Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Individual dierences: Factors aecting employee utilization

of exible work arrangements
Alysa D. Lambert a,*, Janet H. Marler b,1, Hal G. Gueutal b,1
a

School of Business HH214, Indiana University Southeast, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA
Department of Management, School of Business, University at Albany, SUNY, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA
Received 17 July 2007
Available online 4 March 2008

Abstract
This study investigated individual and organizational factors that predict an individuals choice to use exible work
arrangements (FWAs). Survey data was collected from 144 employees in two dierent organizations. The results revealed
several signicant predictors of FWAs: tenure, hours worked per week, supervisory responsibilities, perceptions of workgroup use and personal lifestyle. Individuals with longer tenure in the organization, who had supervisory responsibilities,
had coworkers in their immediate workgroup who used FWAs or had personal lifestyle preferences were more likely to use
the programs than those with less tenure, who did not have supervisory responsibilities, did not perceive their workgroup
used FWAs or did not have personal lifestyle preferences.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Work and family; Flextime; Compressed workweeks; Work-life programs; Logistic regression

1. Introduction
Research has shown that lack of balance in ones life is related to higher stress, less life satisfaction, and
lower work eectiveness (Kofodimos, 1993). Not surprisingly, a large percentage (30%) of employees say they
are willing to reduce pay or even change employers in order to achieve better workfamily balance (Galinsky,
Bond, & Friedman, 1993). In fact, work-life programs that increase an employees options for exibility on the
job or allow alternate work schedules are becoming more popular (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas,
2002). These programs are known as exible work arrangements.
Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are dened as employer provided benets that permit employees some
level of control over when and where they work outside of the standard workday (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, &
Weitzman, 2001). Research on FWAs suggest they have positive outcomes for individuals such as lower
workfamily conict (Anderson, Coey, & Byerly, 2002) and increased workfamily balance (Eby, Casper,
*

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 812 941 2672.

E-mail addresses: alylambe@ius.edu (A.D. Lambert), marler@albany.edu (J.H. Marler).
Fax: +1 518 442 4765.

0001-8791/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.02.004

108

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005), and positive outcomes for organizations. For example, a meta-analysis revealed FWAs were related to higher employee productivity, overall job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism (Baltes, Briggs, Hu, Wright, & Neuman, 1999).
Despite research on positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations, there is little research on the
antecedents of employees choice to participate in FWAs. Only one study could be found that directly studied
employees use of FWAs. Kossek, Barber, and Winters (1999) looked at managers and their use of exible
work options, and found that managers whose peers used the programs were also more likely to use FWAs.
Most research on antecedents of use pertains to work-life programs (WLPs) more broadly, rather than FWAs
specically (e.g. Allen, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). While such studies provide a basis for
identifying possible predictors of FWA use, more research specic to FWAs is needed.
This study investigated both individual and organizational factors that increase the likelihood of using extime and compressed workweeks, two of the most popular forms of FWAs (Bond et al., 2002). The Theory of
Human Ecology is used as the framework for deriving these characteristics and predictions concerning how
they are related to the probability of using FWAs.

1.1. Theoretical foundation and hypotheses

Human Ecology Theory (HET) posits that individuals behavioral choices are focused on achieving environmental adaptation (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The goal is to become attuned to cues in the environment in
order to operate more eciently within it. These environmental cues may include, but are not limited to, support from others, imitation of others behavior, and learning from observing others. Using these cues, individuals develop patterns of behaviors that are ecient and routine and this results in a sense of equilibrium, time
to deal with unexpected changes, and the development of new skills. Achieving this balanced state (known as
integrity of functioning) occurs when the environment is molded to meet the specic requirements of the persons needs, abilities, knowledge, and skills.
HET has been applied in the workfamily context; Lee, MacDermid, and Buck (2002) found that the main
reasons individuals chose a reduced workload were to spend more time with children, family, or to create
workfamily balance. Individuals were able to mold their environment to meet personal needs. Another study
used this theory to assess the success rate of managers and professionals working exible schedules (Lee,
MacDermid, Williams, Buck, & Leiba-OSullivan, 2002). Individuals using FWAs were able to adjust their
environment to t the needs of both their professional and personal lives. Over 90% reported they were satised with their ability to maintain balance between work and family using FWAs.
According to HET, people sense the pressures and subtle nuances within their environments and use that
information to adapt to and mold their environment to better t their needs (Lee, MacDermid, et al., 2002;
Schabracq, Cooper, & Winnubst, 1994). In the case of the current study, individuals extract information from
several environmental sources to assess the eectiveness of FWAs as an adaptive choice. Environmental cues
used to achieve integrity of functioning are grouped into work factors (supervisory support, coworker support
and workgroup use) and non-work factors (spousal support, primary care responsibilities, and personal lifestyle). The factors studied here represent an initial list of factors based on current theoretical and empirical
support.

