This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]

On: 27 November 2012, At: 07:01

Publisher: Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Psychologist-Manager
Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpmj20

Employee Health and Well-

Being: The Role of Flexibility
and WorkFamily Balance
a a
Patrick R. Casey & Joseph G. Grzywacz
a
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Version of record first published: 23 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Patrick R. Casey & Joseph G. Grzywacz (2008): Employee Health
and Well-Being: The Role of Flexibility and WorkFamily Balance, The Psychologist-
Manager Journal, 11:1, 31-47

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150801963885

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
 whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012
 The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11: 3147, 2008
Copyright The Society of Psychologists in Management
ISSN 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online
DOI: 10.1080/10887150801963885

Employee Health and Well-Being:

The Role of Flexibility and
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

WorkFamily Balance
Patrick R. Casey and Joseph G. Grzywacz
Wake Forest University School of Medicine

There is substantial interest in the potential health effects of workplace flexibility;

however, the literature linking flexibility to health is limited. The purpose of
this study was to enhance understanding of the potential benefits of flexibility
for employee health and well-being. Additionally, this study determines if this
association is mediated by workfamily balance. Results from longitudinal data
obtained from a large multinational company showed that increased flexibility
was associated with decreased sickness absence and work-related impairment and
improved job commitment over a 1-year period. Furthermore, workfamily balance
partially mediated the effects of flexibility on impairment and job commitment but
not sickness absence. This study strengthens the evidence base for the beneficial
health effects of workplace flexibility and suggests that organizations benefit from
building a culture of flexibility in the organization.

A significant point of interest in todays business world is the relationship

between workplace flexibility, or an employees ability to decide where and
when to work, and employee health-related outcomes. Flexibility has been widely
believed to benefit both workers and the employing organization. From an
employee standpoint, flexibility presumably allows individuals to meet work-
related responsibilities while maintaining a satisfying personal life. Given strong
evidence linking indicators of workfamily balance to health (Frone, 2003;
Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005), flexibility has been viewed as a strategy
for promoting employee health and well-being because it helps workers better

Correspondence should be sent to Joseph G. Grzywacz, Department of Family and Community

Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC
27157-1084. E-mail: grzywacz@wfubmc.edu
 32 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

integrate their work and family lives. From the organizations point of view,
employee health and well-being benefit the organization through reduced health
care costs, greater productivity, and greater commitment to the organization.
Workplace flexibility, therefore, is believed to create a win-win situation for
organizations, workers, and their families.
Unfortunately, the evidence base linking flexibility to health-related outcomes
is limited. Existing research has produced inconsistent results: Some research
suggests positive connections between flexibility and health, whereas others
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

report either contrary or null associations. Cross-sectional study designs,

population selection, and other design-related problems with previous research
further undermine attempts to link flexibility to health and well-being. The weak
evidence base has made it difficult for managers to determine if implementing
flexible work arrangements or promoting a culture of flexibility will be beneficial
for their organizations.
The goal of this study was to enhance understanding of the potential benefits
of flexibility for worker health. To accomplish this goal, longitudinal data were
used to determine if changes in perceived flexibility were associated with changes
in different domains of health relevant to organizations, specifically sickness
absence and work-related impairment. Job commitment was also examined as
a domain-specific indicator of employee well-being that is important to organi-
zations. This study also examined if workfamily balance mediates associations
among flexibility and health-related outcomes. Finally, this study investigated the
relationship between objective work arrangements and perceived flexibility. The
practical objective of this analysis was to create evidence that assists managers
in determining the potential value of implementing flexible work arrangements
within their organizations.

BACKGROUND

Workplace flexibility fundamentally refers to workers ability to modify where,

when, and how long job-related work is performed (Lewis, 2003). There are
two dominant forms of workplace flexibility: schedule flexibility and location
flexibility. Schedule flexibility focuses specifically on temporal components
of job-related work that are made visible in workplace programs such as
flextime, compressed workweeks, and part-time. Flextime, also known as variable
scheduling, refers to a workers ability to determine when the work will start and
stop around a set of organizationally established core hours (Hyland, 2003).
Compressed workweeks refer to schedule arrangements whereby workers engage
in a predefined number of work hours completed in fewer days (e.g., 40 hours in
4 days, 80 hours in 9 days). Employees with part-time schedules are those who
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 33

commonly work less than 30 hours a week. Location flexibility focuses specif-
ically on the physical location of where paid work is performed. Arrangements
like telework and remote work allow for employees to work from a different
location other than the main office or work site, such as working from home or
other convenient satellite location. Formal work arrangements such as these and
other management practices are believed to create a sense of perceived flexibility
among workers.
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Conceptual Overview
Flexibility has traditionally been viewed as a valuable resource for workers. By
definition, flexibility is believed to put control in the hands of workers, and
there is substantial evidence suggesting that increased levels of control may help
workers effectively respond to the demands and responsibilities of their jobs
(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Further, flexibility has also been conceptualized as
a valuable resource because it allows workers to coordinate the responsibilities
of their job with responsibilities outside of work. Voydanoff (2005) referred to
flexibility as a boundary-spanning resource because it can be used to accom-
modate demands inside and outside the workplace, despite the fact that it is
provided by the employer. For example, schedule flexibility is a useful resource
while on the job for managing workloads, but it is also a resource that can be
applied in other domains as when an employee is allowed to leave work early
without fear of sanction to take a sick child to the doctor.
Consistent with the view of flexibility as a resource, researchers have
frequently used stress theory to conceptualize the linkages between flexibility and
health (Grzywacz & Tucker, 2008; Halpern, 2005; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Specifically, flexibility is posited to reduce exposure to some types of stressors
because workers are better able to organize their daily lives in ways that minimize
conflicts between work and family and promote a sense of balance across
work and family roles (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Voydanoff, 2005). Similarly,
flexibility is believed to provide workers needed resources for appropriately
responding to experienced stressors, thereby lessening the potentially negative
health effects of the stressor. Reductions in both stress exposure and vulnerability,
in turn, contribute to less stress-related illness and enhanced well-being through
a variety of biological and behavioral pathways (Cohen & Herbert, 1996).

Previous Research
There is a body of literature linking flexibility to better employee health.
A prominent report by Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005), a
consortium of Fortune 100 companies, argued that workplace flexibility benefits
 34 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

worker health and well-being. Results of one meta-analysis suggested that

flexibility may contribute to decreased sickness absence (Baltes, Briggs, Huff,
Wright, & Neuman, 1999). Consistent with hypotheses drawn from stress theory,
studies have shown that greater perceived flexibility was associated with lower
cholesterol levels (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) as well as fewer somatic complaints
(Costa et al., 2004; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). In addition to improved physical
health, studies have shown that greater flexibility is associated with better mental
health, less stress, and fewer depressive symptoms (Halpern, 2005; Kandolin,
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Harma, & Toivanenm, 2001; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; Thomas &
Ganster, 1995). Thomas and Ganster (1995) also reported that a portion of the
effect of flexibility on health outcomes was explained, or mediated, by indicators
of workfamily balance.
However, other studies have reported negative or null associations between
flexibility and indicators of health-related outcomes. Results from one cross-
sectional study showed that employees with flexible start and end times reported
significantly more physical health complaints and lower levels of psycho-
logical well-being when compared to employees working fixed hours (Martens,
Nijhuis, van Bostel, & Knottnerus, 1999). Jamison, Wallace, and Jamison (2004)
found no association between perceived flexibility and self-reported health
symptoms. Similarly, Krausz and Freibach (1983) reported little or no difference
in subjective strain and psychosomatic symptoms between workers with flexible
working hours and those with fixed hours. Lundberg and Lindfors (2002) reported
no differences in stress hormone levels among individuals who worked from
home relative to those in the office, indicating little or no association between
location flexibility and stress. McGuire and Liro (1987) reported no change
in absenteeism among employees with true flextime relative to employees
without this flexible work arrangement.

