a central role in this investigation. It is important to note that this scale is still in its developmental stage. It is not known, for example, whether the full domain of this construct is being assessed, nor do we know whether there is contamination of this measure by other elements of autonomy provided by the work environment. Clearly, additional validation research for this scale is warranted. The formal flexible working hour system was operationalized in this investigation. Future research needs to consider whether the employee is experiencing the formal flexible working hour arrangement, or whether some informal system is actually operating. This difference may account for some of the variance from this investigation. As previously noted very little work has been directed toward the identification of design features for a flexible working hour arrangement. It is clear that more conceptual and experimental work is needed in this area. Future research should experimentally manipulate various design features so as to assess the independent and interactive role played by various design features. A revised conceptual perspective The evidence from this investigation supports the conceptual position taken by Cohen and Gadon (1978), Pierce and Newstrom (1980), and Ronen (1981). In each case it was argued that flexible working hours provide the employee with flexibility, and flexibility becomes the central force generating favourable employee attitudes and behaviours. The search for an understanding of the flexible work schedule-employee response relationship, however, is not complete. The results from this investigation

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

understand this complex relationship. From an attitudinal perspective there is evidence suggesting that there is a psychological process operating. It is believed that perceptions of time autonomy (i.e. experienced flexibility) impact employee attitudes through need fulfilment. It has been argued (Pierce and Newstrom, 1980; Ronen, 1981) that many employees possess the need for autonomy and responsibility, the need for a harmonization between work and personal time demands, and a desire to participate in decisions. Flexible working hour arrangements provide for the fulfilment of these needs, thereby impacting cognitive and affective states (e.g. organizational commitment, job satisfaction). The behavioural effects are less clearly understood. We speculate that there is an interaction going on between a psychological and behavioural process that mediates the flexible hour-behaviour relationship. Pierce and Newstrom (1980) argued that a flexible working hour arrangement can be associated with performance under the following conditions: through the reduction of stress, by adopting a work schedule that is in harmony with one's circadian rhythms, and through the avoidance/reduction of tardiness and absenteeism. If employees manage their work-non-work time so as to harmonize conflicting demands upon their time, to take advantage of their circadian rhythms, and to avoid absenteeism and tardiness we would expect to witness favourable behavioural reactions to a flexible working hour arrangement. In conclusion, we are proposing that not only must the employee experience the autonomy provided by a flexible schedule, but this autonomy must be behaviourally managed.

REFERENCES Allenspach, 1. (1972). 'Flexible working time: Its development and applications in Switzerland', Occupational Psychology, 46, 209-215. Allport, G. W. (1947). 'The psychology of participation', Psychological Review, 52, 177-132. Baum, S. and Young, W. M. (1974). A Practical Guide to Flexible Working Hours, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, N.J. Cohen, J. (1970). 'Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system', Psychological Bulletin, 6, 426-443. Cohen, A. R. and Gadon, H. (1978). Alternative Work Schedules: Integrating Individual and Organizational Need, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. and Lofquist, L. H. (1968). 'A theory of work adjustment' Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation XXIII, Bulletin 67, University of Minnesota. Fields, C. J. (1974). 'Variable work hours-It's mony experience', Personel Journal, 53(9) 675-678. Glueck, W. F. (1979). 'Changing hours of work: A review and analysis of the research', The Personnel Administrator, 24(3), 44-67. Golembiewski, R. T. and Proehl, C. W., Jr. (1978). 'A Survey of the empirical literature on flexible workhours: Character and consequences of a major innovation', Academy of Management Review, 3, 837-853. Gordon, J. R. M. and Elbing, A. 0. (1971). 'The flexible hour work week-European trend is growing', The Business Quarterly, 66-72. Harvey, B. H. and Luthans, F. (1979). 'Flexitime: An empirical analysis of its real meaning and impact', Business Horizons, 27(3), 31-36.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Campagna, (1981). employee attendance performance: A field experiment', Academy of Management Journal, 24, 729-741. Nollen, S. D. and Martin, V. H. (1978). Alternative Work schedules, Part I: flexitime, American Management Association Survey Report; AMACOM. Oldham, G. R. and Hackman, J. R. (1981). 'Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks', Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 66-83. Orpin, C. (1981). 'Effects of flexible working hours on employee satisfaction and performance: A field experiment', Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 113-115.

Patchen,M. (1970). Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on theJob. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Pierce, J. L. and J. W. Newstrom (1980). 'Toward a conceptual clarification of employee responses to flexible working hours: A work adjustment approach', Journal of

Management 6, 117-134.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulain, P. V. (1974). 'Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians', Journal of

Applied Psychology,59, 603-609.

Ronen, S. (1981). Flexible Working Hours, McGraw-Hill, New York. Rousseau, D. M. (1978). 'Measures of technology as predictors of employee attitudes',

Journalof Applied Psychology,63, 213-218.

Schein, V. E., Mauner, E. H. and Novak, J. R. (1977). 'Impact of flexible working hours on productivity', Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 463-465. Steers, R. M. (1977). 'Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment',

Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 22, 46-56.

Steers, R. M. and Rhodes, S. R. (1978). 'Major influences on employee attendance: A process model', Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407. Swart, J. C. (1974). 'What time shall I go to work today?', Business Horizons, 17(5), 19-26. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. and Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, Work Adjustment Project, Minneapolis.

Author'saddress:
Dr Jon L. Pierce, School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minn., U.S.A.

This content downloaded from 111.68.99.3 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:40 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions