Flexible Work An Evaluation of Job Satisfaction and Work - Life Balance

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS: AN EVALUATION OF JOB
SATISFACTION AND WORKLIFE BALANCE

by
Gladys Hrobowski-Culbreath
FRANK DECARO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

LUIS RIVERA, PhD, Committee Member
DAVID BALCH, PhD, Committee Member
William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
August 2010
UMI Number: 3423947
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3423947
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Gladys Hrobowski-Culbreath, 2010
Abstract
Flexible work arrangements are tied to turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction,
productivity and worklife balance. The purpose of this research is threefold: (a)
Examine the relationship between flexible work arrangement programs, job satisfaction,
productivity and worklife balance; (b) identify jobs that are best suited for these
strategies and identify a number of companies tat have been successful in using these
strategies; and (c) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of flexible work
arrangements for both employees and employers. Survey data were collected from 200
individuals who participate in various forms of flexible work arrangement programs. The
participants completed the short form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss,
Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The instrument consisted of 20 factors that measured
the relationships between job satisfaction and worklife balance. A demographic
questionnaire was also used. Herzbergs (1987) motivation-hygiene theory was used as
the framework to examine job satisfaction and worklife balance in a sample of 200
participants.
REFERENCES
Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, 65(5), 109120.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Dwight, my daughters, Brittany and
Joey, my son, Thomas, my parents, the late Freeman and Gladys Hrobowski, and my
brothers and sisters. It is truly a blessing to have (or have had) you in my life. Thank you
for your love and support which has sustained me throughout this long and sometimes
arduous journey.
iii
Acknowledgments
Without the support and encouragement of my mentor, committee members,
family, friends, and fellow classmates, I could not have achieved this momentous goal.
My gratitude and appreciation to all who contributed to my success is immeasurable.
I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Frank DeCaro, and my committee members,
Dr. Luis Rivera and Dr. David Balch. I am eternally grateful for your expertise and
guidance throughout this challenging, but rewarding experience. I am truly grateful to the
research participants for extending their time and support to my research effort. Thanks to
my advisor, Laura Hutt, who was always willing to listen and make suggestions.
A special thanks to a young man I met at the University of Michigan. I could not
have completed this chapter in my life without your expertise.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
iv
List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
10
Rationale
10
Research Questions
11
Significance of the Study
11
Definition of Terms
12
Assumptions and Limitations
13
Nature of the Study
14
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
14
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
15
Types of Flexible Work Arrangements
15
Jobs Best Suited for Flexible Work Arrangements
19
Companies That Have Successful Alternative Work Arrangement

Programs
20
Advantages and Disadvantages of Flexible Work Arrangements
21
Flexible Work Arrangements and WorkLife Balance
24
Flexible Work Arrangements and Job Satisfaction
25
Future Trends in Flexible Work Arrangement Programs
26
Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory
27
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
32
Introduction
32
Description of Methodology
32
Design of the Study
33
Sample and Population
34
Instrumentation/Measures
36
Reliability and Validity
38
Data Collection
40
Data Analysis Procedures
41
Ethical Considerations
42
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
44
Introduction
44
Data Collection
45
Research Sample
46
50
Research Question 1
52
Research Question 2
62
Research Question 3
67
Summary
76
vi
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
80
Summary
80
Conclusions
91
Recommendations
93
Recommendations for Further Research
94
REFERENCES
97
APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE
106
APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
108
APPENDIX C. VARIABLES AND SATISFACTION
113
APPENDIX D. MSQ QUESTIONS
122
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Participants Personal Characteristics
48
Table 2. Participants Work-Related Characteristics
49
Table 3. Summary of MANOVA Results
51
Table 4. Means
52
Table 5. MANOVA Analysis, Extrinsic Factors
56
Table 6. MANOVA Analysis, Intrinsic Factors
57
Table 7. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction
58
Table 8. MANOVA Analysis, Overall Satisfaction
60
Table 9. MANOVA Analysis, WorkLife Balance
61
Table 10. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction (Q13, Q16, Q20)
63
Table 11. Correlation Analysis, Job Satisfaction
64
Table 12. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Job Satisfaction
65
Table 13. MANOVA Analysis, WorkLife Balance (Q4, Q7, Q9)
68
Table 14. Correlation Analysis, WorkLife Balance
69
Table 15. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, WorkLife Balance
72
Table 16. Cronbachs Alpha
76
Table 17. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations
77
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Extrinsic factors and job satisfaction
66
Figure 2. Intrinsic factors and job satisfaction
67
Figure 3. Extrinsic factors and worklife balance
73
Figure 4. Intrinsic factors and worklife balance
74
Figure 5. Job satisfaction and worklife balance
75
Figure B1. Participants gender
108
Figure B2. Participants race/ethnicity
108
Figure B3. Participants marital status
109
Figure B4. Participants number of children under 18
109
Figure B5. Participants education
110
Figure B6. Participants type of organization
110
Figure B7. Participants occupational category
111
Figure B8. Participants employment status
111
Figure B9. Participants current salary
112
Figure B10. Participants present job
112
Figure C1. Age and satisfaction
113
Figure C2. Children at home and satisfaction
114
Figure C3. Education and satisfaction
115
Figure C4. Employment status and satisfaction
116
Figure C5. Gender and satisfaction
117
Figure C6. Job tenure (years) and satisfaction
118
Figure C7. Marital status and satisfaction
119
ix
Figure C8. Occupation tenure (years) and satisfaction
120
Figure C9. Salary ($1,000) and satisfaction
121
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
I believe a balanced life is essential, and I try to make sure that all of our
employees know that and live that way. Its crucial to me as a manager
that I help ensure that our employees are as successful as our customers
and partners. I also think that employees these days expect less of a
separation of work and personal life. That doesnt mean that work tasks
should encroach upon our personal time, but it does mean that employees
today expect more from the companies for whom they work.
Marc Benioff, CEO, Salesforce.com
Introduction to the Problem

The business world is a dynamic human structure in which its activities require
ingenuity and creativity in order to progress and survive. Innovations in workplace
strategies are the manifestations of these innate human attributes, but there are few people
who go beyond these innovations and add more color to it by using flexible work
arrangement options. Workers from all over the world are attracted to organizations that
use these business practices. Perhaps it is because of the curiosity of experiencing
something different or perhaps they are motivated to experience the business world in a
different zone (Peter & Donnelly, 2003). These businesses tend to have notable success
and continue to be highly adoptive. Therefore, it is safe to assume that, in spite of stiff
competition; they survive and flourish because of the flexible work options they offer
their employees.
1
Bias in Research
Bias is any influence or condition that distorts data (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Bias
attacks the integrity of the facts; therefore, the goal of the researcher is to minimize bias.
Research is a process that is never totally objective or completely independent;
therefore, researchers can always expect some bias. When interpreting data, researchers
sometimes produce methodical errors. Researchers must scrutinize the data in order to
avoid or at least minimize errors. The researchers interpretation must not be affected by
what the researcher wishes to discover, but rather what the facts of the research are. As a
researcher, one must commit to the research being conducted and should not deliberately
attempt to reject the results of the research (Cooper & Schindler, 2006; Leedy & Ormrod,
2001).
Theoretical Foundation of the Study
Many organizations have changed their work environment because they recognize
that their employees are valuable assets and want them to commit themselves to the
company. When employees are recognized and rewarded for the efforts that they have
contributed to the organization, many are motivated to be more effective and efficient;
they tend to stay longer with the company and are more satisfied with their job. Giving
employees more responsibilities will serve as their motivation for advancement and
growth (Herzberg, 1987).
People work for a variety reasons, the most apparent being the need for money.
However, it is not just the money that keeps them showing up for work every day. A
complex problem in this area is the ability to understand and explain why some people do
not enjoy their work and others do. Obviously there is no single resolution for satisfying
2
everybody in the workplace. Therefore, managers must recognize and understand the
concept of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction and related issues.
The theoretical framework for the study was based on Herzbergs motivationhygiene theory. He based the theory on his interviews with over 200 engineers and
accountants. The interviews assisted in establishing factors that determine ones
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his or her job. From the findings, Herzberg came to the
conclusion that these factors are separate and distinct. According to Herzberg, Mausner,
and Snyderman (1959), job satisfaction is positively related to achievement, opportunity
for personal growth, stimulating work, recognition, responsibility, and promotion
opportunities, which are factors related to outcomes associated with the work itself. He
labeled these factors motivators because they were associated with high levels of job
satisfaction. In contrast, he linked job dissatisfaction with factors he termed hygiene.
Examples of hygiene factors are job security, salary, working conditions, relationships
with others, company policies and procedures, and the quality of supervision. Herzberg
(1987) claimed that employees who satisfy their hygiene factors will reduce their job
dissatisfaction.
Background of the Problem

Before the 1990s, employees were housed in office buildings and involved in
mostly face-to-face communication. Equipment used in these traditional settings included
typewriters, telephones, copy machines, and early computers. Regular mail and overnight
package delivery (early 1980s) were used to transmit correspondence and documents.
The transmission speed of information was increased by advances in technology.
3
Therefore, the need for face-to-face communication was reduced significantly

(Mamaghani, 2006).
The fast development of new technologies has altered the nature of work as well
as the physical work environment. Barber, Laing, and Simeone (2005) believed that
continuous investment in infrastructures that enhance remote connectivity and
communication challenges the traditional view of the work environment. Therefore,
organizations must continuously develop new strategies and cost effective means to
satisfy the need of its employees.
Alfares (2006) asserted that employee scheduling is an important and complex,
practical problem, particularly for businesses that operate continuously (e.g., hospitals,
airports, train stations, and restaurants). When the businesses operate 7 days a week,
different employees must be given different days off, some of which do not include the
weekend.
Flexible Work Arrangements
For employees, job flexibility is important. Many employers offer various flexible
work options to meet the needs of their employees. Examples of flexible work options are
telecommuting, flextime, voluntary part-time work, particularly job sharing, and
compressed work week. Many employees are attracted to these work arrangements.
According to Cole (2006), flexible work arrangements are alternatives to the
traditional 9-to-5 work schedule. He further states that they can support employee
preference and unique job requirements. Significant organizational and individual
benefits can be obtained by using flexible work arrangements. Additionally, these work
arrangements have proved to be helpful in terms of improving morale, helping meet
4
employees personal needs while contributing to the organization, and recruiting and
retaining valuable employees.
A common element in the lives of all employees is the need to be flexible. Some
Traditionalists want to move into retirement slowly; Baby Boomers must often assume
responsibility for taking care of their ailing or aging parents and Generation Xers need
time to participate in school and community activities with their children. The terms,
Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers are explained in the definition of terms
section of this study. Many employers have discovered that increasing work schedule
flexibility does not interfere with maintaining acceptable levels of productivity (Reese,
Rowings, & Sharpley, 2007).
Today, some employees do not go to their offices every day. They have the
opportunity to work at home or spend less time at the office and maintain the same level
or better efficiency. Because of the impact it has had on families, this work option has
been the topic of much research. Parents have the opportunity to spend more time at
home and be hands-on parents. Working at home is one of the benefits of flexible work
arrangements. The time spent preparing for work and traveling to work can be used for
other family activities. Using mobile telecommunications technology and on-call work
arrangements allows for spending less time in the office. These strategies can increase
productivity and reduce absenteeism (Desrochers & Sargent, 2003).
Telecommuting
According to Manochehri and Pinkerton (2003), telecommuting is a preferred
substitute to working in an office. Both employees and employers have many reasons to
consider telecommuting programs. Benefits that can be realized by using telecommuting
5
include schedule and location flexibility, enhanced employee satisfaction, attracting and
retaining employees, productivity improvement, cost reduction, and benefiting society.
However, the potential benefits of this work option can be realized only if organizations
identify and address the challenges associated with telecommuting. Some challenges
include the nature of jobs, company culture, selection of employees, providing the
required infrastructure, awareness of legal considerations, overcoming resistance to
telecommuting, monitoring and performance measurements, and employee isolation and
communication.
The advantages of telecommuting for some employees can be very valuable. One
huge advantage an employee has when telecommuting is the flexibility to coordinate
work schedules and family responsibilities. Flexible working arrangements improve the
quality of the work performed. More control over ones life can be achieved when family
and work life are in balance. Turnover, job satisfaction, performance and stress, are
influenced by the advantages and benefits of telecommuting. According to the authors,
employees who telecommute 2.5 days per week heighten its favorable effects on work
and family (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
Compressed Work Week
Compressed work weeks allow employees to work a variety of schedules such as
4 days a week for 10-hour days or 12+ hours 3 days a week. In a recent meta-analysis
study, compressed work week schedules showed a favorable effect on the participants
work outcomes (e.g., productivity, absenteeism, job satisfaction and overall satisfaction).
The positive consequences may subsequently lead to an increase in organizational
performance (Sands & Harper, 2007). Disadvantages such as fatigue, stress, and
6
decreased productivity have been responsible for the limited acceptance of the
compressed work week schedule option (Vega & Gilbert, 1997).
Among employers, the compressed work week is one of the most preferred work
schedules. For example, Texas Instruments provides compressed work weeks, which
consist of 12-hour days, working 3 days one week and 4 days the following week.
Scheduling of this nature has had a positive effect on productivity by reducing the
number of shifts and time-consuming changeovers from three to two. One benefit of
offering a compressed work week is to make the job more attractive to employees. The
advantages of this scheduling system for employees include 3- and 4-day weekends,
potential savings on childcare and gas, more personal time, and increased employee
morale. A compressed work week also provides mutual benefits for employers by saving
operating cost, increased productivity, making employees more focused on the task at
hand and providing a recruiting advantage. A major shortcoming of flextime is that
employees who work long days may develop fatigue. This sometimes results in
eliminating the benefits (Erickson, 2005).
Work Sharing/Job Sharing
Work-sharing arrangements allow the duties and responsibilities of a full-time job
to be shared among two or more employees. For example, two department representatives
may be responsible for the whole job and all tasks. Alternatively, some projects may be
assigned independently, one employee work in the am and the other work in the pm.
Frequently, employees alternate days or develop some other schedule for sharing. On a
short-term basis, this work option can help transition experienced workers into retirement
while training their replacement. Over a longer term, it allows part-time employees to
remain in the job market and earn income (Preston, 2007).
Work-sharing benefits both employees and employers. When the organizations
are dedicated to meeting their personal needs, employees tend to become more loyal to
their employers. At the same time, employers avoid high turnover and reduce the cost of
benefits. However, employees who participate in work-sharing programs receive fewer
benefits and are at risk of being the first to be laid off when organizations make
workforce cutbacks. In general, work sharing has become a popular modified work
schedule. A survey of 1,000 American employers found that more than 28% of
employers offered job-sharing programs (Preston, 2007).
According to Sherwyn and Sturman (2002), job sharing provides a tool that adds a
layer of protection that lies between contingent workers and layoffs of core employees.
Layoffs are not the options to consider when economic conditions reduce the workforce
to the point where eliminating contingent-work arrangements is not enough.
Flextime
Flextime was initially introduced by Christel Kaemmerev in 1956 and
implemented in West German businesses in 1967 (Avery & Zabel, 2001). According to
Hicks and Klimoski (1981), flextime was introduced (1970s) to American businesses to
reduce crowding in parking facilities. Because of the positive effects on employee
attitude, flextime became popular as a means to adapt hours to the requirements of the
workforce. Flextime allows employees to exercise their discretion regarding the times
they want to work. This work option was used as a retention and recruitment tool during
the 20th century.
8
Statement of the Problem

Organizations and their employees are able to be more efficient, communicate
quickly, and easily perform their jobs from remote locations as a result of advances in
technology. Technology has expanded workers options in terms of how, where, and
when they work. This technology has assisted employees in improving the quality of their
lives. Additionally, advancements in technology have been helpful in terms of managing
the personal and professional aspects of their lives. Advanced technology gives the
employees the choice to perform their jobs from remote locations. Increased efficiencies,
competitive advantage in the marketplace, reduced costs, improved company and
customer communications, and global expansion are the benefits for organizations that
have embraced technical innovations (Mamaghani, 2006).
From an organizational standpoint, leadership within organizations are
continually developing strategies to contain costs (particularly energy costs these days),
maximize productivity, improve competitiveness, and do their share to preserve the
environment. While trying to improve the productivity of employees, organizations also
try to provide a culture that helps employees maintain a worklife balance. Much of the
same holds true for employees. Employees strive to save energy, protect the environment,
and most important, make an attempt to maintain a balance between family and career.
Employees also try to be productive at the workplace, but not at the cost of sacrificing
their personal or family life (D. Harris, 2004).
Our food, clothes, shelter, and much more are the rewards for work. Therefore,
employees need to understand the changes that are occurring at work. Todays workplace
is quite different from what it was years ago. Change has altered the way work is done.
9
As a result, a companys database allows sales representatives to give customers

immediate information about new products and services and allows a shipping clerk to
monitor goods in real time (Barner, 1996).
Purpose of the Study