Gaps in Previous Research

Previous flexibility and health research, although valuable, has been undermined
by several problems. One critical problem is that most studies have relied on
cross-sectional data. Although cross-sectional studies have useful exploratory
and preliminary value, results are difficult to interpret because it remains unclear
whether flexibility contributes to health or if employee health is a selection
factor for flexibility as when employees with health concerns receive special
accommodation to manage their condition. Previous research has also focused
primarily on subjective flexibility while paying little or no attention to objective
formal work scheduling. Perceived flexibility is important, but it is also critical to
know how employees work arrangements contribute to their sense of flexibility
because employers can act on work arrangements more easily than employees
perceptions of flexibility. Another limitation found in the literature concerns
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 35

the domains of health covered in each study. Health and well-being encompass
several different dimensions, including physical, mental, and behavioral health.
Although it is challenging to cover all the scopes of health, it is important to
differentiate domains of health because flexibility may be associated with some
outcomes but not others.

Summary and Purpose

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

In summary, despite substantial practical interest, the evidence base linking

flexibility to health-related outcomes among workers is relatively weak. Some
research has suggested that flexibility contributes to better health-related
outcomes, whereas other research has suggested that flexibility may undermine
health or well-being; still other research produced null findings. Inconsistent
findings undermine managers ability to make informed decisions about the
utility of flexibility in their organizations. The goal of this study was to under-
stand the potential impact of flexibility on three specific, health-related outcomes:
sickness absence, work-related impairment, and job commitment. To accom-
plish this goal, longitudinal data were used to test two core hypotheses: (a)
Improvements in perceived flexibility over time are associated with positive
changes in work-related outcomes (i.e., reduced sickness absence, reduced work-
related impairment, and increased job commitment); and (b) workfamily balance
mediates associations between changes in flexibility and work-related outcomes.
Additionally, this study examined the association of objective work arrangements
and perceived flexibility. By accomplishing these aims, this study provides one
of the first longitudinal assessments of the potential effects of flexibility on
multiple dimensions of worker health and well-being, and it provides insight as
to whether flexibility contributes to desirable outcomes by minimizing stresses
individuals may confront in balancing work and family.

METHOD

Participants
The data for this project came from U.S. employees of one large multina-
tional pharmaceutical company. Each year during open enrollment for health
insurance, all U.S.-based benefits-eligible employees are invited to participate
in a health risk appraisal (HRA) as part of the employee wellness program.
Approximately 35% of eligible employees complete the HRA each year. The
data for this study came from 3,193 employees with longitudinal data resulting
from having completed the HRA in both 2004 and 2005. The sample was
composed of 1,331 men and 1,862 women (Table 1). In 2004, the average
 36 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

TABLE 1
Descriptives and Bivariate Comparison

Variable N Mean SD %

Perceived flexibility
2004 3 177 338 636
2005 3 177 336 631
Change score 3 177 03 693
Perceived flexibility change
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

No change 1 933 608

Increase 582 183
Decrease 662 208
Sickness absence
2004 absences 3 175 196 972
2005 absences 3 176 197 993
Change score absences 3 174 01 1045
Work-related impairment
2004 961 183 763
2005 961 187 780
Change score 961 05 866
Job commitment
2004 3 174 369 486
2005 3 172 366 494
Change score 3 169 03 523
Workfamily balance
2005 3 174 331 587
Work arrangement
Unassigned 2 050 642
Compressed 133 42
Part-time 97 30
Remote 584 183
Variable 329 103
Age 3 177 4078 8973
Gender
Male 1 331 417
Female 1 862 583
Race
White (non-Hispanic) 2 539 799
Other 639 201
Marital status
Not married 868 273
Married 2 316 727
Number of dependents
No dependents 1 634 512
1 545 171
2 744 233
3 or more 270 85