1.1.1. Perceived supervisory support of family and personal needs

According to HET, an individuals attempts to stabilize their environment are enhanced when people support their activities (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Supervisors provide support by suggesting solutions that reduce
stressful situations (Cohen & Willis, 1985), oering emotional support or in creating greater control over ones
responsibilities or work schedule (Anderson et al., 2002). Given the likely positive outcomes of supervisory
support, employees are more likely to make choices supported by supervisors. Using a HET framework,
Lee, MacDermid, Williams, et al. (2002) found supervisory support was related to individual perceptions
of FWA success in balancing work and family. Several studies found similar results with other WLPs (Allen,
2001; Thompson et al., 1999). Thus the following is proposed:

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

109

Hypothesis 1. Employees who perceive their supervisor as supportive of the use of FWAs will be more likely
to use them than employees who believe their supervisor is not supportive.
1.1.2. Perceived coworker support of family and personal needs
In addition to supervisory support, support may also come from coworkers. Employees who had strong
supportive ties with coworkers had higher positive aect and job satisfaction (Ducharme & Martin, 2000).
The authors believed that this support acted as a buer which helped individuals cope with work stressors.
If employees have coworkers who support and share their concerns, they have more assurance that their work
and family issues will be taken into consideration (Clark, 2002). Thus, perceiving coworker support is likely to
result in adaptive choices such as using FWAs.
Hypothesis 2. Employees who perceive their coworkers as supportive of the use of FWAs will be more likely
to use them than employees who do not perceive their coworkers as supportive.
1.1.3. Perceptions of workgroup use
A principle tenet of HET states a major determinant of behavior is whether or not those around us are
engaging in the same or similar behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thoits (1986) suggested people learn from
the experiences of others within the social network or workgroup. For instance, by observing others, individuals may try the same techniques in order to cope with the everyday stresses. Kossek et al. (1999) found that
peer use signicantly predicted employee use above and beyond factors like gender and age. In this case, by
seeing people within the workgroup successfully use FWAs, individuals also observed that it was possible to be
successful using FWAs themselves.
Hypothesis 3. Employees who perceive that their workgroup uses FWAs will be more likely to use them than
employees who perceive their workgroup does not use FWAs.
1.1.4. Perceived spousal/partner support
Friedman and Greenhaus (2000) state there are two ways partners provide support: for stress prevention
and for overall well-being. Specically, they discuss a partners ability to explore stress relieving options that
may be available to the employee, such as FWAs. Also, partners or spouses may be able to help individuals
feel better about their work or family situation by increasing the level of self-condence and esteem the person
feels. This can help the individual feel more satised and more fullled at work.
Several empirical studies suggest spousal support may aect an individuals sense of equilibrium (Galinsky
& Stein, 1990; Repetti, 1987). Specically, Galinsky and Stein (1990) followed women returning from maternity leave. These women reported that spousal support was as crucial to reducing the stress of returning to
work as supervisory support. Based on empirical results and HET, we expect that spousal support also aects
FWA use.
Hypothesis 4. Individuals with higher levels of spousal/domestic partner support will be more likely to use
FWAs than individuals with less spousal/domestic partner support.
1.1.5. Extent of primary care responsibilities
Many researchers have assumed parental status explains why individuals use WLPs because much research
supports that parents, mothers especially, value family-friendly benets. Grover (1991) found that people with
child care responsibilities had more positive attitudes toward parental leave than those who did not have child
care responsibilities. Also, people with child care needs were more likely to use WLPs than those without
(Thompson et al., 1999).
Research has also reported that women believe WLPs are more important than men (Frone & Yardley,
1996; Kossek & Nichol, 1992), are more likely to leave one organization for another with better benets than
men (Greenberger, Goldberg, Hamill, ONeil, & Payne, 1989) and are more inclined to use WLPs than men
(Butler, Gasser, & Smart, 2004). This leads many to believe gender dierences exist for decisions about work