The aim of this research was threefold. First, the study examined the relationship
between flexible work arrangement programs, job satisfaction, and worklife balance.
Second, it identified jobs that were best suited for these strategies and identified
companies that were successful in using these strategies. Third, the study discussed the
advantages and disadvantages of flexible work arrangement options for both employees
and employers. Research on this subject is important because it will help identify and
provide solutions to business, family and environmental concerns (Kalleberg, 2000).
Additionally, the reader will learn about various jobs and work situations that are
conducive to using flexible work arrangement strategies. Readers will become aware of
how these strategies improve job satisfaction and the lives of employees and their
families.
Rationale
Herzbergs theory illustrates that hygiene factors are a platform for employee
satisfaction while the motivator factors of recognition is instrumental to engendering
ones productivity and growth (Herzberg et al., 1959).
This study was designed to enhance ones knowledge about flexible work
arrangements, and how these strategies affect job satisfaction and worklife balance.
10
Work flexibility has become an important topic of interest for employees and employers
alike. To assist managers with understanding the relationships and factors linked to
worklife balance and job satisfaction, this situation needs to be talked about at length in
the workplace. This dissertation presented another opportunity to contribute to the
knowledge of flexible work arrangements. Employers can use this information to help
attract and keep competent employees.
Research Questions
1. Is there a relationship between demographic variables and job satisfaction?
2. Is job satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to motivator and hygiene factors?
3. Is there a relationship between extrinsic factors and worklife balance?
Significance of the Study

This research is significant for several reasons: (a) Employers need to be educated
so that their mind set is changed; (b) provides employers with research that will present
evidence to support the value of flexible work arrangement options for both employers
and employees in relation to job flexibility, productivity and worklife balance, job
satisfaction; (c) the study will contribute to extended knowledge related to these topics;
(d) assist employees in better understanding utilization of these work options; and (e)
identify trends to establish best practices that can be tested and or incorporated in
organizations.
These days businesses the world over must change with the times. Many times
corporate offices, branch offices, contractors and subcontractors, and business travel is
11
located around the world. Therefore, keeping everyone on the same page when work is
not even in the same time zone becomes very difficult. Even so, many organizations are
finding that the advantages of having such diverse workforce outweigh the challenges.
With this in mind, management needs to reevaluate and update strategies to meet the
challenges in a highly globalized business environment (Kooser, 2005).
Definition of Terms
The definitions that follow will help the reader understand the terms and concepts
related to this study.
Baby Boomer. Individuals born between 1946 and 1964, and represents one of the
largest populations born (Herman, 2006).
Compressed work week. According to Mitchell and Williamson (2003), the
compressed work schedule consists of working a full-time schedule in fewer, longer days.
ones home or other remote location outside the companys office.
Flexible work arrangements. Work arrangements that let employees have some
control over when and where they work (Lambert, Marler, & Gueutal, 2008).
Flextime. According to Brookshire (2002), flextime allows an employee to change
his or her start and end time, but be at work for core hours of the day, and work a
standard number of hours within a specified time.
Generation Xers. Individuals born between 1065 and 1980 (Hatfield, 2002).
Job satisfaction. Operationally defined as ones positive feelings or attitudes
towards ones occupation (Moore, 2008).
12
Telecommuting. Mamaghani (2006) defined telecommuting as working from

ones home or other remote location outside the companys office.
Telework. According to Byrd (2005), telework is defined as substitution of
information technologies for normal work-related travel.
Teleworking. The ability of managers and employees to use computers to access
their work from remote locations (Martnez-Snchez, Prez-Prez, Vela-Jimnez, & deLuis-Carnicer, 2008).
Traditionalists. Individuals born between 1926 and 1945.
Worklife balance. According to Nicholas (2007), worklife balance is ones
satisfaction and ability to function well at work and home while minimizing role conflict.
Assumptions and Limitations

Some assumptions that can be made from this study are (a) employee scheduling
is considered a hygiene factor; (b) 8-hour, 40-hour work weeks are not satisfactory work
arrangements; (c) replacing 8-hour, 40-hour work weeks with more flexible schedules
increase job satisfaction and improve worklife balance; (d) the sample selected is
representative of the target population; (e) variables will be accurately measured with the
short form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ); and (f) measures are valid and
reliable.
The limitations identified in this study are (a) snowball sampling can result in
biases; (b) the findings of the study cannot be generalized beyond the study sample; and
(c) the data used in the study rely on self-reporting, which can be distorted by perception,
faulty memory, and other biases.
13
Nature of the Study

This research used a quantitative, descriptive methodology approach to examine
the relationship between flexible work arrangements, worklife balance and job
satisfaction. A survey questionnaire was used to collect data from employees involved in
flexible work arrangement programs. In this study, the research examined how
employees job satisfaction and worklife balance relates to tenure, age, income, and
other personal demographics. The instrument, the short form MSQ, elicited information
from participants seeking to uncover trends and understand their perceptions of the
variables.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of literature relevant to flexible work arrangement
programs and how these programs affect job satisfaction and worklife balance. It
identifies companies who were using these programs successfully, jobs that were best
suited for these programs, and discussed advantages and disadvantages for employers and
employees. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to conduct the study. Chapter 4
discusses the results of the survey and analysis of the data collected from participants.
This chapter also provided graphic display of the data collected. Chapter 5 discusses the
findings, recommendations, and conclusions based on the data collected and analysis of
the data.
14
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter identified available and relevant literature from a variety of sources.
The review begins with a discussion of literature that relates to the types of flexible work
arrangements programs, companies who were successful in using flexible work
arrangement strategies, and advantages and disadvantages of flexible work arrangement
programs. Next is a discussion of flexible work arrangements and worklife balance,
flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction, and future trends in flexible work
arrangement programs. Last is a discussion of Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory.
Types of Flexible Work Arrangements

Flexible work arrangements include flextime, compressed work weeks,
telecommuting, and job sharing/work sharing (Kelly & Kalev, 2006).
Telecommuting
Employers have been allowing employees to telecommute for a long time.
According to Langhoff (2002) and Kurland and Bailey (1999), the term telecommuting
was coined by Jack Nilles, a rocket scientist, while working on a project for NASA in
1970. Nilles had experienced several problems on the project and decided to try
alternative strategies to resolve the issues.
15
As computer programmers became more important and harder to find in the early
1970s, companies like Control Data Corporation (CDC) began to explore the concept of
working at home as recruitment tool. Programmers liked the idea of not being stuffed into
a corporate office and being able to concentrate any hour on his or her work. CDCs
telecommuting policy gave it a competitive advantage for a time in the hiring of
programmers (Piskurich, 1998).
When Congress amended the Clean Air Act, many companies were motivated to
implement telecommuting programs. As a result, 11 states with the poorest air quality
were targeted to reduce daily commuting. Telecommuting was used to help organization
in these states reduce the number of employees who commuted daily (Siha & Monroe,
2006).
In 2000, the Behavior Research Center conducted a study sponsored by AT&T.
The study concluded that about 17 million workers aged 18 and older could be classified
as teleworkers. In addition, the researchers revealed that over half of these employees had
worked offsite for about 3 years, and 2.8 million of these employees had limited
experience. This statistic showed a quick increase in offsite workers and a 20% increase
in the growth rate over a year earlier (Gibson, Blackwell, Dominicis, & Demerath, 2002).
Flextime
Flextime is a very popular flexible work option. It is used by both public and
private sector employers. Flextime allows flexibility in start and finish times, with no
change in the workers total hours worked. For instance, a couples partner uses flextime
and starts work early. With a shortened lunch, the partner is able take care of the children
after school. These schedules seem to work better for the couple than the standard 9-to-5
16
schedule. According to recent research, flexibility in employees work schedule has

positive effects on employee outcomes (Gainey & Clenney, 2006; Haar, 2007). Some
benefits of flextime include improved member relationships, more engaged and loyal
employees, improved communication throughout the organizations, and higher employee
retention. The Alliance for Work-Life Progress stated that employees rank flexibility
behind wages and healthcare. Given the high level of importance and impact of flexible
scheduling, almost 85% of all companies offer some form of flexibility to their
employees according to the group. Organizations that do not offer this work option to
their employees risk burning out or losing their top performers. With productivity
increasing more than one third for some organizations that embrace this strategy, this is
one that can be deemed beneficial for both sides (Liberman, 2008).
Compressed Work Week
Compressed work weeks are very common in the American workforce and have
been viewed positively by management and employees. Among the most commonly
reported disadvantages are coverage, fatigue, scheduling, moonlighting, productivity,
supervision, reluctance to return to work after being away for an extended period, and
employee dissatisfaction with long work hours. This flexible work arrangement varies
significantly and is usually used in the following industries: manufacturing, computer
operations, petroleum, insurance, and hospitals (Vega & Gilbert, 1997).
Some advantages associated with compressed works weeks are improved
productivity, morale, better recruitment and retention, employee and customer relations,
reduced turnover, absences, overtime, tardiness, and operating expenses. These authors
note that studies concerning compressed work weeks have hinged data from
17
questionnaires and case study data collected on individual companies. Very little
longitudinal data were used, which makes generalization about private and public sector
industries complex and narrow in focus (Vega & Gilbert, 1997).
Hyland, Rowsome, and Rowsome (2005) observed that mixed results have been
found in studies conducted on compressed work weeks. Some researchers found
reductions in sick time and use of personal leave, improved service and productivity (four
out of seven studies) in which compressed work weeks were investigated. There was no
change reported in three out the seven studies.
Job Sharing/Work Sharing
According to Crampton and Mishra (2005), the concept of job sharing was
introduced as a result of the 1978 Federal Employee Part-Time Career Employment Act.
The legislation was enacted to increase the number of workers who wanted to work less
than 40 hours per week. Additionally, this legislation authorized job sharing for federal
employees, which opened the door for further implementation. The authors note that
radical changes have occurred in the workforce which caused companies to reexamine
this viable alternative work arrangement. There have been reports of many benefits
associated with this work option; however, disadvantages also exist. Many companies
that offer job sharing to retain employees indicate that they are willing to use this flexible
work option, but it is sometimes difficult to find employees to participate in the program.
One reason for this is because job sharing may not be suitable for every company or
every employee. Another reason is that sometimes employees are afraid of management
disapproval or career disintegration (Crampton & Mishra, 2005). Work sharing may
influence employee productivity. For example, if employees work fewer hours per week
18
and reduce fatigue, their productivity may increase. On the other hand, this work option
can create situations where worker productivity is decreased and adds to the need for
more workers (Lanoie, Raymond, & Shearer, 2001). Job sharing can be a solution to help
employees juggle family and work obligations, reduce layoffs, produce happy and
productive employees, part-time professional work, and increase employee commitment
and organizational loyalty (Branine, 2003; Franklin, 1999).
Jobs Best Suited for Flexible Work Arrangements

These work options are suitable for work that do not involve rigid schedules, and
in organizations that have effective methods in place to measure employee performance.
It is especially appropriate in urban areas where severe traffic congestions problems exist
(Siha & Monroe, 2006). Jobs suitable for flexible work arrangements programs typically
have many characteristics. Some of these characteristics include tasks that can be
completed during quiet and uninterrupted time; tasks that are clearly defined and
objectives can be set. Other characteristics are ability to schedule work that can only be
done at the main office on nontelecommuting days; and colleagues can be satisfied
through the use of flexible work arrangements (Crampton & Mishra, 2005; Foote, 1998).
The jobs that are best suited for this program are those that fit perfectly to the
benefits it offers, such as flextime and job sharing. Within these parameters, it is
noticeable that the best jobs for this program are those that are project-based. Here, it is
the employees who set their own work discipline and the time they put into the work.
This work arrangement is a simplification of a work routine. Its only concern is to reach a
certain objective within a certain time frameall else is up to the worker. Another job
19
that is suitable for this is commission-based in which workers get paid in line with the
results of his or her work. Employees who have found alternative work arrangements
most suitable for them are those who have issues between work and family life.
Additionally, older workers who have less endurance for a 9-to-5 work routine have
found that this work option is very favorable (Flexible Work Arrangements Attract
Older Workers, 2007).
According to Scordato and Harris (1990), flexible work arrangements can be
successful in many different positions and functional areas. For example, line jobs,
supervisory positions, and jobs with heavy client contact. Some job titles include
architect, benefits administrator, counselor, daycare director, electrical engineer, financial
analyst, graphic designer, human resource generalist, information specialist, international
manager, and network engineer.
Companies That Have Successful Alternative

Work Arrangement Programs
Among the best known companies that offer alternate work programs are Sun
Microsystems Incorporated, KPMG LLP, Best Buy Co. Incorporated,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and PNC Financial Services Group, Incorporated. Sun
Microsystems is a leading software manufacturer that focuses on network computing.
The company offers an open work program to 40% of its employees where they have the
freedom to work any time they want. As a result of using open work programs, Sun
Microsystems found that employees become more productive and become more satisfied
with the company. Moreover, Sun Microsystems employees who work at home have the
20
best scores in performance ratings. KPMG LLP, a company that specializes in providing
audits, tax and advisory services, also offer flexible work schedules, which is part of their
objectives to become more flexible. As a result of using open work programs, Sun
Microsystems found that employees become more productive and become more satisfied
with the company. Moreover, Sun Microsystems employees who work at home have the
best scores in performance ratings. KPMG LLP, a company that specializes in providing
audits, tax and advisory services, also offer flexible work schedules, which is part of their
objectives to become more flexible. In its effort to become more flexible; the company is
offering compressed work weeks where employees are encouraged to leave work by 3:00
p.m. on Fridays.
Best Buy Co. Incorporated offers alternate work programs through its ResultsOnly Work Environments (ROWE). Here, the hours of work in a day are not defined.
What matters is that employees achieve the results they set at the end of the day. PNC
Financial Services Group has some 12,000 or more employees on flextime, which
includes job sharing, compressed work weeks and telecommuting. Finally, there is
PricewaterhouseCoopers, which offers tax and advisory services to their clients.
Approximately 40% of their employees work on an informal basis. Every employee is
given a laptop at this company, and with it, they can work flexible hours, compressed
work weeks, telecommuting and so on (Five Flextime Friendly Companies, 2007).
Advantages and Disadvantages of Flexible Work Arrangements

These issues viewed from the perspective of the employer and employees provide
strong motivations for using these programs. Cost savings that result from such programs
21
may be a motivating factor for employers and employees. When employers realize the
economic benefits of such programs, they will allow and promote them. Much has been
written about the potential cost savings (and sometimes additional costs) that may arise
because of flexible work arrangement options (Kaczmarczyk, 2004; Shoop, 2006). Cost
reduction is often considered the main reason for an organization to use flexible work
arrangements.
Best Buy Co. Incorporated offers alternate work programs through its ROWE.
Here, the hours of work in a day are not defined. What matters is that employees achieve
the results they set at the end of the day. PNC Financial Services Group has some 12,000
or more employees on flextime, which includes job sharing, compressed work weeks and
telecommuting. Finally, there is PricewaterhouseCoopers, which offers tax and advisory
services to their clients. Approximately 40% of their employees work on an informal
basis. Every employee is given a laptop at this company, and with it, they can work
flexible hours, compressed work weeks, telecommuting and so on (Five Flextime
Friendly Companies, 2007).
These issues viewed from the perspective of the employer and employees provide
strong motivations for using these programs. Cost savings that result from such programs
may be a motivating factor for employers and employees. When employers realize the
economic benefits of such programs, they will allow and promote them. Much has been
written about the potential cost savings (and sometimes additional costs) that may arise
because of flexible work arrangement options (Kaczmarczyk, 2004; Shoop, 2006). Cost
reduction is often considered the main reason for an organization to use flexible work
arrangements. Some advantages enjoyed by employers and employees include lower fuel
22
costs, more transportation options, more parking availability, reduced stress, improved
morale and productivity, longer periods of time away from the office with no reduction in
the employees leave balance, service hours can be extended, and minimal absences and
tardiness. Because a more flexible starting and ending time can be agreed upon,
employers enjoy enhanced recruitment and retention, and employees benefit from better
opportunities for cross-training due to coverage adjustments and shared job
responsibilities (Creagh & Brewster, (1998).
Of course, some disadvantages also exist. These include loss of work unit
cohesion due to reduced face-to-face interactions, working in a central location may
cause some employees to feel distanced from the other workers, and more distractions
may occur when working from home. Other disadvantages include lower productivity,
the boundary of work time and personal time can become unclear when working from
home, and other workers in the work unit may feel they must work beyond their strength
or capacity. There are still other disadvantages, including tracking employee time
becomes complex, monitoring employees becomes more difficult; and the direct costs of
some flexible work arrangements may not be offset by increased productivity, reductions
in resource requirements, or reduced costs (Kush & Stroh, 1994).
There are many advantages to flexible work arrangements, including increased
job satisfaction, higher employee productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, and
reduced costs associated with real estate. In addition, flexible work arrangements help
employers attract well-educated applicants, strengthen the recruitment strategy of the
organization, and maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Maxwell, Rankine, Bell, & MacVicar, 2007). Review of the literature
23
shows that flexible starting and ending times reduce loss of work due to mild illnesses,
allow greater flexibility in office space and equipment use during peak times (Creagh &
Brewster, 1998). Maxwell et al. identified several potentially negative factors: errors due
to fatigue, communication problems, continuity and isolation at work, minimized staffing
levels, and lean production lines.
Flexible Work Arrangements and WorkLife Balance

It is importance to have balance in ones work and life responsibilities. Balance
helps maintain the leverage needed to get an idea of how to approach situations and take
care of the problems. Balance in ones life is necessary to enjoy and appreciate all that
can be achieved without bringing too much stress into ones life. Lifes responsibilities
are many and situations come about in different ways, shapes and forms. It is
understandable that one cannot handle stressors in the same manner as another (Hill,
Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001).
Frank and Lowe (2003) reported that many employees require flexibility in their
work schedules to help balance work with their family and personal lives. Various works
of literature that focused on work and life balance seemed to boost the advantages from
flexible work arrangements in large organizations. These organizations have more
resources than smaller businesses to develop and implement such practices. Other
research has brought to the forefront health issues such as stress management caused by
worklife imbalance (Maxwell et al., 2007).
In Periyakoils (2007) article, the following holds true and share a resemblance to
what most of use know and should apply but seldom pay close attention to and execute.
24
First, finding a worklife balance helps sustain the inner core of energy and serves to
reduce work related stresses (Periyakoil, 2007, p. 308). The statement is not only valid,
but it is something that people can process and internalize on many levels. Based on the
research they conducted relating to balance and job satisfaction, Bryant and Constantine
(2006) suggested that (according to the role balance theory), women can function in
multiple roles during their life time. Further, the authors contend that the issues affecting
both womens physical health and mental depends on the extent that they organize the
roles in their lives. When one lacks in leveraging the responsibilities in his or her life, this
potentially leads to undue stress and unwanted stress, which leads to negative attitudes
and behaviors in peoples personal life and professional life. Encompassing this pattern
lies the problem of conflict arising which in reality could help ensure that peoples work
and life responsibilities are kept in balance.
Flexible Work Arrangements and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction and worker motivation has attracted lots of research. It has
become one of the most studied work attitudes. Researchers such as Igbaria and
Guimaraes (1999) and Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992) have contributed a great deal to this
subject area. These researchers have reported that telecommuters are satisfied with their
work arrangement especially when not required by their employers. The source of job
satisfaction came from factors such as working conditions, taking care of family and
personal obligations, and scheduling ones own working hours. Individuals with children
reported the greatest satisfaction (Siha & Monroe, 2006). Researchers at the University of
Minnesota concluded that job satisfaction stems from 20 different dimensions. These
25
include recognition, compensation, supervision, job security, and advancement on the job
to name a few (D. J. Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).
Flexible work schedules rate very high for employees interested in balancing
personal and work life and factors that contribute to job satisfaction. Randstad of North
America conducted a survey of 6,000 workers. Of these 6,000 participants, 51% indicated
that if their current employer offered flexible work hours they would continue to work for
the company. A number of employers discovered that flexible work schedules have more
benefits than loyal workers. For example, Aladdin Equipment of Sarasota, Florida, found
that absenteeism dropped 50%, and productivity increased by 10% when it changed its
traditional work schedule to four 9-hour days and 4 hours on Friday. All time sales
records were broken at another company that implemented a p.m. ending time for
employees who exceeded their sales goals (Boehle, Stamps, & Stratton, 2000; Ghazzawi,
2008).
Future Trends in Flexible Work Arrangement Programs

The number of mobile workers is on the rise. Researchers predict that there will
be about 61 million workers by 2009. A 2006 survey found that 44% of companies intend
to increase the population of workers involved in flexible work arrangements (Chen &
Nath, 2005).
Interest among workers for flexible work options is stable or growing, according
to the results of the HR Focus Flexible Work Options Survey. The growth of this option
depends on the extent of the offerings, how many employees will use them, and the
organizations motivation to implement and support these options. The respondents
26
indicated that structured programs seemed to be the main ingredient to achieve success in
these work options. Everyone knows what is expected of them when parameters are set
and enforced. Respondents said that the leading reasons employees want more flexible
arrangements are changes in family circumstances, greater need for child and elder care,
seeing other employees in the organization using these options, and the availability of
these options at other organizations (Flexible Work Grows as Work/Life Solution,
2004).
Not everyone seems to agree about the importance of flexible work arrangements.
According to Benko and Weisberg (2008), flextime and worklife balance is becoming
less important. Todays workforce is dominated by knowledge workers with different
goals and options; therefore, flextime and worklife balance is less important. The
authors also argue that flexible work arrangements do not address the fundamental needs
of the changing workforce although they have been helpful to some.
Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Herzberg developed a theory regarding employee behavior in the workplace
because he wanted to understand the factors that contributed to job satisfaction. Before
Herzberg other theorists understood the phenomenon of job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction under one continuum. They were the opposite ends of the spectrum. This
means that the greater the job satisfaction, the less dissatisfaction and vice versa. This is
the operating context on the earlier theories of job satisfaction. For example, the
fulfillment theory claimed that the degree of response a worker gets is directly
proportional to his or her job satisfaction. If an employee does not get a positive
27
response, job dissatisfaction will be more likely. Discrepancy theories deal with the needs
and wants of the employee. If employees are not fulfilled the greater the dissatisfaction
with their work (J. I. Harris, Winskowski, & Engdahl, 2007; Herzberg et al., 1959;
Michalos, 1991).
Herzberg proceeded to conduct his own study. His survey research was
undertaken with engineers and accountants in nine manufacturing firms in Pittsburgh,
PA. His questions were twofold. In the first, he asked people to describe situations in
their workplace that made them feel good about their job. The second were questions
about what made them feel bad. When interviewing employees, he found a pattern.
People seemed to feel good about their jobs, but had very different responses when asked
about bad situations. For Herzberg, these differences seemed to run out of context from
the one-line continuum that earlier theories operated (Herzberg et al., 1959).
The two-factor theory helps improve worker comradeship and workersupervisor
relationships. Essentially, because of Herzbergs theory, working became more
interesting as employees need not worry that the organization is no longer playing a tugof-war between satisfying their physiological and psychological needs. Furthermore, this
theory improved the aspect of promotion. Before, promotion was primarily a notion of
giving an employee more responsibility. Today, there is much more importance placed on
promotion as it is now marketed to provide growth, recognition and higher salaries.
Fundamentally, the importance of the two-factor theory to individuals is that it
accommodates self-fulfillment on the job, and it gives individual workers status which
defines ones place or rank in the organization (Williamson, 1986).
28
Good business sense tells us that Herzbergs theory is valid. A good company
policy or a neat work setting does not necessarily lead an employee to keep working. Nor
it is not reason enough for him or her to decide to stay on the job. A higher salary does
not necessarily mean an employee will be happy with his or her job. Conversely,
recognition of a job well done or career advancement are not factors that will
automatically avoid feelings of dissatisfaction. A worker may be promoted, but the work
setting and or the salary is still poor or average which can cause dissatisfaction. Common
sense tells us that a hostile work environment, no matter how much psychological needs
are provided will not counter dissatisfaction. The same applies to physiological needs. In
a statement made by Herzberg in 1968, he said that his two-factor theory has been
replicated 16 times in various populations, which included Communist countries.
Researchers he collaborated with later on were said to agree with his original findings
concerning intrinsic motivations, making it one of the most replicated findings on worker
attitudes (Sachau, 2007).
Although Herzbergs theory is not without criticism, it opened many doors to the
study of human satisfaction (Hinrichs & Mischkind, 1967; Hinton, 1968). Others
criticized Herzbergs theory because of its dimensionality and methodology. Because of
it, many researchers went back to believing that satisfaction and dissatisfaction no longer
exist in separate dimensions. Although Herzbergs theory is still influential, some regard
it as obsolete. When Herzberg asked employees what situations satisfied and dissatisfied
them, he was already framing the answer itself, which would indeed lead him to believe
that they are two phenomena. His assumptions are further skewed when, during the
interviews, the respondents gave a socially acceptable answer (or what they believe the
29
interviewer wanted to hear). The bidimensionality aspect of his theory closed the doors
on any possibilities that there are individual differences between employees. Herzberg
assumed immediately that all employees had similar personality traits; they have the
same reactions; that achievement, recognition and growth are boxed-in with motivator
factors; and salary, working conditions, and company policies are sets of hygiene factors.
Moreover, Herzberg is criticized for assuming a great deal regarding human behavior
(Herzberg et al., 1993; Phelps & Waskel, 1994). For instance, Herzberg assumed that
satisfied and happy workers are sufficient enough to explain their productivity levels; all
workers carry average behavior and so on. Indeed, getting recognition might lead
individuals to work more, but does not necessarily improve his or her productivity levels.
Still other researchers criticized Herzberg regarding satisfaction and dissatisfaction as
mutually exclusive for the obvious reason that some motivators contribute to both
motivation and hygiene factors (Friedlander, 1964). Salary can also satisfy a mans
psychological need as it gives him status in the organization (Sachau, 2007).
Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory can be used to address motivational
concerns. Outcomes such as absenteeism, lagging performance, and turnover, can be
reduced when managers show employees that they care about them and recognize them
for good performance. Line employees are motivated by hygiene factors such as salary,
overtime, bonuses, and health benefits. The authors state that there is a lack of social
recognition, which plays an important part in increasing workers productivity (McElroy,
Liddell, Richman, & Thompson, 2008).
Herzberg applied job enrichment to the motivation-hygiene theory. Job
enrichment involves modifying jobs so that employees and experience more of the
30
motivator factors. Enriched jobs offer frequent opportunities to experience achievement,

opportunities to take responsibility, opportunities to be autonomous, and opportunities to
learn (Sachau, 2007).
In Udechukwus (2007) article, the author noted that there were some who argued
against the two-factor theory and concluded that there was no support for it, and thus
demonstrated the distinct differences between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According
to the author, all variables are equally potent contributors to job satisfaction. Udechukwu
also noted that other authors argued that job satisfaction can be due to high levels of
satisfaction with intrinsic factors, and dissatisfaction can be due to low levels of
satisfaction with intrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors can cause both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction less readily than do the intrinsic factors, but people will more likely say
they have bad or dissatisfied feelings about extrinsic factors.
31
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher discussed the research method that was used in
conducting the research. The following discussion presented the description of the
methodology, design of the study, sample and population, instrumentation and measures,
reliability, validity, data collection, data analysis procedures, and ethical considerations.
This research examined the relationship between flexible work arrangements, job
satisfaction, and worklife balance; identified organizations that were successful in using
these strategies; identified jobs that were best suited for these work options, and
advantages and disadvantages for both employees and employers.
Description of Methodology
The work was a descriptive, quantitative study. Koul (1984) considered
descriptive research a very popular and widely used research method. Additionally, he
suggests that descriptive methods are designed to obtain pertinent and precise
information about the phenomena and formulate valid conclusions from the facts that the
researcher uncovers.
According to Isaac and Michael (1981), the quantitative, descriptive method of
research systematically describes the facts and characteristics of the researchers topic of
32
interest consistent with the facts. Descriptive research allowed the researcher to describe
and evaluate the aspects of the participants feelings, opinions, and attitudes toward
flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and worklife balance. The researchers
decision to use a survey to collect the data further established the suitability of this
methodology (Lee, 1992).
Design of the Study

To gather the data, the researcher used a survey questionnaire. The survey
instrument that was used was the short form MSQ. The researcher obtained permission to
use the instrument from the University of Minnesota (Vocational Psychology Research).
There were 20 items on the survey instrument, one item from each of the original 20
scales (D. J. Weiss et al., 1967). A 5-point Likert-type scale allowed the participants to
indicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the variables. Much of the limitation that
is attributed to survey research is the reliance of self-report. Researchers have nothing to
depend on but the answers of the respondents. They can neither analyze the surveys
based on what they observe nor interact with the participants in a subjective manner. The
analysis can be presented numerically in an objective manner and the data are quantified
as provided by the respondents. Some of the limitations noted in the area were (a)
respondents do not participate in the construction of the information, (b) data do not
capture the decision process that produces observed outcomes, (c) it only gathers
information about the questions asked and cannot explore important subjects in depth as
they are uncovered, and (d) statistical associations do not provide an understanding of
complex relationships. The individuals being surveyed must have a moderate degree of
33
literacy in order for the surveys to be effective. Although possible, using an oral survey is
very impractical (Graverson, 2008; Idea, n.d.).
How the questionnaires are disseminated, is an important consideration. The
considerations for this process are budgets, time limitations and the level of anonymity
desired for a study. Presently, e-communication is thought to be the best mode of
dissemination since it is easier to access and disseminate at almost no cost. Respondents
were able to respond effectively and in a user-friendly medium (Burns et al., 2008;
Pinterick, 2005). For the pretest, the questionnaire was distributed via email to 40
participant surrogates. In the actual research study, the questionnaire was distributed via
email to 200 participants.
Sample and Population

Survey research is a form of scientific inquiry whose purpose is to collect reliable
and unbiased data from participants who are representative of a sample. Some
questionnaires are descriptive (reporting factual data), and can look at more than one
construct at a time. The design represented in this study was snowball sampling, a
nonprobability design. Snowball sampling is a technique where the researcher identified
individuals from the population of interest and use these individuals as informants to
identify other members of the population, who are themselves used as informants, and so
on (Robson, 2002). The researcher identified participants who met certain criteria, who in
turn identified other potential participants meeting the same criteria (Burns et al., 2008).
The key informants made initial contact with other potential participants and had them
contact the researcher if they are interested in participating in the study.
34
This explanatory research project required 200 completed surveys in order to

achieve statistically valid results. Additionally, a sample of 200 would minimize
shrinking of the multiple correlation coefficients (Cohen, 1977). Furthermore, this size
would yield power greater than .97 to detect a moderate effect (2 = .15) in a multiple
regression analysis at the .05 level. According to Cohen, the power analysis accounts for
the effect of sample size and the probability of correctly rejecting the hypothesis.
Since there were a number of options available to employees participating in
flexible work arrangement programs, and inclusion or exclusion of certain groups of
workers, the participants used in this research were male and female employees who were
involved in such programs at least once a month and were not self-employed. The
participants in this study represented individuals who worked in both the private and
public sectors (e.g., federal government, professional and business services, insurance
and healthcare industries).
Participation in this study was voluntary and survey responses were kept
confidential. Participants were required to sign a consent form that stated the purpose of
the study, acknowledging that their participation in the study was voluntary and that they
were able to stop participating in the study at any time.
Protection of the data collected was paramount to maintaining the confidentiality
and anonymity of the participants throughout the research process (Creswell, 2002).
Therefore, pseudonyms for the participants were used throughout the collection of data
and reporting of the findings.
35
Instrumentation/Measures
The MSQ (short form), which was used for the study, contained multiple
measurement variables to assess job satisfaction. In this study, the research was intended
to examine how employees job satisfaction and worklife balance relates to tenure, age,
education, income, and other demographics. This tool measured intrinsic and extrinsic
job satisfaction. This instrument was selected because of its acceptance and wide usage in
the research community and, therefore, has sufficient internal validity and reliability to
measure job satisfaction (DeMato & Curcio, 2004; Van Horn, 2008; van Saane, Sluiter,
Verbeek, & Frings-Dresen, 2003).
The data collected were analyzed to determine differences in job satisfaction and
worklife balance. Inferential statistical methods such as an independent measure t test,
confidence level, and multiple regression testing were performed on the dependent and
independent variables. An idea of the direction and strength of the relationship between
the variables will be provided through the use of measures of correlation. Descriptive
statistics (means and standard deviations) will help readers get an understanding of the
data and identify any potential problems that can skew the analysis. To determine central
tendencies of the data, means will be computed, and to discover the extent of the variance
of the data, standard deviation will be computed.
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2001), researchers are unable to avoid
encountering bias of one sort or another. To handle this problem, the authors suggest that
researchers accept this fact as an inevitable condition in research and not be unduly upset.
36
Instrument
Biases here are most likely because of the way the questions are put together and
the kind of questions asked. The survey questionnaire is created to reflect the answers the
researcher is looking for. The MSQ limits answers to one of the five categories listed.
Questionnaires often do that leaving little or no room for gray areas of concern. The
wording of the answer choices is also a way to create bias. The use of words like very
and extreme can mean different things to different people. In some cases, the differences
in how people perceive words like very satisfied and extremely satisfied can make a
difference in how they might answer. The order of choice is important, as well. Starting
with very dissatisfied and ending with very satisfied guide people to consider the negative
first. However, starting with the positive first can skew the survey to more positive results
than may occur. Some people limit themselves to the first answers or do not read
completely through an answer choice before answering the question.
Participants
Everyone has their own agenda. When participants are part of a research study,
care has to be taken to consider the background and experiences of the people being
interviewed and questioned. For example, the obvious questionssuch as Are you
satisfied with your lifestyle?are going to be very different when posed to those whose
income is less than $20,00 and those whose income is more than $100,000. Issues such as
quality of care in a hospital intensive care unit are also going to be based on experiences
including whether or not the patient involved became better. The researcher has to take
these experiences and challenges that people face into consideration. Cooper and
37
Schindler (2006) suggested that responses should be accepted for what they are
statements by individuals who reflect varying degrees of truth and accuracy.
Researcher
The first thing that a researcher must learn is to address his or her own biases
about the subject. There is a reason the researcher chooses a subject to be researched. The
researcher must understand the approach he or she takes and the questions or hypothesis
formulated. The people and data used are a choice that can be based on trying to achieve
what the researcher believes to be true. Researchers are also people with experiences and,
therefore, must examine and note those in their research evaluation (Robson, 2002).
Reliability and Validity