(Continued)
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 37

TABLE 1
(Continued)

Variable N Mean SD %

Band level
Senior exec/officer/high-level prof. 640 200
Low-level manager/prof. 1 510 473
Project-lead/nonexempt 342 107
Production/manufacturing 184 58
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Sales 517 162

Exempt status
No 527 165
Yes 2 666 835
Yearly salary 3 177 74 92950 33 38108

Note: N may not equal 3,193 due to missing data.

age was 40.8 (SD = 8.98). Almost 80% of the participants were White (non-
Hispanic). Roughly 73% indicated that they were married. Nearly half (48.8%)
had dependents 21 years old or younger covered by their health plan. All levels
of employees ranging from manufacturing personnel to senior executives partic-
ipated in the HRA, as well as employees across each major division of the
organization.

Measures
All measures for this analysis were constructed from items included in the 2004
and 2005 HRA questionnaires or from additional information provided by the
organization.

Independent Measure
Perceived exibility. Perceived flexibility was measured using a single item
from a comparable HRA question asked in 2004 and 2005: I have the flexibility
I need to meet my work, personal, and family commitments. There were four
possible response options ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly,
with higher scores indicating greater perceived flexibility. Responses in 2004
were first subtracted from the 2005 scores to create change scores. Change scores
were then placed into mutually exclusive categories reflecting either decreased
flexibility (i.e., lower flexibility in 2005 than in 2004), stable flexibility, or
increased flexibility (i.e., higher flexibility in 2005 than in 2004). The categorical
approach provides a clearer interpretation of observed associations and avoids
the assumption that changes in perceived flexibility have a linear association
with all outcomes.
 38 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

Dependent Measures
Sickness absence. Sickness absence was measured using a single item in
the HRA asking, In the past year, how many days of work have you missed due
to personal illness? Response options were 0 days, 12 days, 35 days, 610
days, 1115 days, and 16 days or more, coded 1 through 6 respectively. The
change score value was constructed by subtracting 2004 responses from 2005
responses. A positive change score represented more sickness absence in 2005
than in 2004, suggestive of a health decline, whereas a negative score indicated
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

a decrease in absences, suggestive of health improvement.

Work-related impairment. Work-related impairment was the measure of

how health problems or complications affected work. It was measured using six
items asking how personal health problems affected work experiences, such as
Because of my health problems, the stresses of my job were much harder to
handle or My health problems distracted me from taking pleasure in my job.
Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In 2005,
an additional does not apply response was added. These values were labeled as
missing and were not included in the analysis because it is unknown if does not
apply is substantively similar to strongly disagree. Therefore, change scores
and subsequent analyses were conducted for only those individuals for whom
the impairment questions were relevant. To create an overall health impairment
variable for each year, items were coded so that higher values indicate more
impairment, and the mean was calculated (2004 alpha = .69, 2005 alpha = .69).
A change score was computed by subtracting the 2004 value from the 2005
value. A negative change score indicated less impairment in 2005 than in 2004
or better health, whereas positive scores indicated more impairment in 2005 than
in 2004 or health decline.

Job commitment. Job commitment was measured using a single item from
the HRA: I am willing to put in extra effort to get the job done. Responses
were coded so that higher values indicated more willingness to put in the extra
effort (1 = disagree strongly, 4 = agree strongly). A change score was
calculated by subtracting the 2004 value from the 2005 value. A positive change
score indicated an increased willingness to put in the extra effort, whereas a
negative score indicated a decreased willingness.