110

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

and family requirements. However, when gender dierences are explored in organizational settings no variations are found (Parker & Allen, 2001).
Much of the preceding research also suggests parental status and gender may be mediated by more proximal factors such as degree of primary care responsibilities. The extent of a persons primary care responsibilities, both child and elder care, are important variables that aect an individuals perceived need to make
adaptive choices. HET predicts individuals with more demands on their time have a greater need to engage
in the adaptation process to achieve integrity of functioning. Individuals with these time constraints or, in this
case, greater levels of primary care responsibilities, need to adapt more eciently to their environment in order
to achieve integrity of functioning. Further, because women are socialized to feel the responsibility for primary
care is more important for their functioning than men, we assert:
Hypothesis 5a. Employees with high levels of primary care responsibilities will be more likely to use FWAs
than employees with low levels of primary care responsibilities.
Hypothesis 5b. Females with high levels of primary care responsibilities will be more likely to use FWAs than
males with high levels of primary care responsibilities.
1.1.6. Personal lifestyle
According to HET, FWAs are used to help people adapt their environment to their own needs (Lee,
MacDermid, et al., 2002). Thus, individuals with various lifestyle needs will be more likely to use FWAs to
increase control over their environment. Up to this point much of the literature has focused only on work
and family, however not everything people do outside of work is related to the family. Golden (2001) pointed
out that workers value FWAs greatly because they lower conicts between work and non-work responsibilities. Golden also argued that the amount of time an employee wanted or needed to work was determined by a
number of economic, social and cultural issues, not just family-related issues. It is reasonable to assume that
individuals who use FWAs may do so for reasons other than to meet parenting responsibilities. Personal lifestyle preferences, therefore, should also be related to use of FWAs.
Hypothesis 6. Employees with high levels of personal lifestyle preferences other than parenting responsibilities
will be more likely to use FWAs than those with low levels of lifestyle preferences.

2. Methods
2.1. Sample and procedure
2.1.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 211 employees from two separate organizations: a nancial institution and an
insurance company. Each of the companies oered employees extime and/or compressed workweeks (no
other types of FWAs were oered). The organizations were selected because they had full-time jobs that, in
the past, required their employees to work the traditional 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday schedule
but were now oering these new alternatives. In this study, only individuals working full-time (35 h or more
per week) were included.
Of the 211 employees contacted, 166 took the survey. Twenty-two cases had missing data, resulting in a
nal sample of 144 and a response rate of 63%. A total of 102 (75.6%) participants were female, between
the ages of 3135 (25.8%) and were Caucasian (88.9%).
2.1.2. Survey collection
A three-stage pilot study was conducted to develop measures for this study and to assess previously
designed measures reliability. All the measures were included in at least one stage of the pilot study. For
the current study, the authors followed Podsako, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakos (2003) procedural remedies within the study design to minimize single-source bias. Employees received an email from a representative