The data gathered and the objective of the survey generally determine the
reliability required. Reliability refers to the researchers ability to ensure that the
measurement procedure yields consistent results (Fisher, Andersen, & Heath, n.d.).
Maintaining consistency of data was necessary for making general statements. This
involves, for example, administering the questionnaire or portions of the questionnaire to
the same respondents at different times or under different circumstances to assess how
stable the answers are (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2007).
The validity and reliability of the MSQ has been established through the finding
of van Saane et al. (2003). These researchers used a total of 29 instruments with
psychometric quality control factors consisting of internal consistency scale total and
range coefficient of 0.79, testretest coefficient scale totals and range scales (0.69),
38
convergent validity scale total and subscale correlation range (0.49), discriminate validity
(0.50), and content validity that contain at least 4 of 11 factors (van Saane et al., 2003).
The instruments reliability is based on Hoyts analysis of variance (ANOVA)
method which demonstrates that the MSQ scales have internal, consistent reliability. For
intrinsic satisfaction, researchers reported that coefficients for the short-form scale ranged
from .84 to .91 and from 77 to .82 for the extrinsic scale and from .87 to .92 for the
general satisfaction scale. The validity of the short form MSQ is contingent on the
validity of the long form MSQ which shows the validity through its performance
according to theoretical expectations (D. J. Weiss et al., 1967).
Cronbachs alpha was used to test for reliability. Cronbachs alpha measures how
well each item in a scale correlates with the sum of the remaining items. It also measured
consistency among the items in a scale (Cronbach, 1951).
Validity is the extent that a test measures what the researcher needs to measure.
Reliability is concerned with the accuracy and precision of measurement procedures. To
measure the validity (content and construct) of the survey, responses from the pretest
were analyzed. The various types of validity (face, content, construct and criterion) can
be measured in surveys. Face validity evaluates whether the questionnaire measures what
it is supposed to and is thought to be the most subjective. The researcher tests for content
validity by evaluating whether the questionnaire accurately measures every aspect of the
topic. Construct validity should be measured if specific criteria cannot be identified that
adequately defines the construct being measured. Criterion validity reflects the success of
measures used for prediction or estimation. Researcher must make sure that the validity
criterion used is itself valid (Cooper & Schindler, 2006, p. 320). These authors
39
suggested that any criterion measure should be judged in terms of several qualities: (a)
relevance, (b) freedom from bias, (c) reliability, and (d) availability.
Data Collection
The data were collected using a survey questionnaire. Questionnaires are useful
when the researcher needs to collect large amounts of information from people quickly or
easily. Several advantages are (a) can complete anonymously, (b) easy to compare and
analyze, (c) inexpensive to administer, (d) can administer to many people, and (e) can use
existing questionnaires. Some of the challenges of using questionnaires are (a) people
who receive them do not return them, (b) wording can bias responses, and (c) impersonal
so the researcher does not get the full story (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).
The confidence level reveals the percent range of certainty generated from a
sample (+ or a certain value range), of how the whole population will respond to a
specific question. The wider the confidence interval accepted the more certain the entire
population answers will be within that particular range. The confidence level tells the
researcher how sure he or she can be because it represents how often the true percentage
of the population will choose an answer that falls within the confidence level. The
literature shows that most researchers use the 95% level. The choice of the significance
level used in this research will be .05, the most common level used by researchers
(Cooper & Schindler, 2006).
Participants completed the survey. Prior to the administration of the questionnaire,
40 pretest participants were selected from volunteers who participated from a request
made on the universitys Web site. All individuals were contacted via email. The
40
questionnaire, information about why the survey is being conducted, a definition of

flexible work arrangements, a statement regarding anonymity, instructions, and a request
for a return email to confirm his or her agreement to participate in the survey was
included in this communication.
Follow-up was accomplished using email 15 business days after the surveys were
emailed. This allowed ample time for delivery to the participants and time to complete
and return the survey. For participants who returned the surveys, the correspondence
thanked them for their participation. For those who did not respond, the email served as a
reminder that they were still able to participate if the survey was returned within 5
business days.

ORourke (2003) stated that when analyzing data, it is normal to discover that
some data are missing. Sometimes the quantity of missing data is negligible; while in
other instances, it can be substantial. To prevent or minimize instances of missing data,
the author suggests (a) understand the reason for the missing data (e.g., participants
refuse to answer the question, participants do not know the answer to the question, or
question sensitivity); (b) prevention is the best possible means to avoid or minimize
missing data; and (c) survey instruments should be well designed with explicable
directions and clear-cut and answerable items. Missing data can be dealt with by simply
ignoring it and just analyzing the remaining data.
Like ORourke, Cooper and Schindler (2006) suggested several tools to use to
address missing data. These tools appear to be the same as ORourkes, just with different
41
names: (a) listwise deletiondiscarding the surveys, (b) pairwise deletionmissing data
completely random and requires that the researcher estimate for consistency, and (c)
replacement of missing data requires the researcher to estimate the missing responses
based on the researchers choice of using average response or most used response to
capture the missing data. Generally, it is quite difficult to measure the effects when data
are missing. Analysis and interpretation of the data can be influenced by missing data.
To prepare and analyze the data, the researcher used SPSS and Excel software
packages. Mean score were computed and graphics created. A regression analysis of the
independent and dependent variables was performed.
Ethical Considerations
Robson (2002) stated that it is vital, at a very early stage of ones preparation to
carry out an enquiry, that the researcher gives serious thought to the ethical aspects of
what he or she is proposing. Taking this into consideration, this researcher adhered to the
highest ethical standards during the conduct of the research. All participants in the study
were provided, in writing, detailed information concerning the study and its purpose and
the study procedures.
The email invitation and online informed consent form assured participants
confidentiality and anonymity. The use of a third-party vendor, FreeOnlineSurveys.com,
assisted in maintaining the participants privacy and anonymity. The researcher did not
include any vulnerable populations in the study.
All data were used to prepare the dissertation. All data were analyzed, so the
researcher stored it in a secure location. The results of the study will not be shared with
42
anyone. The surveys, other paperwork, and software computations will remain in the
researchers possession within the statutory limits after publication of the dissertation at
which time all data will be shredded and discarded (G. McLaughlin, personal
communication, January 7, 2009).
43
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction
and worklife balance. The researcher identified organizations that were successful in
using alternative workplace strategies and identified jobs that were best suited for the
work options. The study discussed advantages and disadvantages for both employees and
employers and factors that determined job satisfaction and worklife balance.
Participants completed online instruments, which consisted of the MSQ and a
demographic survey. A description of the data collection method, the research sample,
the data analysis procedures, and the results of the data analysis from the survey data in
order to answer the following research questions are provided in this chapter:
1. Is there a relationship between demographic variables and job satisfaction?
2. Is job satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to motivator and hygiene factors?
3. Is there a relationship between extrinsic factors and worklife balance?
Results of the data analysis include descriptive statistics for each MSQ scale,
correlations, significance tests, and a summary of the research findings.
44
Data Collection
The researcher used the short form MSQ, which consisted of 20 statements
related to the participants work environment. The participants responded to the
statements by indicating his or her choice of how satisfied he or she was with his or her
present job. The participants checked the appropriate response according to five choices
and corresponding numerical assignment: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 =
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied.
The short form MSQ has statements that measured intrinsic motivators (e.g.,
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and other factors that motivate
employees). Some statements measured extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary, job security,
working conditions, status, organizational policies and procedures, quality of supervision,
and other job content).
A pretest that consisted of 40 participants was conducted prior to launching the
survey. The participants received an email invitation requesting their assistance in testing
the survey, with a link to FreeOnlineSurveys.com, an online survey provider. The email
informed participants that the survey and the six questions should be completed as soon
as possible, but not later than October 30, 2009.
The pretest participants were asked to access the Web link, where they completed
the actual survey and answered six brief questions about the MSQ. All participants
completed the questionnaire and answered the six questions. The participants provided
the following feedback regarding the questionnaire: (a) They were comfortable with the
questions and instructions for completing the survey questionnaire were easy to
understand, (b) the construction and design of the survey was very good, (c) the language
45
and terminology used in wording the questions was simple, (d) the length of the survey
was very good, (e) the appearance was simple, and (f) provided no recommendations for
improving the survey.
Research Sample
The researcher identified participants who met certain criteria, who in turn
identified other potential participants meeting the same criteria (Burns et al., 2008). The
key informants made initial contact with other potential participants who contacted the
researcher if they were interested in participating in the study. This explanatory research
project required 200 completed surveys in order to achieve statistically valid results.
Additionally, a sample of 200 would minimize shrinking of the multiple correlation
coefficients (Cohen, 1977). Furthermore, this size would yield power greater than .97 to
detect a moderate effect (2 = .15) in a multiple regression analysis at the .05 level.
According to Cohen, the power analysis accounted for the effect of sample size and the
probability of correctly rejecting the hypothesis.
Since there were a number of options available to employees participating in
flexible work arrangement programs inclusion or exclusion of certain groups of workers,
the participants used in this research were male and female employees who were
involved in such programs at least once a month and were not self-employed. The
participants in this study represented individuals who worked in both private and public
sectors (e.g., federal government, professional and business services, insurance and
healthcare industries).
46
The survey was launched through FreeOnlineSurveys.com to a sample to 200

participants. The participants received an email invitation with a link to the online survey
Web site. The studys results were based on 200 completed surveys. The descriptive
summaries of the personal and work-related characteristics of the 200 participants are
presented in the following discussion.
Table 1 describes and provides a visual perspective of the demographic
characteristics of the sample population studied. Of the 200 participants, the sample
included 134 women and 66 men. The age of the sample ranged from age 18 to 70, with
an average age of 35 and a median age of 34. The marital status of the participants
indicated that 93 of the participants were married; 81 were unmarried, not living with a
partner; and 26 were unmarried living with a partner. The results showed that 120 of the
participants had no children under the age of 18 living at home; 40 had one child living at
home; 23 had two children living at home; and 15 had three children living at home. Two
participants had four or more children under the age of 18 living at home. The majority of
the participants held a graduate degree, followed by a bachelors degree. Almost a quarter
(24.5%) of the participants had some college education and only 11% had a high school
diploma.
Table 2 describes and provides a visual perspective of the work-related
characteristics of the sample population studied. According to the results, the most
common annual income for the participants was $15,00040,000, followed by $45,000
70,000. Less than 4% earned $165,000 or more and 2.5% earned $135,000160,000. One
hundred fifty-four (77.0%) of the studys participants were full-time workers, and 8.0%
(16) were contract workers. There were no temporary workers.
47
Table 1. Participants Personal Characteristics (N = 200)

Characteristic
Proportion (%)
Group sample (n)
Gender
Male
Female
33.0
67.1
66
134
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic American
Asian American
Other
Did not identify
42.0
31.5
13.0
10.0
2.5
1.0
84
63
26
20
5
2
Marital status
Married
Unmarried/partner
Unmarried/no partner
46.5
13.0
40.5
93
26
81
Number of children under 18

0
1
2
3
4
5
60.0
20.0
11.5
7.5
0.5
0.5
120
40
23
15
1
1
Education
High school
Some college
Bachelors
Graduate
11.0
24.5
27.5
37.0
22
49
55
74
The majority of the participants (70.5%) held jobs in the business area at for profit
organizations. The most common occupational category was Other (44.0%). Table 2
provides a visual perspective of the work-related characteristics of the participants.
48
Table 2. Participants Work-Related Characteristics (N = 200)

Characteristic
Proportion (%)
Group sample (n)
Type of organization
For-profit
Nonprofit
Government
Other
70.5
13.5
10.0
6.0
141
27
20
12
Occupational category
Supervisor/manager
Clerical
Other
Missing
34.5
20.0
44.0
1.5
69
40
88
3
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
77.0
15.0
8.0
154
30
16
Current salary
$15,000-40,000
$45,000-70,000
$75,000-100,000
$105,000-130,000
$135,000-160,000
$165,000+
42.0
28.5
18.0
5.5
2.5
3.5
84
57
36
11
5
7
Present job
Business
Education
Physical/psychological healthcare
Science, engineering, & info. technology
Other
Missing
63.5
6.0
17.0
10.0
3.0
0.5
127
12
34
20
6
1
Both the demographic and work-related data showed that the sample was diverse.
However, the majority of the participants were women, White, married, with no children
49
under the age of 18, held graduate-level degrees, were full-time employees, presently
working in jobs, in business area, at for profit organizations, and occupational category,
other. Appendix B provides a graphical interpretation of the data contained in Tables 1
and 2.