Workfamily balance. Workfamily balance was measured using a single

item from the HRA in 2005: I feel positive about my ability to manage the
demands of my work, personal, and family life. Response options ranged from
disagree strongly to agree strongly, with higher values indicating greater
workfamily balance.
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 39

Objective work arrangement. Objective work arrangements were the

reported work schedules provided by the companys human resources (HR)
department. Participants were classified as either working compressed schedule,
part-time, working remotely, or variable, meaning they had the flexibility to
determine when they started or stopped working. These data were obtained
from the companys HR system and are reported voluntarily by employees in
response to regular queries by the HR department. Approximately one third of
participants could be classified. The remaining participants were categorized as
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Unassigned.

Covariates
Several covariates were considered, including age, gender (female = 1), race
(non-Hispanic White = 1), marital status (currently married = 1), number of
dependents 21 years of age or younger, band level reflecting the hierarchical
organization of positions within the company (i.e., officer/senior exec/manager,
low-level manager/professional, project lead/nonexempt, production/manufac-
turing, sales), exempt status (salary versus hourly), and salary.

Procedure
The longitudinal effects of changes in perceived flexibility on health-related
outcomes were investigated by fitting a series of linear regression models. Our
modeling strategy focuses on change scores because they directly test our hypoth-
esized associations, and because evidence indicates that change score models
produce less biased parameter estimates than lagged-dependent models (Allison,
1990; Johnson, 2005). Each change score outcome (sickness absence, work-
related impairment, and job commitment) was regressed on variables reflecting
change in perceived flexibility and covariates. Race was the only covariate
significantly associated with one or more outcomes; consequently, race was
the only demographic covariate included in the final models. To determine if
workfamily balance acted as a mediator between perceived flexibility and the
outcomes, a three-stage analysis was completed (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First,
the relationship between changes in flexibility and the outcomes was deter-
mined. Second, the relationship between perceived flexibility and workfamily
balance was established. Finally, the impact of workfamily balance on each
outcome along with perceived flexibility was analyzed using linear regression.
To determine the impact of workfamily balance, the models from stage 1 and
stage 3 were compared.
 40 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

RESULTS

Mean perceived flexibility for 2004 and 2005 respectively were 3.38 (SD =
.64) and 3.36 (SD = .63; Table 1). These scores indicate that in both years
the average participant agreed that the company provided enough flexibility
in his or her daily life to meet all commitments. More than 60% of the
employees reported no change in their perceived flexibility between years;
however, 18.3% reported an increase in perceived flexibility and the remaining
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

20.8% reported a decrease. The average change score for sickness absence
was .01 (SD = 1.05), indicating virtually no change in absences from 2004
to 2005 for the typical worker in the sample. For those with a work-related
impairment (n = 961), the mean change score was .05 (SD = .87), indicating
that on average, participants reported a modest, likely negligible decline in health
from 2004 to 2005. Job commitment had a mean change score of .03 (SD
= .52), indicating a slight insignificant decrease in job commitment between
the years. In 2005 the workfamily balance item reported an average score
of 3.31 (SD = .59), indicating that employees, on average, agreed with the
statement about having the ability to manage work, personal, and family life.
Of the participants for whom work arrangement data were available, 11.6%
had compressed scheduling, 8.5% were part-time, 51.1% worked remotely, and
28.8% had a variable schedule, meaning they could decide when to start and stop
working.
Bivariate correlations provided preliminary support for the study hypothesis
because increased flexibility was correlated with smaller sickness absence and
work-related impairment change scores, both of which reflected better health
in 2005 than in 2004 (Table 2). Similarly, increased flexibility was associated
with larger job commitment change scores, reflecting greater commitment in
2005 than in 2004. By contrast, decreased flexibility was associated with
an increase in work-related impairment and decreased job commitment. In
multivariate analyses, beneficial change scores were associated with increased
flexibility (Table 3). Results in Table 3 indicate that individuals whose
perceived flexibility increased showed favorable improvements in all three
outcomes: less sickness absence, less work-related impairment, and greater
job commitment. Decreased perceived flexibility was not associated with
changes in sickness absence but was significantly associated with greater
increases in work-related impairment and greater declines in job commitment
over time.
Table 4 shows the results when workfamily balance is added to the regression
model. Workfamily balance was not independently associated with change in
sickness absence, so there is no evidence that workfamily balance explains
the effects of flexibility on sickness absence. However, greater workfamily
balance was associated with reductions in work-related impairment and increased
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 41

