Fine‐tuning what we know about employees' experience with flexible work arrangements and their job attitudes

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21849
• Author: Ingrid Smithey Fulmer,Yan Chen
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018

HR SCIENCE FORUM

Fine-tuning what we know about employees’experience

with flexible work arrangements and their job attitudes

Yan Chen

1

| Ingrid Smithey Fulmer

2

1

School of Management and Labor Relations,

Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey

2

School of Management, University of South

Australia, Adelaide, South Australia

Correspondence

Yan Chen, Rutgers University, School of

Management and Labor Relations,

94 Rockafeller Rd., Piscataway, New Jersey

08854.

Email: chenyan0716@gmail.com

Prior research has generally found positive relationships between flexible work arrangements

(FWAs) and employee attitudes. However, we know relatively little about organizational contin-

gencies that affect the strength of these relationships, as there is little multilevel, multicompany

research on FWAs. This study explores three aspects of employees’experience with FWAs—

perceived availability of the number of FWAs, different types of FWAs, and actual use of

FWAs—and their corresponding effects on employee job satisfaction and organizational com-

mitment. Using a large multicompany data set (1,799 companies, 17,895 workers), we found

that employees who perceive more FWAs available to them have higher job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, especially in organizations that report offering fewer formal FWA

policies. Among different types of FWAs, perceived availability of flexible scheduling is more

positively associated with job satisfaction than flexible location and hours, and both flexible

scheduling and location are more positively associated with organizational commitment than

flexible number of hours. We also found that employees who actually use flexible scheduling

have lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment than those who have it available

but do not use it. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of these findings are

discussed.

KEYWORDS

attitudes, compensation and benefits, quality of work life

1|INTRODUCTION

Dramatic changes in workforce demographics over the past few

decades have contributed to the growing prevalence of workplace

flexibility offered by employers. Women comprise nearly half of the

labor force, more employees are from dual-earner families, many

adults choose to pursue additional education or personal interests

outside of work, and older workers often seek to transition out of

work rather than retire completely (Cahill, Giandrea, & Quinn, 2014;

Council of Economic Advisers, 2014). In response, employers have

implemented a variety of types of flexible work arrangements

(FWAs) to help workers to better balance work and personal life.

For example, a recent employee benefits survey of over

400 employers by the Society for Human Resource Management

found that 60% of companies reported offering some type of

telecommuting (with 22% offering full-time telecommuting), 54%

reported offering flextime, 31% reported offering compressed work

weeks, and 10% said they offered job sharing (Society for Human

Resource Management, 2015).

Previous research has painted a generally encouraging picture

about the effects of FWAs on employees and organizations. Studies

have found that FWAs relate to several positive employee out-

comes, such as fewer work–life conflicts, higher job satisfaction,

higher commitment, and higher productivity (Casper & Harris, 2008;

Eaton, 2003; Gajendran, Harrison, & Delaney-Klinger, 2015; Hal-

pern, 2005; Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, 2005;

Lambert, 2000; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2009; Shepard, Clifton, &

Kruse, 1996). Although some research has also found that FWAs

may have neutral or even unintended negative effects on employee

outcomes, such as more work–family conflicts and potential career

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21849

Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:381–395. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 381