The results were tabulated efficiently and quickly through a statistical software
program minimizing the researchers time and costs. R (Version 2.10.0) and SPSS/PASW
(Version 17.0) were used to conduct the data analysis. The data were coded and scored in
accordance with the MSQ. The data were assigned the following codes: 1 = very
dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 =
very satisfied. Twelve of the questions measured intrinsic motivators (e.g., achievement,
responsibility, advancement, and other job characteristics that motivate employees). Six
questions measured extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary, job security, working conditions,
status, organizational policies and procedures, quality of supervision, and other job
characteristics). Three scales (intrinsic, extrinsic, and general satisfaction) were used to
define each of the categories.
Part of the analysis included multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The
MANOVA analysis was used to examine the impact of the independent variables
associated with the MSQ scales. The summary of the MANOVA results are presented in
Table 3. These tests were useful in determining the effect of the independent variables,
and in some cases, interactions. The use of Wilkss Lambda (multivariate F test) assessed
the multivariate significance. All Wilkss Lambda based on race and gender were found
50
to be insignificant. There was a significant multivariate effect of marital status and

education and number of children interaction. There was a significant multivariate main
effect of occupational category, but nonsignificant univariate Fs (MSQ Extrinsic scale).
A significant multivariate effect existed between marital status and number of children
interaction, and education and marital status, and number of children interaction. Both
how long on the job and how long in the field showed that both main effects were
significant.
Table 3. Summary of MANOVA Results

Wilkss
Lambda
Hypothesis
df
Error df
Significance
Gender
.997
.066
3.000
187.000
.919
Race
.922
1.022
15.000
516.626
.430
Marital status
320.000
.000
Education and no. children
467.925
.008
368.000
.030
Marital status and no.

children
442.091
.002
Education and marital status
453.034
.099
Education, marital status, and

no. children
459.984
.002
How long (job)
153.513
.000
Ho long (field)
153.758
.000
Independent variable
51
Research Question 1
Table 4 summarizes the average scores of the major five satisfaction dimensions
across different levels of demographics. As expected, all responses changed across the
demographic categories. However, not all variations were significant (many of these can
be attributed to random fluctuations). To identify which demographic variables
significantly impacted the satisfaction dimensions, several MANOVA analyses, reporting
Wilkss Lambda, and Hotelling trace and corresponding F-test p values were performed.
Once the significant demographic variables were identified, tables and graphs were
generated to give a better understanding of the nature and direction of the impact.
Table 4. Means
Variable
Overall
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Job
satisfaction
factor
factor satisfaction
Worklife
balance
Age
1825
2635
3645
4655
56+
4.13
3.95
3.84
3.83
3.99
4.09
3.90
3.78
3.85
3.74
4.26
4.04
3.93
3.83
4.13
4.33
4.00
3.89
3.89
4.00
3.96
3.92
3.90
3.90
4.25
Gender
Male
Female
4.02
3.92
3.96
3.87
4.13
4.00
4.13
3.99
3.95
3.94
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
N/A
3.94
3.88
4.15
4.08
3.60
4.15
3.89
3.78
4.14
4.02
3.63
4.58
3.96
4.01
4.26
4.20
3.73
4.17
4.00
3.84
4.12
3.90
3.60
3.83
52
4.01
3.98
4.24
4.21
3.66
4.07
Table 4. Means (continued)
Variable
Overall
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Job
satisfaction
factor
factor satisfaction
Education
High school
College
Bachelors
Graduate
4.16
4.11
3.92
3.81
4.16
4.06
3.88
3.73
Marital status
Married
With partner
No partner
3.99
3.99
3.89
3.92
3.92
3.87
Children at home
0
1
2
3 or more
4.01
3.83
3.98
3.83
3.94
3.82
3.95
3.75
Organization type
Profit
Nonprofit
Government
Other
3.96
3.98
3.93
3.83
3.92
3.91
3.76
3.88
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
3.99
3.92
3.70
Salary ($1,000)
$1540
$4570
$75100
$105130
$135160
$165+
3.90
3.93
4.04
4.17
4.16
3.89
4.27
4.23
4.03
3.86
Worklife
balance
4.33
4.30
4.01
3.79
3.97
3.98
3.86
3.97
4.05
4.18
3.97
4.04
3.90
3.85
4.09
3.97
3.99
3.84
3.98
3.78
4.12
3.80
4.06
4.09
4.00
3.76
4.05
4.12
3.98
3.72
3.88
3.96
4.20
4.25
3.95
3.81
3.64
4.08
4.02
3.73
4.04
4.07
3.92
3.97
3.94
3.71
3.89
3.86
3.97
4.17
4.17
3.43
3.97
4.04
4.15
4.17
4.17
4.06
3.94
4.04
4.23
4.06
4.27
3.95
3.88
3.92
3.90
4.36
4.13
4.33
53
4.08
4.11
3.98
4.12
3.89
4.00
3.91
Table 4. Means (continued)
Variable
Overall
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Job
satisfaction
factor
factor satisfaction
Worklife
balance
Job tenure (yrs.)

05
610
1115
1620
21+
3.85
4.15
4.20
4.15
4.22
3.79
4.11
4.18
4.03
4.28
3.92
4.25
4.31
4.37
4.29
3.90
4.30
4.30
4.33
4.33
3.88
4.05
4.17
3.87
4.11
Occupation tenure (yrs.)

05
610
1115
1620
21+
3.94
3.94
4.16
3.75
3.96
3.90
3.90
4.09
3.71
3.84
4.04
4.03
4.27
3.81
4.01
4.07
4.00
4.24
3.74
3.96
3.87
3.95
4.12
3.83
4.15
MANOVA analysis is a multivariate analogue of ANOVA and is used in

instances when two or more dependent variables are used. The MANOVA analysis
determined whether changes in the independent variables had a significant effect on the
dependent variables. A small value of Wilkss Lambda, large value of Hotelling trace,
and small p values (< 0.05) of the corresponding F tests indicated a significant effect.
However, it does not indicate the direction of change.
To find the direction of change, the means across different levels of the
independent variables were compared.
Demographics and Extrinsic Factors
Only the following demographic variables were found to have a significant
impact on the extrinsic factors (age, education, employment status, and salary). Younger
54
employees (age 1835) tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale than older
employees (age 36 and older). High school graduates and individuals with some college
tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale than those who held bachelors and
graduate degrees. Full-time employees tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale
than part-time and contract employees. The results are shown in Table 5.
Demographics and Intrinsic Factors
The MANOVA analysis in Table 6 shows that race, education, employment
status, and salary were the only demographic variables that had a significant impact on
intrinsic factors. Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans had a higher intrinsic scale
than White and Black employees. High school graduates and individuals with some
college had a higher intrinsic scale than those who held bachelors and graduate degrees.
Full-time employees had a higher intrinsic scale than part-time and contract employees.
Intrinsic factors tend to increase with the rise in salary up to a certain level ($160,000).
Demographics and Job Satisfaction
The MANOVA analysis in Table 7 shows that age, organizational type, and
employment status were the only demographic variables that had a significant impact on
job satisfaction. Young employees (age 1835) had higher job satisfaction than middleaged employees (age 2655). Job satisfaction was higher for employees 65 and older.
High school graduates and individuals with some college had higher job satisfaction than
employees who held bachelors and graduate degrees. Full-time and part-time employees
were more satisfied as compared to contract employees. Job satisfaction was higher in
nonprofit organizations and lower in government agencies.
55
Table 5. MANOVA Analysis, Extrinsic Factors

Dependent
variable
Wilkss
Hotelling
Conclusion
Independent variable Lambda p value
trace
p value at 5% level
Extrinsic
factor
Age
Gender
Race
Education
Marital status
Children at home
Organization type
Employment status
Salary
Job tenure
Occupation tenure
0.818
0.988
0.811
0.809
0.899
0.913
0.887
0.836
0.784
0.876
0.869
0.0283
0.8757
0.0976
0.0015
0.0554
0.4809
0.1814
0.0005
0.0255
0.3685
0.2993
0.213
0.013
0.216
0.227
0.110
0.093
0.124
0.192
0.254
0.137
0.144
Age (yrs.)
1825
2635
3645
4655
56+
Extrinsic factor
4.09
3.90
3.78
3.85
3.74
Education
High school
Extrinsic factor
4.16
College Bachelors
4.06
0.0233
0.8757
0.0997
0.0011
0.0548
0.4753
0.1763
0.0004
0.0245
0.3609
0.2983
significant
significant
significant
significant
Graduate
3.88
3.73
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
Extrinsic factor
3.95
3.81
3.64
Salary ($1,000)
$1540
$4570
$75100
$105130
$135160
$165+
Extrinsic factor
3.89
3.86
3.97
4.17
4.17
3.43
56
Table 6. MANOVA Analysis, Intrinsic Factors

Dependent
variable
Wilkss
Hotelling
Conclusion
trace
p value at 5% level
Intrinsic
factor
Age
Gender
Race
Education
Marital status
Children at home
Organization type
Employment status
Salary
Job tenure
Occupation tenure
Race
Intrinsic factor
0.829
0.979
0.762
0.842
0.923
0.914
0.846
0.813
0.757
0.875
0.868
White Black
4.01
High school
Intrinsic factor
4.27
0.197
0.022
0.284
0.180
0.082
0.091
0.174
0.219
0.294
0.137
0.146
Hispanic Asian
3.98
Education
0.1400
0.7626
0.0309
0.0440
0.3381
0.6899
0.0551
0.0002
0.0228
0.5870
0.4966
4.24
4.21
College Bachelors
4.23
0.1262
0.7626
0.0293
0.0403
0.3386
0.6951
0.0524
0.0002
0.0203
0.5869
0.4985
Other
N/A
3.66
4.07
significant
significant
significant
significant
Graduate
4.03
3.86
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
Intrinsic factor
4.08
4.02
3.73
Salary ($1,000)
$1540
$4570
$75100
$105130
$135160
$165+
Intrinsic factor
3.97
4.04
4.15
4.17
4.17
4.06
57
Table 7. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Dependent
variable
Independent
variable
Job
satisfaction
Age
Gender
Race
Education
Marital status
Children at home
Organization type
Employment status
Salary
Job tenure
Occupation tenure
Wilkss
Hotelling
Conclusion
Lambda p value
trace
p value at 5% level
0.860
0.991
0.883
0.857
0.965
0.980
0.908
0.919
0.893
0.933
0.912
0.0033
0.6243
0.0623
0.0004
0.3262
0.9139
0.0265
0.0112
0.1095
0.3287
0.1177
0.159
0.009
0.130
0.166
0.036
0.020
0.101
0.087
0.117
0.071
0.095
Age (yrs.)
1825
2635
3645
4655
56+
Job satisfaction
4.33
4.00
3.89
3.89
4.00
Education
High school
Job satisfaction
4.33
College Bachelors
4.30
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
Job satisfaction
4.04
4.07
3.92
Organization type
Profit
Job satisfaction
4.05
Graduate
4.01
Employment status
Nonprofit Government
4.12
3.98
58
0.0028
0.6243
0.0568
0.0003
0.3275
0.9154
0.0235
0.0106
0.1063
0.3305
0.1150
3.79
Other
3.72
significant
significant
significant
significant
Demographics and Overall Satisfaction

Table 8 demonstrates that in the overall satisfaction category race, education,
organizational type, employee status, and salary were found to have a significant impact
on overall satisfaction. Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans had higher overall
satisfaction than White and Black employees. High School graduates and individuals
with some college had higher overall satisfaction than employees who held bachelors
and graduate degrees. Job satisfaction was higher in nonprofit organizations and lower in
government agencies. Full-time employees were more satisfied than contract employees.
Overall satisfaction improved with a rise in salary up to a certain point ($160,000).
Demographics and WorkLife Balance
In the WorkLife Balance category, Table 9 shows that age, race, education,
marital status, organizational type, salary, and occupational tenure had a significant
impact on worklife balance. Employees ages 18 to 35 had higher worklife balance than
middle-aged individuals (age 3655). Worklife balance was also higher for employees
aged 65 and older. Hispanic Americans and Whites had better worklife balance than
Blacks and Asian Americans. Individuals with high school diplomas, some college, and
graduate degrees had better worklife balance as compared to employees who held
bachelors degrees. Married employees had the most balanced work life, while singles
living without partners had the worst balance. Government organizations appeared to
provide a healthy worklife balance, while profit organizations did not. Worklife
balance appeared to improve more or less with an increase in salary. When analyzing
occupational tenure and worklife balance, no specific patterns were observed. Appendix
C provides a graphical interpretation of the data contained in Tables 49.
59
Table 8. MANOVA Analysis

Dependent
variable
Independent
variable
Overall
satisfaction
Age
Gender
Race
Education
Marital status
Children at home
Organization type
Employment status
Salary
Job tenure
Occupation tenure
Wilkss
Hotelling
Conclusion
Lambda p value
trace
p value at 5% level
0.588
0.923
0.444
0.659
0.799
0.740
0.580
0.655
0.462
0.740
0.672
Education
High school
Overall satisfaction
4.16
0.0754
0.7760
0.0008
0.0611
0.3809
0.6109
0.0006
0.0002
0.0029
0.9809
0.6675
0.588
0.083
0.898
0.468
0.239
0.321
0.612
0.474
0.864
0.316
0.425
College Bachelors
4.11
0.0572
0.7760
0.0007
0.0397
0.3795
0.6072
0.0005
0.0002
0.0019
0.9808
0.6570
significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
Graduate
3.92
3.81
Organization type
Profit
Nonprofit
Government
Other
3.96
3.98
3.93
3.83
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Contractor
4.04
4.07
3.92
Salary ($1,000)
$1540
$4570
$75100
$105130
$135160
$165+
Intrinsic factor
3.97
4.04
4.15
4.17
4.17
4.06
60
Table 9. MANOVA, WorkLife Balance

Dependent
variable
Wilkss
Hotelling
Conclusion
trace
p value at 5% level
Worklife
balance
Age
Gender
Race
Education
Marital status
Children at home
Organization type
Employment status
Salary
Job tenure
Occupation tenure
0.841
0.987
0.851
0.904
0.935
0.947
0.904
0.970
0.826
0.948
0.877
0.0007
0.4518
0.0080
0.0192
0.0407
0.3024
0.0195
0.4209
0.0012
0.5875
0.0124
0.185
0.013
0.167
0.106
0.069
0.055
0.106
0.031
0.204
0.054
0.138
0.0005
0.4518
0.0080
0.0167
0.0388
0.3078
0.0165
0.4192
0.0009
0.5898
0.0105
Age (yrs.)
1825
2635
3645
4655
56+
Worklife balance
3.96
3.92
3.90
3.90
4.28
Hispanic Asian
Other
N/A
3.60
3.83
Race
Worklife balance
White Black
4.00
3.84
4.12
3.90
High
Education
school
Worklife balance
3.97
Marital status
Worklife balance
College Bachelors
3.98
3.86
Married With partner

4.04
3.90
61
Graduate
3.97
No partner
3.85
significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
significant
Table 9. MANOVA, WorkLife Balance (continued)

Organization type
Profit
Worklife balance
3.88
Nonprofit Government
3.96
4.20
Other
4.25
Salary ($1,000)
$1540
$4570
$75100
$105
130
Worklife balance
3.88
3.92
3.90
4.36
Occupation tenure (yrs.)
05
610
1115
1620
21+
Worklife balance
3.87
3.95
4.12
3.83
4.15
$135
160
$165+
4.13
4.33
Research Question 2
Table 10 shows the MANOVA results for the relationship between job
satisfaction questions and extrinsic and extrinsic factors. A * beside Wilkss Lambda 0.65
for Q5 suggests that the average responses for Q13, Q16, and Q20 changed significantly
(at 5% level) as the response for Q5 changed from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. In
statistical terms, a * beside a Wilkss Lambda or Hotelling trace meant the p value for the
corresponding approximate F test is < 0.05; so there was sufficient evidence to believe
that the average response to dependent variables changed across the different levels of the
independent variables. However, this did not indicate the direction of change (e.g., the
researcher cannot say that the average job satisfaction score increases as the scores for
62
extrinsic and intrinsic factors increase). To establish a positive association between the
extrinsic factor and job satisfaction the correlation between the variables were analyzed.
Table 10. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction (Q13, Q16, Q20)
Dependent variable
Job satisfaction (Q13,
Q16, Q20)
Independent
variable
Question Wilkss Lambda
Hotelling trace
Extrinsic factor
Q5
Q6
Q8
Q12
Q17
Q18
0.582*
0.514*
0.619*
0.470*
0.538*
0.569*
0.670*
0.880*
0.596*
1.072*
0.833*
0.706*
Intrinsic factor
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q11
Q14
Q15
Q19
0.657*
0.671*
0.567*
0.345*
0.368*
0.231*
0.403*
0.495*
0.477*
0.742*
1.755*
1.609*
3.140*
1.419*
*Significant statistical evidence at 5% level that the multivariate response for job satisfaction changed on
average as the response for the particular question measuring the independent variable change.
Table 11 shows the correlations r between the responses to each question for
extrinsic factor and each question for job satisfaction. All correlations were positive,
which suggested a positive association between extrinsic factors and job satisfaction. A t
test for each pair of questions in the independent and the dependent variableHO: r = 0
versus H1: r > 0. A small p value (< 0.05) for this test indicated that there was a
significant, positive correlation between the two variables. A p value < 0.05 for a
particular test was indicated by a * beside the outcome of the corresponding cell. The
63
table shows that the p value is < 0.05 for each pair of questions, which means the
response to every single question in extrinsic and intrinsic factors has a significant,
positive correlation with the response to every single question for job satisfaction.
Table 11. Correlation Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Variable
Q13
Q16
Q20
Extrinsic factor
Q5
Q6
Q8
Q12
Q17
Q18
0.296*
0.560*
0.558*
0.620*
0.618*
0.328*
0.480*
0.493*
0.298*
0.528*
0.524*
0.447*
0.385*
0.596*
0.453*
0.605*
0.519*
0.234*
Intrinsic factor
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q11
Q14
Q15
Q19
0.506*
0.427*
0.418*
0.605*
0.716*
0.580*
0.598*
0.356*
0.476*
0.511*
0.541*
0.592*
0.830*
0.556*
0.474*
0.485*
0.597*
0.770*
0.627*
0.656*
0.702*
*p value < 0.05.
The researcher performed a multiple linear regression with average job

satisfaction response as the dependent variable and extrinsic and intrinsic factor questions
as the independent variable to get a better understanding of the nature of the relationship
between extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Table 12 summarizes the findings of multiple
linear regression of the average job satisfaction response on the responses for extrinsic
and intrinsic factors.
64
Table 12. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Variable
t value
Pr (> |t|)
p value
R2
Job satisfaction and extrinsic factors

(intercept)
Q12
Q17
Q8
Q6
Q18
Q5
0.576
5.461
5.125
4.094
2.537
0.672
0.313
0.565
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.502
0.755
57.99
0.6432
Job satisfaction and intrinsic factors