TABLE 2
Intercorrelation Among Primary Analysis Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Flexibility increase 1000

2. Flexibility stable 590** 1000
3. Flexibility decrease 243** 640** 1000
4. Sickness absence change 053** 029 015 1000
5. Work-related impairment 122** 011 111** 180** 1000
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

change
6. Job commitment change 152** 004 150** 028 109** 1000

*p .05. **p .01.

TABLE 3
Linear Regression Analysis of Longitudinal Change Score Outcomes With
Respect to Change in Perceived Flexibility

Change Score:
Change Score: Work-Related Change Score: Job
Sickness Absence Impairment Commitment

Variable B SE  B SE  B SE 

Constant 017 043 044 065 066** 021

Increased 142** 049 053 210** 070 099 165** 024 122
perceived
flexibility
Decreased 007 047 003 193** 072 089 153** 023 119
perceived
flexibility
White 024 046 009 122 068 058 046* 022 036
(non-Hispanic)
R2 003 025 037

*p .05. **p .01.

job commitment. Further, consistent with our mediation hypothesis, parameter

estimates for the effect of perceived flexibility on work-related impairment and
job commitment are attenuated in Table 4 relative to the estimates in Table 3.
Sobel tests indicated that a portion of the effect of decreased flexibility on both
work-related impairment and job commitment was explained by workfamily
balance (p < .001).
 42 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

TABLE 4
Linear Regression Analysis of Longitudinal Change Score Outcomes With
Respect to Change in Perceived Flexibility and WF Balance

Change Score:
Change Score: Work-related Change Score: Job
Sickness Absence Impairment Commitment

Variable B SE  B SE  B SE 
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Constant 051 121 535** 168 323** 059

Increased 142** 050 053 199** 070 094 164** 024 122
perceived
flexibility
Decreased 004 048 002 158* 072 073 130** 024 101
perceived
flexibility
White 023 046 009 095 068 045 055* 022 043
(non-Hispanic)
Workfamily 010 032 006 172** 046 121 074** 016 083
balance
R2 003 039 044

*p .05. **p .01.

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to enhance understanding of the potential benefits
of flexibility for health-related outcomes. The results of this study make several
contributions to the literature. First, this study provides longitudinal evidence
indicating that flexibility is associated with health or well-being over time.
As hypothesized, an increase in perceived flexibility was associated with a
decrease in sickness absences and work-related impairment and improved job
commitment. Decreased flexibility over the year was associated with a significant
increase in impairment and reduced job commitment, but it had little impact
on sickness absence. These results are consistent with previous studies linking
flexibility to absenteeism (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999) and
other health-related outcomes (Costa et al., 2004; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
The results linking perceived flexibility with job commitment are also consistent
with recent evidence by Ng, Butts, Vandenberg, DeJoy, and Wilson (2006).
Overall, the pattern of results suggests that improvements in flexibility may
contribute to better employee health and well-being. These longitudinal findings
corroborate and extend those from cross-sectional studies, and they strengthen
the evidence base suggesting that programs and policies that promote flexibility
in the workplace may have beneficial health effects for workers.
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 43