(intercept)
Q15
Q14
Q11
Q1
Q19
Q2
Q3
0.366
8.671
5.166
4.027
3.473
2.935
1.398
0.202
0.714
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.164
0.840
133.07
0.8291
The standardized coefficients for Q12, Q17, Q6, and Q8 (all the independent
variables with significant coefficients [Pr (> |t|) < 0.05] in the regression model) were
positive. For example, all the extrinsic factors contribute positively towards job
satisfaction. The standardized coefficients for Q5 are negative, but this is not significant
(Pr [> |t|] = 0.755 >> 0.05), which means Q5 had no additional significant impact on job
satisfaction over Q12, Q17, Q6, and Q8. The small p values and the large F statistics in
the fourth and fifth columns of Table 12 suggested that there was a significant linear
relationship between average job satisfaction and extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Positive
values for the significant standardized coefficients suggested that the overall relationship
65
was a positive linear (e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic factors contributed significantly to
improved levels of job satisfaction).
The figures that follow clearly showed that the average job satisfaction score
increased with an increase in average scores of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. This means
that employees who were more satisfied with hygiene and motivation factors tend to have
higher job satisfaction.
Figure 1. Extrinsic factors and job satisfaction.
66
Figure 2. Intrinsic factors and job satisfaction.
Research Question 3
To establish a positive association between extrinsic and intrinsic factors, job
satisfaction, and worklife balance a MANOVA between the variables was performed.
The results are summarized in Table 13. A * suggested that significant statistical
evidence at the 5% level that the multivariate response for job satisfaction changed on
average as the response for the particular question measuring the independent variable
changed. For example, a * beside Wilkss Lambda 0.438 for Q5 suggested that the
67
average responses for Q13, Q16, and Q20 changed significantly (at the 5% level) as the
response for Q5 changed from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. In statistical terms, a *
beside a Wilkss Lambda or Hotelling trace meant the p value for the corresponding
approximate F test was < 0.05, so there was sufficient evidence to believe that the
average response to dependent variables changed across the different levels of the
independent variable. However, this did not indicate the direction of change (e.g., the
researcher cannot say that the average worklife balance score increased as the scores for
extrinsic and intrinsic factors increased).
Table 13. MANOVA Analysis, WorkLife Balance (Q4, Q7, Q9)
Dependent variable
Worklife balance
(Q4, Q7, Q9)
Independent
variable
Question Wilkss Lambda
Hotelling trace
Extrinsic factor
Q5
Q6
Q8
Q12
Q17
Q18
0.438*
0.537*
0.727*
0.587*
0.709*
0.608*
1.022*
0.797*
0.359*
0.640*
0.402*
0.555*
Intrinsic factor
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q11
Q14
Q15
Q19
0.730*
0.732*
0.422*
0.478*
0.588*
0.584*
0.611*
0.346*
0.354*
1.240*
1.034*
0.655*
0.648*
0.581*
Job satisfaction
Q13
Q16
Q20
0.650*
0.606*
0.524*
0.502*
0.605*
0.844*
*p value < 0.05.
68
Table 14 shows the correlations r between the responses to each question for
extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction and each question for worklife
balance. As was seen, all correlations were positive, which suggested a positive
association between extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction and each question
or worklife balance.
Table 14. Correlation Analysis, WorkLife Balance

Variable
Q4
Q7
Q9
Extrinsic factor
Q5
Q6
Q8
Q12
Q17
Q18
0.294*
0.319*
0.391*
0.384*
0.544*
0.412*
0.431*
0.463*
0.216*
0.502*
0.336*
0.546*
0.162*
0.200*
0.438*
0.230*
0.499*
0.333*
Intrinsic factor
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q11
Q14
Q15
Q19
0.591*
0.519*
0.508*
0.413*
0.391*
0.399*
0.279*
0.529*
0.595*
0.404*
0.460*
0.381*
0.503*
0.419*
0.491*
0.347*
0.395*
0.290*
0.288*
0.211*
0.176*
Satisfaction
Q13
Q16
Q20
0.297*
0.496*
0.454*
0.441*
0.405*
0.559*
0.080*
0.405*
0.318*
*p value < 0.05.
69
The researcher carried out the following t test for each pair of questions in the
independent and dependent variableHO: r = 0 versus H1: r > 0. A small p value (<
0.05) for the test shows there was a significant positive correlation between the
independent and dependent variables. A p value < 0.05 for a particular test was indicated
by a * beside the outcome of the corresponding cell. The table shows that the p value was
< 0.05 for all but one pair of questions (Q13Q9), which meant the response to most of
the questions in extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction had a significant,
positive correlation with the response to the questions for worklife balance.
T Value
Standardized coefficients for the independent variables (e.g., if the regression
equation is average worklife balance = constant + A * Q12 + B * Q17 + * Q6 + D * Q8
+ E * Q5 + F * Q18, then the standardized value of A is 1.773, suggesting there was a
positive association between Q12 and average worklife balance. Pr (> |t|): This lists the
p values for the tests A = 0, B = 0, and so on. A p value < 0.05 meant that there was
sufficient evidence at the 5% level to believe that the corresponding coefficient was nonzero (e.g., p value for Q18 is 0.023 suggesting that the average worklife balance
changed significantly as the response to Q18 changed from 1 to 5. The value of the F
statistic for the test H0: There was no significant linear relation between worklife
balance and the extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction questions. A high value
of F indicated that the H0 did not hold, (e.g., there was a significant linear relationship).
A small p value (< 0.05) meant the HO did not hold.
The R2 measured the proportion of variation in worklife balance scales explained
by the variation in the extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction. The higher this
70
value the stronger the association between worklife balance and extrinsic and intrinsic
factors and job satisfaction.
Table 15 summarizes the findings of multiple linear regressions of average work
life balance response on the responses for extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job
satisfaction. In the table, it can be seen that the standardized coefficients for Q16 and Q20
(the independent variables with significant (Pr [> |t| > 0.05]) in the regression model)
were all positive. All of these extrinsic factors contribute positively towards worklife
balance. The standardized coefficient for Q13 is negative, but this was not significant (Pr
[> |t|] = 0.189 >> 0.05), which meant Q13 had no significant additional impact on job
satisfaction over Q6 and Q20. Similar explanations hold for other tables.
The p values and the F statistics in the fourth and fifth columns of the table
suggested that there was a significant linear relationship between average worklife
balance and extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction. Positive values for the
significant standardized coefficients suggested the overall relationship was a positive
linear (e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction significantly contributed to
improved levels of worklife balance).
The figures that follow clearly showed that the average worklife balance scale
increased with an increase in the average scale for extrinsic and extrinsic factors and job
satisfaction. This meant that employees who were more satisfied with hygiene,
motivation factors and job satisfaction tended to have improved worklife balance.
71
Table 15. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, WorkLife Balance

Variable
t value
Pr (> |t|)
p value
R2
Worklife balance and extrinsic factors

(intercept)
Q12
Q17
Q8
Q6
Q18
Q5
5.374
4.915
2.377
2.298
1.773
1.136
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.023
0.078
0.257
0.992
26.91
0.4555
Worklife balance and intrinsic factors

(intercept)
Q15
Q14
Q11
Q1
Q19
Q2
Q3
6.295
6.229
2.555
2.012
0.650
0.588
0.283
0.066
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.046
0.517
0.557
0.777
0.948
33.59
0.5505
Worklife balance and job satisfaction

(intercept)
Q16
Q20
Q13
9.197
5.157
5.081
1.319
43.56
0.4000
72
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.189
Figure 3. Extrinsic factors and worklife balance.
73
Figure 4. Intrinsic factors and worklife balance.
74
Figure 5. Job satisfaction and worklife balance.
Reliability and Internal Consistency

Cronbachs alpha analysis is shown in Table 16. Cronbachs alpha measured
internal consistency (how closely related a set of items were as a group). Often, a high
value alpha is used (along with substantive arguments and possibly other statistical
measures) as evidence that the items measure an underlying construct. A reliability
coefficient of .70 or higher was considered acceptable. In this study, all four satisfaction
75
variables have alpha > .70. Only worklife balance had an alpha = 0.6656, which is very
close to .70. This suggested that variables were internally consistent (e.g., all six different
questions for extrinsic factors measured a single underlying characteristic).
Table 16. Cronbachs Alpha

Variable
Cronbachs
No. observations
No. variables
Extrinsic factor
0.8248
200
Intrinsic factor
0.8804
200
Job satisfaction
0.8001
200
0.9415
200
20
Worklife balance
0.6656
200
Table 17 reflects the descriptive statistics summary for the MSQ questions. N
represents the population; M is the arithmetic average of the scores, SD represents
standard deviation; min. is the minimum score obtained; max. is the maximum score
obtained.
Summary
The researcher surveyed 200 men and women from the private and public sectors
to determine the relationship between job satisfaction and worklife balance. The
researcher identified organizations that were successful in employing alternative
workplace strategies and jobs that were best suited for these work options.
76
Table 17. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations (N = 200)

Question
Min.
Q1
Mdn
Q3
Max.
SD
4.210
4.00
5.00
0.938
4.295
4.00
5.00
0.861
4.020
4.00
5.00
1.089
3.560
3.00
4.00
1.045
3.625
3.00
4.00
0.990
3.870
3.00
5.00
1.058
4.475
4.00
5.00
0.856
4.130
4.00
5.00
1.072
3.795
3.00
5.00
0.994
10
3.430
3.00
4.00
0.848
11
4.225
4.00
5.00
1.082
12
3.700
3.00
4.00
1.047
13
3.795
3.00
5.00
1.245
14
3.560
3.00
4.00
1.222
15
4.095
4.00
5.00
0.959
16
4.085
4.00
5.00
0.955
17
4.385
4.00
5.00
0.678
18
3.700
3.00
4.25
0.967
19
3.895
3.75
5.00
1.058
20
4.225
4.00
5.00
1.068
77
The study discussed advantages and disadvantages for both employees and
employers, and factors that determined job satisfaction and worklife balance. The MSQ
and a demographic questionnaire were the instruments used to collect data from the
respondents. FreeOnlineSurveys.com, an online provider, enabled the researcher to create
and produce cost and time efficient surveys. The questionnaire measured intrinsic
motivators such as achievement and recognition and extrinsic motivators such as salary
and job security. Appendix D explains which questions were used to measure the intrinsic
and extrinsic factors. The data were analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software for
Windows and Microsoft Excel. The analysis included a MANOVA, using the MSQs
three scales as the dependent variables. Wilkss Lambda assessed the multivariate
significance. The data showed significant multivariate effect on marital status, education,
number of children interaction and job tenure. Based on the results, age, race, education,
marital status, organizational type and salary were positively correlated to job satisfaction
and worklife balance. The results showed that younger employees between the ages 18
to 35 showed a higher level of satisfaction and worklife balance on the extrinsic scale as
compared to older employees. The data showed that full-time employees, high school
graduates, and individuals who had some college were more satisfied than individuals
who held bachelors and graduate degrees. Part-time and those who held graduate
degrees had a lower satisfaction rate. Job satisfaction is also higher for older employees
(65 and older). The research indicated that job satisfaction is higher in nonprofit
organizations and lower in government agencies. Hispanic Americans and Asian
Americans scored higher than White and Black employees. Higher salaries also increased
satisfaction.
78
However, the results were opposite in terms of worklife balance. Hispanic

Americans, Whites, high school graduates, individuals who held graduates, and married
employees all have higher worklife balance levels. The results of the study also showed
that job satisfaction and worklife balance are positively correlated.
79
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The aim of this research was threefold. First, the study examined the relationship
between flexible work arrangement programs, job satisfaction, and worklife balance.
Second, it identified jobs that were best suited for these strategies and identified a number
of companies who were successful in using these strategies. Third, the study discussed
the advantages and disadvantages of flexible work arrangement options for both
employees and employers.
Today, many companies recognize their employees as their most valued asset.
This has led to increased awareness of job satisfaction and worklife balance. Employee
relations are changing in the 21st century. Managers have become aware of a variety of
programs they can implement to help increase overall job satisfaction and improve
overall worklife balance. Companies are taking a long-term view of this issue, knowing
that if they are able to get it right, it will result in employee loyalty and increased profits
for their businesses. The dynamics of todays organizations have changed because of the
increase in information technology and the rapid pace of communication. As a result,
companies must evaluate and improve their management strategies in order to meet the
challenges of the times and globalization.
80
The literature review concentrated on literature (seminal and empirical) that

established the foundation of this study. Literature related to flexible work arrangements
were organized around eight themes: (a) types of flexible work arrangements, (b)
disadvantages and advantages of flexible work arrangements, (c) flexible work
arrangement and worklife balance, (d) flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction,
(f) future trends in flexible work arrangement, (e) jobs best suited for flexible work
arrangements, (g) companies with successful work arrangement programs, and (h)
Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory.
This work was a descriptive, quantitative study. This research methodology
attempted to describe a population and understand the situations that surrounded them.
This approach does not attempt to prove or show causation for what is occurring.
Quantitative design using survey research as the method for collecting the data produced
valid data, which allowed the researcher to answer the research questions.
Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between demographic variables and job
satisfaction?
Only the following demographic variables were found to have a significant
impact on the extrinsic factors (age, education, employment status, and salary). Younger
employees (age 1835) tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale than older
employees (age 36 and older). High school graduates and individual with some college
tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale than those who held bachelors and
graduate degrees. Full-time employees tend to have a higher satisfaction extrinsic scale
than part-time and contract employees.
81
Race, education, employment status, and salary were the only demographic
variables that had a significant impact on intrinsic factors. Hispanic Americans and Asian
Americans had a higher intrinsic scale than White and Black employees. High school
graduates and individuals with some college had a higher intrinsic scale than those who
held bachelors and graduate degrees. Full-time employees had a higher intrinsic scale
than part-time and contract employees. Intrinsic factors tend to increase with the rise in
salary up to a certain level ($160,000).
Age, organizational type, and employment status were the only demographic
variables that had a significant impact on job satisfaction. Young employees (age 1835)
had higher job satisfaction than middle-aged employees (age 2655). Job satisfaction was
higher for employees 65 and older than other age groups. High school graduates and
individuals with some college had higher job satisfaction than employees who held
bachelors and graduate degrees. Full-time and part-time employees were more satisfied
as compared to contract employees. Job satisfaction was higher in nonprofit organizations
and lower in government agencies.
In the overall satisfaction category race, education, organizational type, employee
status, and salary had a significant impact on overall satisfaction. Hispanic Americans
and Asian Americans had higher overall satisfaction than White and Black employees.
High school graduates and individuals with some college had higher overall satisfaction
than employees who held bachelors and graduate degrees. Job satisfaction was higher in
nonprofit organizations and lower in government agencies. Full-time employees were
more satisfied than contract employees. Overall satisfaction improved with a rise in
salary up to a certain point ($160,000).
82
In the WorkLife Balance category age, race, education, marital status,

organizational type, salary, and occupational tenure had a significant impact on worklife
balance. Employees ages 18 to 35 had higher worklife balance than middle-aged
individuals (age 3655). Worklife balance was also higher for employees aged 65 and
older than in other age groups. Hispanic Americans and Whites had better worklife
balance than Blacks and Asian Americans. Individuals with high school diplomas, some
college, and graduate degrees had better worklife balance as compared to employees
who held bachelors degrees. Married employees had the most balanced work life, while
singles living without partners had the worst balance. Government organizations
appeared to provide a healthy worklife balance, while profit organizations did not.
Worklife balance appeared to improve more or less with an increase in salary. When
analyzing occupational tenure and worklife balance, no patterns were observed.
In 2002, one factor that impacted workers was the leadership and how the
employees were treated. For example, the most notable difference between for-profit and
nonprofit organizations was found in responses to My supervisor, or someone at work,
seems to care about me as a person. In this poll, individuals who worked at for-profit
organizations tended to have significantly lower scores than nonprofit employees
(Blizzard, 2002). This appeared to be linked to the difference in the main leadership focus
between the two business sectors. For example, in nonprofit organizations the leadership
was most often focused on maximizing social and communitarian benefits in a
collaborative environment. This contrasts with for-profit organizations, where the
emphasis is placed more on maximizing profit and incomes in a business environment
that is often highly competitive and financially driven. Additionally, in nonprofit
83
organizations the leadership is valued for their skills pertaining to relational capital.
Conversely, in for-profit organizations, the leadership is more valued for their financial
performance. In nonprofit organizations, the leadership is low profile and collaborative
facilitative style and keeps a low profile. Leadership is high profile and strongly
competitive in for-profit organizations. The studys results also suggested that nonprofit
organizations do a better job than for-profit organization of making their staff feel that
their contributions are valued and meaningful (Blizzard, 2002). Similarly, Kennedy
(2010) reported employees make a choice when they choose to work for a nonprofit
organization. The employees choose to work for a mission rather than for profit. Business
works for a mission, but the demand to make a profit overshadows the business.
Second, the mission of the organization itself impacts employee satisfaction. In
the same study mentioned above, for example, there was a difference in responses
between employees of nonprofit and for-profit organizations on the following statement,
The mission or purpose of my organization makes me feel my job is important.
According to Blizzard (2002), this has to do with financial pressures that have forced all
organizations to focus on costs and operating efficiency that blurs the line between
money and mission. However, he also concluded that above this financial motive
nonprofit employees strongly believe their organizations mission makes them feel their
jobs are important.
In another study that examined the job satisfaction of female executive directors
of nonprofit organizations, relational factors were found to be linked to job satisfaction.
The study found that female executive directors of nonprofit organizations valued
colleagues who shared their goals more than colleagues they had congenial relationships.
84
In other words, relational practices were also important in this study, and a mechanism to
understand why job satisfaction is increased when working with colleagues who share the
same goals (Beale, Thompson, Hollenshead, Kaufmann, & Gibbs, 2008).
Recent research data showed that satisfaction is highest among the most and least
educated workers. An explanation for this could be that highly educated individuals
acquired their job based on their credentials, whereas less educated individuals moved up
the corporate ladder. There is a high correlation between job satisfaction and those who
considered themselves to be underemployed in relation to their education and skill set.
For those with the least education, they may not expect to have a better job in relation to
their education and skills. Therefore, less educated workers may not expect to have a
better job, and report more satisfaction. Additionally, there is the possibility for less
educated workers to be highly sensitive to criticizing their employers when their job may
be critical for their survival (Krahn & Lowe, 2002).
Research Question 2: Is job satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to motivator and
hygiene factors?
The correlations between the variables were analyzed to establish a positive
association between the extrinsic factors and job satisfaction. All correlations were
positive, which suggested a positive association between extrinsic factors and job
satisfaction.
The researcher performed a multiple linear regression with average job
satisfaction response as the dependent variable and extrinsic and intrinsic factor questions
as the independent variable. This allowed the researcher to get a better understanding of
the nature of the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The p values and F
85
statistics suggested that there was a significant linear relationship between average job
satisfaction and extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Positive values for the significant
standardized coefficients suggested that the overall relationship was a positive linear
(e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic factors contributed significantly to improved levels of job
satisfaction). These findings conclusively suggested that as the extrinsic and intrinsic
factors improved, job satisfaction significantly improved.
Research Question 3: Is there a relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic factors and
worklife balance?
To establish a positive association between extrinsic and intrinsic factors, job
satisfaction, and worklife balance the correlation between the variables were analyzed.
All correlations were positive, which suggested a positive association between
satisfaction scores (extrinsic, intrinsic, and overall) and worklife balance scores.
Moreover, all but one pair of questions had a significant, positive correlation (p value <
5%), which meant the response for most of the questions in extrinsic and intrinsic factors
and job satisfaction had a significant, positive correlation with the response to the
questions for worklife balance. The p values and F statistics suggested that a significant
linear relationship exists between average worklife balance, and extrinsic and intrinsic
factors and job satisfaction. Positive values for the significant standardized coefficients
suggested the overall relationship was a positive linear. This conclusively shows that
extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction significantly contributed to improved
levels of worklife balance.
The R2 measured the proportion of variation in worklife balance scales explained
by the variation in the extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job satisfaction. The higher this
86
value the stronger the association between worklife balance and extrinsic and intrinsic
factors and job satisfaction.
The standardized coefficients for Q16 and Q20 (the independent variables with
significant [Pr (> |t| > 0.05)] in the regression model) were all positive. All of these
extrinsic factors contribute positively towards worklife balance. The standardized
coefficient for Q13 was negative, but this was not significant (Pr [> |t|] = 0.189 >> 0.05).
This meant that Q13 had no significant additional impact on job satisfaction over Q6 and
Q20. The p values and F statistic suggested that a significant linear relationship exists
between average worklife balance, and extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job
satisfaction. Positive values for the significant standardized coefficients suggested the
overall relationship was a positive linear (e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic factors and job
satisfaction significantly contributed to improved levels of worklife balance).
Worklife balance is essential for each workers physical and psychological well
being. The problem for employees is their struggle with making a living or working at a
career while trying to find time for family, friends, leisure and other interests. Job stress
can lead to familial problems, substance abuse, psychological and physical disorders and
alienation from friends and others.
This is a concern for women, since they are expected to care for family members,
in addition to their paid employment. Women often perform more of the caring labor
inside and outside of work than others. Ensuring life work balance for women also
ensures that those she cares for (e.g., children, the elderly, or others) are taken care of
properly.
87
For employers, if workers cannot maintain a worklife balance, they will be

fatigued and not able to perform well on the job. This situation may have disastrous
effects if employees are involved in dangerous work or where someones life is on the
line. Another consequence is burnout which is very costly for employers because workers
must leave early or be absent due to stress-related illnesses.
While it is the responsibility of workers to demand they are given adequate time
to balance work and life, it is ultimately the responsibility of employers and the market to
ensure that this is possible. Today, many employers have made the workplace an
attractive environment offering onsite daycare, delicious food and comfortable
surroundings in order to make it a more pleasurable environment. While these changes
are a positive step for workplace reform, it often influences workers to spend more time
at work.
Happiness at work and in life is not just a matter of a time-juggling act. However,
it is dependent upon ones job satisfaction. Job stress often follows people home from
work, and has lasting affects on their lives. One solution is occupation self-direction.
Work that involves complexity, individual judgment, and work that is not monotonous
and free from constant supervision will result in positive personalities and psychological
functioning (Kohn, as cited in Krahn & Lowe, 2002).
Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory is the basis of this research. His theory
identifies two factors that contribute to job satisfaction. These are motivation and hygiene
factors. Motivation factors include achievement, recognition, job description,
responsibility, promotion and growth. Hygiene factors include pay and benefits, company
88
policy and administration, coworker relationships, supervision, status, job security,

working conditions and personal life (Aamodt, 2010).
Herzbergs theory suggested that individuals are more dissatisfied when the
working environment is unfavorable than when the working environment is favorable.
Therefore, it is essential for companies to prevent dissatisfaction by implementing
programs that will increase satisfaction. According to Herzberg, hygiene and motivation
factors are not related. He emphasized that employees may be highly motivated but can
still demonstrate dissatisfaction. His study illustrates that the occurrence of hygiene
factors changes significantly in frequency, but all remain important. This means that
hygiene factors only show short-term satisfaction and should continually be improved
and monitored in the workplace (Aamodt, 2010).
The implications of the motivation-hygiene theory are that companies must
provide motivating factors related to work in order for individuals to have job satisfaction
and hygiene factors, even at a minimum, to prevent dissatisfaction. Therefore, employees
must be given the chance to use their array of abilities (job enrichment) in order increase
intrinsic motivation. This can be guaranteed through a continuous monitoring process. It
is, therefore, inherent that the job should be challenging which will allow employees to
grow and utilize their abilities. Employees who increase their abilities are likely to
increased work responsibility, as well. Organizations should eliminate jobs that do not
utilize the employees abilities, otherwise motivation will suffer.
Herzbergs theory has been criticized because it suggested that employees
attribute satisfaction to themselves, and will blame dissatisfaction on external factors
such as the companys policies. Critics have also said that job satisfaction does not ensure
89
increased motivation among employees. In the end, Herzbergs study indicated that the
real motivation is inherent within the individual (Aamodt, 2010).
Increasingly job flexibility has become significant to employee satisfaction. Very
often, companies offer flexible work arrangement options such as flextime, part time
work, job sharing, telecommuting and compressed work week. This has allowed
companies to attract and retain better employees. Flexible work arrangements fit the
lifestyle of many of todays employees (parents, single mothers and others who want to
work from home). These arrangements have helped companies boost employee morale
and meet the changing needs of the workforce. Increases in such arrangements may have
stemmed from aging employees, those who must care for ailing family members, and the
growing need to meet family obligations. This is especially true for individuals who want
to maintain an active lifestyle with their children. Advancements in technology and
telecommunication technologies allow employees to spend fewer hours in the office and
have contributed significantly to decreased absenteeism, and other benefits such as stress
reduction and job satisfaction. Compressed work week has proven to be cost effective for
companies as turnover shifts are reduced and has given employers a recruiting advantage.
For the employees, it saves costs by savings on daily commutes and increase time for the
family and personal interests. Work sharing has increased employee loyalty and prevents
high turnovers and benefits cost. It is one of the most popular flexible work arrangements
because it allows shared responsibility. Flextime allows employees to choose the number
of hours they work, so that they are able to better manage their time. This option has been
beneficial for employers in their recruitment and retention efforts (George & Jones,
2007).
90
Experts such as Creswell (2006) and Simon (2006) have the same opinion that
research studies have limitations based on the nature of the designed and how the study is
implemented. These experts also agree that it is essential for researchers to acknowledge
their limitations. This study was constrained by several limitations.
1. Snowball sampling can result in biases.
2. The findings of this study cannot be generalized beyond the sample of this
study.
3. The data used in the study rely on one method of data collection, selfreporting. These data can be distorted by faulty memory, perception, and other
biases. Additionally, self-administered surveys prevent the researcher from
asking questions to gain insight into the participants perceptions, and they are
also unable to elaborate on responses or provide clarification where needed.
Conclusions
The use of the MSQ and Herzbergs two-factor motivation was extremely
relevant to this study. The reliability and validity of the MSQ has been established
through the finding of van Saane et al. (2003). However, the use of Herzbergs theory as
the sole theory to measure job satisfaction is not appropriate. It is widely claimed by
scholars that Hertzbergs model is empirically difficult to prove. Others even argue that
Herzbergs methodology has stimulated much research. Since researchers have not been
able to reliably, empirically prove Herzbergs model, and with the workforce changes in
the 21st century, it is not advisable to use this model alone. The theory in itself does not
take into account individual differences. It also assumes that all employees will behave in
91
an identical manner to motivator and hygiene factors. It neither specifies how these two
factors will be measured. Job satisfaction is an attitude in which researchers should be
able to determine the emotions, behaviors and beliefs that account for overall satisfaction
or dissatisfaction. A more modern approach, core self-evaluation theory, could make
useful contributions to this research. The core self-evaluation theory determines job
satisfaction by measuring the individuals self esteem, locus of control, neuroticism and
general efficacy. Additionally, the theory can serve as a guide in determining individual
personalities that determine job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001; H. M. Weiss, 2002).
The job characteristics model studies how job characteristics affect job satisfaction. This
model measures skill variety, autonomy, task significance, and feedback. These core
characteristics provide an empirical value by measuring the motivating potential for a
job, and can be used as a guide of how an individual characteristic will most likely affect
an employees behavior and attitude, including satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
The utilization of these theories will provide a holistic approach to measuring job
satisfaction.
Research Question 1 helped to identify the behaviors of different groups of
participants towards job satisfaction (extrinsic, intrinsic, and overall) and the level of
worklife balance. The question identified which groups were happier with their job (e.g.,
married, full-time employees, high school graduates) than other groups. From an
employers perspective, this knowledge could be useful to perform a deeper investigation
of the groups identified and try to improve their satisfaction levels by implementing
appropriate work programs, policies, and procedures.
92
Research Question 2 helped clarify Herzbergs theory on a wider and more varied
category of employees. Herzbergs sample population were from only engineers and
accountants whereas, the researchers sample population consists of individuals from
finance, healthcare, manufacturing, education and other areas. This analysis, then, is a
generalization of the previous theory, not a mere replication.
Research Question 3 helped establish a connection between employees
satisfaction and their worklife balance. This connection emphasized the importance of
improved work place environment, and healthy relationships among coworkers to
achieve better employee satisfaction. This is an important finding for organizations who
consider their employees their most important asset.
Recommendations
The sample population should have included employees who did not participate in
flexible work arrangement programs, and their level of satisfaction measured against
individuals who do use these work options. Those who do not use flexible work
arrangements should be questioned to determine whether participating in such programs
would increase their job satisfaction and worklife balance or not. They should also
identify the types of programs their companies have implemented. This would provide
insight into the general trend of this scheme. In addition, it would serve as a source of
measurement to determine which flexible work arrangement program is best suited for
employers and employees. The study did not include the standpoint of employers, which
would have provided insight into measuring those who participate in flexible work
arrangement programs, verses those who do not. The results of the study also do not
93
address what companies can do to increase satisfaction and worklife balance. Perhaps
this could have been addressed by adding additional items to the questionnaire.
Job satisfaction is inherently difficult to assess considering the varying job
responsibilities of the respondents. This is not addressed in the research. It is, therefore,
recommended that the survey questionnaire be revised to include the above requirements,
as well as, cross analysis of the same job types. This means that same job types will be
measured and compared accordingly. This will provide vital information for companies
so that they can accurately assess the same jobs within different companies.
Organizations should take steps to identify factors that motivate people and
develop and implement strategies aimed at improving worklife balance and job
satisfaction. These interventions should include working conditions that promote positive
interpersonal relationships employees, and other issues that are important to employees
within the organization. Provide and support professional development opportunities for
employees.
The studys results could be useful to managers when making decisions about
organizational change practices, management practices and organizational
communication.
Recommendations for Further Research

Researchers should draw from a different sample (e.g., random sample or
stratified sample). Identify different organizational sectors and distribute questionnaires
to those employees. That would help control the mixture of the sample population and
help generalize the findings to a larger population.
94
1.
Modify questionnaire to include questions about flexible work arrangement

schedules.
2.
Modify questionnaire to collect data about perceived and actual levels of

satisfaction and worklife balance dimensions.
3.
Conduct a qualitative study so that the researcher can question respondents

deeper. Deeper questioning should be used to clarify responses and ask
additional questions, if needed.
4.
Conduct a study when economic conditions are better. The economic

climate was challenging (high unemployment and stiff competition for jobs)
during the conduct of this study. These conditions can make people unhappy
in general, which can affect how people feel about their jobs.
5.
Include more than one data collection method to obtain a better

representation of the data.
6.
Future research is needed to determine the extent gender positively or

negatively affects worklife balance.
7.
Replicate the present study to get a better understanding of workplace

changes and worklife balance challenges for employees.
8.
Conduct additional research to determine to what extent organizational

support impacts respondents decision to participate in a flexible work
arrangement program.
9.
Conduct longitudinal research to assess the long-term relationship between

the variables studied.
95
10.
Conduct a study related to career status to study individuals at different

stages in their careers. This research would assess how employees are
affected by work schedules at each stage in their careers.
96
REFERENCES
Aamodt, M. G. (2010). Applied industrial/organization psychology: An applied approach
(6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Alfares, H. K. (2006, August). Compressed workweek scheduling with days-off
consecutively, weekend-off frequency and work stretch constraints. Information
Systems and Operational Systems, 44(3), 176189.
Avery, C., & Zabel, D. (2001). The flexible workplace: A sourcebook of information and
research. London: Quorum Books.
Barber, C., Laing, A., & Simeone, M. (2005). Global workplace trends: A North
American and European comparison. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 7(3),
210221. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Barner, R. (1996, March/April). Seven changes that will challenge managersand
workers. The Futurist, 30(2), 1418.
Beale, R., Thompson, H., Hollenshead, C., Kaufmann, S., & Gibbs, T. (2008). Job review
of business research. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from http://www.britannica.com/
bps/additional content/18/35601973/JOB-SATISFACTION-IN-NONPROFIT
-FEMALE-EXECUTIVE-DIRECTORS-THESIGNIFICANCE-OF-SHARED
-GOALS-vs-CONGENIAL-COLLEAGUES
Benko, C., & Weisberg, A. (2008). Mass career customization (TM): A new model for
how careers are built. Ivey Business Journal Online, 72(3), 1. Retrieved
September 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM GLOBAL database.
Blizzard, R. (2002). Why people work for nonprofit organizations vs. for-profit: Two
paths, same outcome. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from www.gallup.com/poll/7042/
ForProfit-Two-Paths-Same-Outcome.aspx
Boehle, S., Stamps, D., & Stratton, J. (2000, July). The increasing value of (flexible)
time. Training, 37(7), 32. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global
database.
Branine, M. (2003). Part-time work and job sharing in health care: Is the NHS a familyfriendly employer? Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1), 53
68.
97
Brookshire, J. A. (2002) Alternative work schedule and benefit preferences of graduating