It is interesting to note that the strength of the flexibilityhealth association

differed across the outcomes. Based on levels of explained variance, which
were admittedly modest, our results suggest that flexibility has the strongest
association with job commitment and work-related impairment and the weakest
association with sickness absence. These results highlight the important point
that flexibility may contribute strongly to some domains of employee health and
well-being while having less impact on others. Future research needs to give this
issue greater attention to ensure that the promise of flexibility does not become
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

overstated and to enable managers to make strategic decisions about how to use
flexibility to accomplish specific organizational goals.
The results also contribute to the literature because they highlight one
mechanism by which flexibility may benefit employee well-being and other
health-related outcomes. Specifically, the results of this study partially support
our hypothesis that workfamily balance mediates the flexibilityhealth associ-
ation. These results are consistent with the view that flexibility enables people to
better coordinate their lives in and out of work, thereby reducing stress (Halpern,
2005; Voydanoff, 2005). These results are also consistent with previous cross-
sectional research that found positive connections between workfamily balance
and flexibility (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001) and health-related
outcomes (Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997;
Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Although mediation was not fully supported, our
results highlight the importance of the workfamily interface, and they suggest
the possibility that addressing the challenge of balancing work and family
may be a useful organizational strategy for managing employee health and
well-being.
The conclusions of this study need to be interpreted in light of its limitations.
First, although we had a large and diverse sample, they were all employed by
a single organization and self-selected into the HRA program; therefore, the
results may have limited generalizability. However, it is worth noting that this
company is consistently recognized by Working Mother magazine as one of the
best companies to work for, in large part because of its commitment to flexibility.
Observed associations are therefore likely to be conservative estimates of true
associations. Second, perceived flexibility, sickness absence, job commitment,
and workfamily balance were all measured using single items whose relia-
bility is unknown. Additionally, the perceived flexibility measure used in this
study did not specifically address flexibility originating in the workplace; it is
possible that appraisals of overall flexibility could reflect flexible work arrange-
ments, an understanding or compromising family, or some combination of other
factors. The results of this study may underestimate the true effect of flexi-
bility on health, because health observations were separated by only 1 year and
there was relatively little change in health during that narrow window. Finally,
an objective characterization of work arrangements was not available for most
 44 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

participants. Future research should address these limitations by collecting data

from more generalizable samples over longer periods of time. Future research
should also collect detailed data on key metrics like health and performance
so that comparisons can be made among workers in different types of arrange-
ments (e.g., part-time, remote, flextime). Additionally, future research should
use stronger measures of health and employee well-being such as employee
sickness absence, validated scales of somatic complaints, or instruments designed
to assess specific problems (e.g., depressive symptoms).
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Overall, the results of this study suggest that flexibility at work benefits health-
related outcomes with clear bottom-line implications for business. Perceived
flexibility was associated with reduced sickness absence, less impairment in the
ability to perform work, and greater job commitment. These results are consistent
with one of the major conclusions of the Corporate Voices for Working America
report (2005): Flexibility is good business practice. The challenge for managers
is how to build flexibility into the organization.
There are several ways an organization can create a culture of flexibility.
First, organizations can offer a variety of alternative work arrangements. Results
from our data (see Figure 1) suggest that part-time, remote, and flextime have

3.60

3.55

3.50
Perceived Flexibility

3.45

2004
3.40
2005

3.35

3.30

3.25

3.20
Compressed Part-time Remote Variable

FIGURE 1 Perceived flexibility by formal work arrangement and year.

 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 45

comparably high levels of perceived flexibility. However, compressed workers

apparently feel constrained by their work arrangement. Increasing flexibility can
also be accomplished by establishing a supportive culture within the workplace.
That is, train managers and supervisors to be accepting and supportive of
workers lives outside the office. Studies have shown that informal support
such as this is linked to reduced stress and workfamily conflict (Thompson
& Prottas, 2006). Along with establishing a supportive culture within the
workplace, improving manageremployee communication improves workers
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

understanding of policies and available resources, and it has been linked to

improved job commitment (Ng et al., 2006). Other options include providing
personal time banks instead of giving employees specified sick days and vacation
days. These are only a few of several options that promote flexibility within
the organization, and evidence suggests that they produce beneficial results
for both employees and organizations (Bond & Flaxman, 2006; Kossek et al.,
2006).
For additional tips and specific examples of how different organizations
implement flexible policies and their effectiveness, managing practitioners
should visit the When Work Works website (http://whenworkworks.org). This
site, established by the Families and Work Institute in partnership with the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, contains additional tips for employing organiza-
tions and individuals on how to increase workplace flexibility. In addition, this
site includes a new report, Making Work Work, containing case studies of
different companies awarded for their excellence in flexibility and their imple-
mented flex options/policies, thereby illustrating several options for promoting
flexibility in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

Previous research concerning the potential effects of workplace flexibility and

health has produced inconsistent results. The goal of this study was to enhance
understanding of the potential benefits of flexibility on worker health. It was
hypothesized that greater flexibility would result in better work and health-
related outcomes and that these results would be mediated by workfamily
balance. Results supported these hypotheses, creating a stronger evidence base
advocating the positive benefits of workplace flexibility. For managing practi-
tioners, the results of this study strongly suggest that implementing flexible work
arrangements and other policies that promote flexibility within the organization
will contribute to better health, optimal performance, and commitment from
employees.
 46 CASEY AND GRZYWACZ

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
(2006-5-22WPF).

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological

Methodology, 20, 93114.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and
compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 496513.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2006). The ability of psychological flexibility and job control
to predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 26, 113130.
Cohen, S., & Herbert, T. B. (1996). Health psychology: Psychological factors and physical disease from
the perspective of human psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 113142.
Corporate Voices for Working Families. (2005). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for
expansion. Boston: WFD Consulting.
Costa, G., Akerstedt, T., Nachreiner, F., Baltieri, F., Carvalhais, J., Folkard, S., et al. (2004). Flexible
working hours, health, and well-being in Europe: Some considerations from a SALTSA Project.
Chronobiology International, 21, 831844.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook
of occupational health psychology (pp. 143162). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related
outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 1, 5769.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health
outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 325335.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Tucker, J. (2008). Work-family experiences and physical health: A summary and
critical review. Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/
encyclopedia_entry.php?id=6410&area=academics
Halpern, D. F. (2005). Psychology at the intersection of work and family. The American Psychologist,
60, 397409.
Hill, E. J., 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,
50, 4958.
Hyland, M. (2003). Flextime, a Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia entry. Boston:
Boston College Center for Work and Family. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from
http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=13&area=All
Jamison, C. S., Wallace, M., & Jamison, P. L. (2004). Contemporary work characteristics, stress,
and ill health. American Journal of Human Biology, 16, 4356.
 WORK, FAMILY, AND HEALTH 47

Johnson, D (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: Comparing statistical methods for studying the effects
of transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 10611075.
Kandolin, I., Harma, M., & Toivanenm M. (2001). Flexible working hours and well-being in Finland.
Journal of Human Ergology, 30, 3540.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Health work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 247267.
Krausz, M., & Freibach, N. (1983). Effects of flexible working time for employed women upon
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012

satisfaction, strains, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 155159.

Lewis, S. (2003). Flexible working arrangements: Implementation, outcomes and management. In.
C. L. Cooper & I. T. Roberts (Eds.), Annual Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
18, 128.
Lundberg, U., & Lindfors, P. (2002). Psychophysiological reactions to telework in female and male
white-collar workers. Journal of Occupation Health Psychology, 7, 354364.
Martens, M. F., Nijhuis, F. J., van Bostel, M. P., & Knottnerus, J. A. (1999). Flexible work schedules
and mental and physical health: A study of a working population with non-traditional working
hours. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 3547.
McGuire, J. B., & Liro, J. R. (1987). Absenteeism and flexible work schedules. Public Personnel
Management, 16, 4759.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Convergence between measures of work-to-
family and family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
67, 215232.
Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of
management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility on organiza-
tional commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 474489.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 615.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support,
job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 100118.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and balance:
A demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 822836.
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 07:01 27 November 2012