seniors and current employees: An aid to employers for recruiting and retention.
Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (AAT 1412182)
Bryant, M., & Constantine, M. G. (2006). Multiple role balance, job satisfaction and life
satisfaction in women school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9(4),
265271. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.
Burns, K. E. A., Duffett, M., Kho, M. E., Meade, M. O., Adhikari, N. K. J., Sinuff, T., et
al. (2008, July). A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys
of clinicians. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179(3), 245252. Retrieved
October 16, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.
Byrd, S. C. (2005). The use of telecommuting as an alternative workplace strategy for
Missouri businesses. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database.
(AAT 3176493)
Chen, L., & Nath, R. (2005). Nomadic culture: Cultural support for working anytime,
anywhere. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 5664. Retrieved February
28, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:
Academic Press.
Cole, G. A. (2006). Flexibility and the workplace: The battle to control working time.
Managerial Law, 48(6), 536540. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM Global database.
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Crampton, S. M., & Mishra, J. M. (2005). Job sharing: A viable work alternative for the
new millennium. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 10(2),
1334. Retrieved September 7, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Creagh, M., & Brewster, C. (1998). Identifying good practice in flexible working.
Employee Relations, 20(5), 490503.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
98
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of the tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297334.
DeMato, D. S., & Curcio, C. C. (2004, April). Job satisfaction of elementary school
counselors: A new look. Professional School Counseling, 7(4), 236245.
Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. (2003). Boundary/border theory and workfamily
integration. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://wfnetworkbc.edu/
encyclopediaentry.php?id=220
Erickson, R. (2005). The pros and cons of different work schedules. Retrieved July 22,
2008, from http://www.googobits.com/articles/p0-2261-the-pros-and-cons-of
-different-work-schedules.html
Fisher, S., Andersen, R., & Heath, A. (n.d.). Survey research methods. Retrieved August
23, 2008, from http://malroycon.ox.ac.up/fisher/survey/week2.ppt#315,3
Five flextime friendly companies. (2007). Retrieved February 2, 2009, from www
.careerbuilder.com
Flexible work arrangements attract older workers. (2007). Retrieved March 25, 2009,
from http://www.aarp.org./money/work/articles
Flexible work grows as work/life solution. (2004, October). HR Focus, 81(10), S1, S4.
Foote, D. T. (1998, January). UNHCE telecommuting guidelines and considerations.
Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://extension.unh/Intranet/telecom.htm
Frank, K., & Lowe, J. (2003). An examination of alternative work arrangements in
accounting practice. Accounting Horizons, 17(2), 139151.
Franklin, D. (1999, October). Shared rewards. Credit Union Management, 22(10), 2729.
Retrieved September 3, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Friedlander, F. (1964). Job characteristics as satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 48(6), 388392.
Gainey, T. W., & Clenney, B. F. (2006). Flextime and telecommuting: Examining
individual perceptions. Southern Business Review, 32(1), 1321. Retrieved
December 14, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 15241537.
99
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2007). Understanding and managing organizational

behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ghazzawi, I. (2008). Job satisfaction among information technology professionals in the
U.S.: An empirical study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(1), 115.
Retrieved November 1, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Gibson, W., Blackwell, C. W., Dominicis, P., & Demerath, N. (2002). Telecommuting in
the 21st century: Benefits, issues, and a leadership model which will work.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(4), 7587. Retrieved February
5, 2009, form ABI/INFORM Global database.
Graverson, S. P. (2008). Perceived job satisfaction of information technology
professionals: An investigation utilizing the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.
Retrieved October 28, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University
database.
Haar, J. M. (2007). Exploring the benefits and use of flextime: Similarities and
differences. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 4(1), 69.
Retrieved December 26, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of
a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250279.
Harris, D. (2004, September). Flexible working: Achieving a work/life balance. Training
Journal, 40. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Harris, J. I., Winskowski, A. M., & Engdahl, B. E. (2007). Types of workplace social
support in the prediction of job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly,
56(2), 150156. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Hatfield, S. L. (2002, July/August). Understanding the four generations to enhance
workplace management. AFT Exchange, 22(4), 7274. Retrieved June 25, 2009,
from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Herman, R. (2006). Lifestyle plans will replace retirement plans. Benefits Compensation
Digest, 43, 10.
Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, 65(5), 109120.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
100
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1993). The motivation to work. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Hicks, W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1981). The impact of flextime on employee attitudes.
Academy of Management Journal, 24, 333341.
Hill, J. E., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a
week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life
balance. Family Relations, 59, 4958.
Hinrichs, J. R., & Mischkind, L. A. (1967). Empirical and theoretical limitations of the
two-factor hypothesis of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2),
191200.
Hinton, B. L. (1968). An empirical investigation of the Herzberg methodology and twofactor theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 286309.
Hyland, M. M., Rowsome, C., & Rowsome, E. (2005). The integrative effects of flexible
work arrangement and preferences for segmenting and integrating work and home
roles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(2), 141160. Retrieved
September 9, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Idea. (n.d.). Evaluation through surveys. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www
.idea.org/Page102.html
Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Exploring differences in employee turnover
intentions and its determinants among telecommuters and non-telecommuters.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(1), 147164.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego,
CA: Edits.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traitsselfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stabilitywith
job satisfaction and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 8092.
Kaczmarczyk, S. (2004). Financial impact of alternative workplace strategies. Journal of
Facilities Management, 3(2), 117124. Retrieved June 3, 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Global database.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and
contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341365. Retrieved November
101
Kelly, E. L., & Kalev, A. (2006). Managing flexible work arrangements in U.S.
organizations: Formalized discretion or right to ask. Socioeconomic Review, 4(3),
370416.
Kennedy, K. (2010). Why people work for non-profit organizations. Retrieved July 7,
2010, from www.helium.cm/items/1871664-reasons-for-work-with-nonprofits
Kooser, A. C. (2005, February). Workplace 2005. Entrepreneur, 33(2), 55.
Koul, L. (1984). Methodology of educational research. New Delhi, India: Vikas.
Krahn, H. J., & Lowe, G. S. (2002). Work, industry and Canadian society (4th ed.).
Scarvorough, Ontario, Canada: Thompson & Nelson.
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges of
working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2),
5367.
Kush, K. S., & Stroh, L. K. (1994, September/October). Flextime: Myth or reality?
Business Horizons, 37(5), 51.
Lambert, A. D., Marler, J. H., & Gueutal, H. G. (2008, August). Individual differences:
Factors affecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 107117.
Langhoff, J. (2002, June). FAQs about telecommuting. Retrieved September 18, 2008,
from http://www.laanghoff.com/fazs.html
Lanoie, P., Raymond, F., & Shearer, B. (2001). Work sharing and productivity: Evidence
from firm level data. Applied Economics, 33(9), 12131220.
Lee, S. K. (1992). Quantitative versus qualitative research methodsTwo approaches to
organization studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 9(1), 8794.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Research and strategic communication. Boston:
Prentice Hall.
Liberman, K. (2008, April). Flexible workplaces. Credit Union Management, 31(4), 56.
Retrieved September 8, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Mamaghani, F. (2006). Impact of information technology on the workforce of the future:
An analysis. International Journal of Management, 23(4), 845850, 943.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
102
Manochehri, G., & Pinkerton, T. (2003). Managing telecommuters: Opportunities and

challenges. American Business Review, 21(1), 916. Retrieved from
ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 276912801)
Martnez-Snchez, A., Prez-Prez, M., Vela-Jimnez, M. J., & de-Luis-Carnicer, P.
(2008). Telework adoption, change management, and firm performance. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 731. Retrieved February 25,
2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Maxwell, G., Rankine, S., Bell, W., & MacVicar, A. (2007). The incidence and impact of
flexible working arrangements in smaller businesses. Employee Relations, 27(2),
138161.
McElroy, H., Liddell, W., Richman, V. V., & Thompson, K. J. (2008, June 1). The
effects of performance measurement on a delivery company: A case study.
Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies (Instructors Edition), 35
45. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Michalos, A. C. (1991), Global report on student well-being, Volume III: Employment,
finances, housing, and transportation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mitchell, R. J., & Williamson, A. M. (2003). Evaluation of an 8 hour versus a 12-hour
shift roster on employees at a power station. Applied Ergonomics, 1, 83.
Moore, G. A. (2008). The relationship among method of entry, job satisfaction, and area
of work for male registered nurses. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full
Text database. (AAT 3317864)
Nicholas, A. J. (2007). Millennial interest in teleworking. Retrieved from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text database. (AAT 3273822)
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2007, November 15). Conducting surveys.
Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/
oag bvg_e_19730.html
ORourke, T. W. (2003, Spring/Summer). Methodological techniques for dealing with
missing data. American Journal of Health Studies, 18(2/3), 165168.
Periyakoil, V. S. (2007). Be niceUntil it is time not to be nice. Journal of Palliative
Medicine, 10(2), 308. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.
Peter, J. P., & Donnelly, J. (2003). Marketing management: Knowledge and skills.
Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
103
Phelps, L. H., & Waskel, S. A. (1994). Work reinforcers and explanatory style for women
aged 40 to 75 years. Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 403407.
Pinterick, U. (2005). E-governance in Slovenia: Part II survey research shows progress
and gaps in the Slovenian public sectors citizen-centered e-communication
transformation. Public Manager, 34, 27.
Piskurich, G. M. (1998). An organizational guide to telecommuting. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training & Development.
Preston, A. (2007). Job sharing: A new trend in alternative work arrangements.
Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://career-advice.monster.com/other/Job
-Sharing/home.aspx
Reese, M. P., Rowings, L., & Sharpley, T. (2007, January). Employee benefits of the
future. Employee Benefit Plan Review, 61(7), 2125. Retrieved October 17, 2008,
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the
positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4),
377393. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Sands, J., & Harper, T. (2007). Family-friendly benefits and organizational performance.
Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(1), 107126. Retrieved November 5, 2008,
Scordato, C., & Harris, J. (1990). Workplace flexibility. HR Magazine, 35(1), 7578.
Sherwyn, D., & Sturman, M. C. (2002). Job sharing: A potential tool for hotel managers.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 8491. Retrieved
November 5, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Shoop, T. (2006, August). Teleworkforce. Government Executive, 38(13), 66. Retrieved
January 10, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Siha, S. M., & Monroe, R. W. (2006). Telecommutings past and future: A literature
review and research agenda. Business Process Management Journal, 12(4), 455.
Retrieved January 5, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Simon, M. K. (2006). Dissertation and scholarly research: A practical guide to start and
complete your dissertation, thesis, or formal research project. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
104
Udechukwu, I. I. (2007). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction on

organizational exit. Voluntary turnover: Evidence from a correctional setting.
Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 127141.
Van Horn, D. K. (2008). Job satisfaction of ASAH private special education principals in
New Jersey. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
database.
van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2003).
Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction: A systematic
review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191200.
Vega, M., & Gilbert, J. (1997). Longer days, shorter weeks: Compressed work weeks in
policing. Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 391402. Retrieved September
Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An
investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management
Science, 38, 16871706.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173194.
Williamson, J. (1986). The leader-manager. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://books
.google.com/books?id=Jy50L9wKd<C&Printsec=copyright&dq=MOTIVATION
+HYGIENE+theory&LR=
105
APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

Age:__________________________________________
Gender:_______________________________________
Race:_________________________________________
Education
_____High School
_____Some college
_____Bachelors
_____Graduate
Marital Status/Children
_____Married
_____Unmarried, living with partner
_____Unmarried, not living with partner
_____Number of children under the age of 18 living at home
Organizational type
_____For profit
_____Nonprofit
_____Government
_____Other (please list)_______________________________
_____Supervisor/Manager
_____Clerical
_____Manufacturing
_____Other (please list)_______________________
Employment status
_____Full-time
_____Part-time
_____Contractor
_____Temporary worker
Salary
A. $15,00040,000
B. $45,00070,000
C. $75,000100,000
106
D. $105,000130,000
E. $135,000160,000
F. $165,000 and Over
107
APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Male
Female
Figure B1. Participants gender.
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Did Not Identify
Figure B2. Participants race/ethnicity.
108
Married
Unmarried/Partner
Unmarried/No
Partner
Figure B3. Participants marital status.
1
2
3
4
Figure B4. Participants number of children under 18.
109
High School
Some College
Bachelor
Graduate
Figure B5. Participants education.
For Profit
Non-Profit
Government
Other
Figure B6. Participants type of organization.
110
Occupational Category
Supervisor/Manager
Clerical
Other
Missing
Figure B7. Participants occupational category.
Full-Time
Part-Time
Contractor
Figure B8. Participants employment status.
111
$15,000-$40,000
$45,000-$70,000
$75,000-$100,000
$105,000-$130,000
$135,000-$160,000
$165,000+
Figure B9. Participants current salary.
Business
Education
Physical/Psychological
Healthcare, Science,
Engineering, & Info. Technology
Other
Missing
Figure B10. Participants present job.
112
APPENDIX C. VARIABLES AND SATISFACTION
Figure C1. Age and satisfaction.
113
Figure C2. Children at home and satisfaction.
114
Figure C3. Education and satisfaction.
115
Figure C4. Employment status and satisfaction.
116
Figure C5. Gender and satisfaction.
117
Figure C6. Job tenure (years) and satisfaction.
118
Figure C7. Marital status and satisfaction.
119
Figure C8. Occupation tenure (years) and satisfaction.
120
Figure C9. Salary ($1,000) and satisfaction.
121
APPENDIX D. MSQ QUESTIONS

MSQ Questions Used to Measure Extrinsic Factors
Q5: The way my boss handles his/her workers
Q6: The competence of my supervisor in making decisions
Q8: The way my job provides for steady employment
Q12: The way company policies are put into practice
Q17: The working conditions
Q18: The way my coworkers get along with each other
MSQ Questions Used to Measure Intrinsic Factors
Q1: Being able to keep busy all the time
Q2: The chance to work alone on the job
Q3: The chance to do different things from time to time
Q11: The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities
Q14: The chances for advancement on this job
Q15: The freedom to use my own judgment
Q19: The praise I get for doing a good job
MSQ Questions Used to Measure Job Satisfaction
Q13: My pay and the amount of work I do
Q16: The chance to try my own methods of doing the job
Q20: The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job
MSQ Questions Used to Measure WorkLife Balance
Q4: The chance to be somebody in the community
Q7: Being able to do things that dont go against my conscience
Q9: The chance to do things for other people
MSQ Questions Used to Measure Overall Job Satisfaction
Questions 1 through 20
122

Flexible Work An Evaluation of Job Satisfaction and Work - Life Balance

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Flexible Work An Evaluation of Job Satisfaction and Work - Life Balance

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS: AN EVALUATION OF JOB

SATISFACTION AND WORKLIFE BALANCE

FRANK DECARO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

UMI Number: 3423947

All rights reserved

Gladys Hrobowski-Culbreath, 2010

Introduction to the Problem

Background of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Significance of the Study

Assumptions and Limitations

Nature of the Study

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Types of Flexible Work Arrangements

Jobs Best Suited for Flexible Work Arrangements

Companies That Have Successful Alternative Work Arrangement

Advantages and Disadvantages of Flexible Work Arrangements

Flexible Work Arrangements and WorkLife Balance

Flexible Work Arrangements and Job Satisfaction

Future Trends in Flexible Work Arrangement Programs

Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Design of the Study

Sample and Population

Reliability and Validity

Data Analysis Procedures

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data Analysis Procedures

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Further Research

APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

APPENDIX C. VARIABLES AND SATISFACTION

APPENDIX D. MSQ QUESTIONS

Table 2. Participants Work-Related Characteristics

Table 3. Summary of MANOVA Results

Table 5. MANOVA Analysis, Extrinsic Factors

Table 6. MANOVA Analysis, Intrinsic Factors

Table 7. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Table 8. MANOVA Analysis, Overall Satisfaction

Table 9. MANOVA Analysis, WorkLife Balance

Table 10. MANOVA Analysis, Job Satisfaction (Q13, Q16, Q20)

Table 11. Correlation Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Table 12. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Job Satisfaction

Table 13. MANOVA Analysis, WorkLife Balance (Q4, Q7, Q9)

Table 14. Correlation Analysis, WorkLife Balance

Table 15. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, WorkLife Balance

Table 16. Cronbachs Alpha

Table 17. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations

Figure 2. Intrinsic factors and job satisfaction

Figure 3. Extrinsic factors and worklife balance

Figure 4. Intrinsic factors and worklife balance

Figure 5. Job satisfaction and worklife balance

Figure B1. Participants gender

Figure B2. Participants race/ethnicity

Figure B3. Participants marital status

Figure B4. Participants number of children under 18

Figure B5. Participants education

Figure B6. Participants type of organization

Figure B7. Participants occupational category