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

111

within their company inviting them to participate in a two-part online survey. The employees condentiality
and anonymity were guaranteed.
The rst survey collected information on the independent variables. Two weeks later employees were asked
to provide data on the dependent variable and demographic information. Participant responses were matched
using a participant selected identifying code.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Use of FWAs
Use was measured by asking the employee whether they currently used extime and whether they used compressed workweeks. The answers to these two questions were combined into one categorical variable where the
variable took the value of 1 if the respondent answered yes to either question or the value 0 if answering
no to both questions.
Perceived supervisory support of family and personal needs was measured using a scale developed by Shinn,
Wong, Simko, and Ortiz-Torres (1989), as used by Allen (2001). The pilot study revealed that a higher reliability could be achieved by dropping two of the original items. The 9-item measure (a = .91) asked participants to rate how often their supervisor engages in supportive behaviors (i.e. My supervisor rearranges or
allows me to rearrange my schedule (hours, overtime hours, vacation) to accommodate my life/personal
responsibilities). Ratings were on a Likert Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Perceived coworker support of family and personal needs was assessed using the measure of perceived supervisory support and adapted by replacing the word supervisor with immediate coworkers. One item could
not be translated because it was not applicable to coworkers. An example from the 8-item measure (a = .84)
included was My immediate coworkers listen to my concerns about balancing work and life/personal
responsibilities.
2.2.2. Perceptions of workgroup use
Participants answered whether their supervisor currently used (FWAs) and also if their coworkers currently
used FWAs. Responses were combined into one categorical variable with the value of 1 for a yes and 0 if
neither coworker nor supervisor used FWAs.
2.2.3. Perceived spousal/partner support
The measure of spousal support was created specically for use in this study and was designed during the
pilot study. The scale consisted of 6 items (using the 5-point Likert scale described earlier) asking employees,
for example, to rate to what extent My spouse/domestic partner encourages me to use exible work arrangements (a = .86). Only individuals who were married or had been living with a domestic partner for a year or
longer responded to these statements. Because only 101 of the 144 participants were married or had a partner,
this lead to 43 cases that had non-random missing data. Cohen and Cohen (1983) recommend a procedure
where by a missing data dichotomous variable is created from the variable that has non-random missing data
and included in the regression equation as a control for the missing data in the original variable. This procedure was used here and the new variable was labeled marital status.
2.2.4. Extent of primary care
Primary care was calculated by summing several items that included number of children under the age of
18, number of elderly relatives or parents that the individual had primary responsibility for, whether or not the
person had a spouse or partner, and whether or not that spouse/partner was employed (3 points = no spouse,
2 points = spouse, working full-time, 1 point = spouse, working part-time and 0 points = spouse, not working); the higher the score the more primary care responsibilities. We used a process similar to Kossek et al.
(1999) except points were not added for complexity of the individuals responsibilities.
2.2.5. Personal lifestyle
This measure was developed during the three-stage pilot study. The nal Lifestyle scale consisted of 12 reasons people might use FWAs including having preferred work times (e.g. the preference to work in the

112

a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
a
b
c
d
*
**

Use
Supervisor supportb
Coworker supportb
Spousal supportb
Lifestyle determinantsa
Workgroup used
Extent of primary carea
Genderc
Race/ethnicity
Education level
Age
Tenure
Hours per week
Supervisory responsibilitiesd
Marital statusd

.91
.84
.86

SD

0.33
3.67
3.46
3.97
2.58
0.36
3.04
0.76
1.30
4.02
4.62
3.78
40.56
1.21
0.70

0.47
0.78
0.62
0.76
0.80
0.48
2.08
0.43
0.98
1.35
1.81
2.63
5.93
0.41
0.46

Higher values reect a greater degree of the variable.

Higher values reect greater levels of support.
Gender was coded 0 (male) and 1 (female).
Coded 0 (no) and 1 (yes).
p < .05.
p < .01.

2
.145
.018
.113
.047
.648**
.029
.019
.001
.130
.193*
.328**
.243**
.187*
.131

.311**
.001
.032
.153
.101
.057
.137
.006
.072
.035
.267**
.038
.021

.039
.078
.128
.081
.008
.037
.002
.100
.083
.204*
.045
.095

.279**
.091
.300**
.210*
.078
.067
.132
.259*
.037
.099
.944**

.076
.045
.140
.015
.032
.025
.106
.010
.272**
.047

.134
.001
.061
.102
.173*
.224**
.244**
.021
.048

.033
.177*
.052
.366**
.079
.088
.150
.270**

.051
.221*
.098
.212*
.023
.122
.096

10

.085
.061
.072
.081
.015
.153

.087
.179*
.081
.009
.107

11

12

13

14

.359**
.107
.093
.098

.066
.142
.196*

.204*
.028

.052

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and inter-correlations

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

113

Table 2
Logistic regression analysis predicting use of FWAs (N = 144)
Variable

Model A

Intercept
Demographic variables
Gender
Ethnicity
Education
Age
Tenure
Hours worked
Supervisory responsibilities
Marital status

Model B
SE

**
***

Model E
SE

SE

2.72

6.78

4.55

0.58

2.89

4.77

4.65

7.02

5.76

0.10
0.15
0.28
0.18
0.31***
0.16***
1.27***
0.23

0.54
0.22
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.55
0.56

0.08
0.34
0.26
0.09
0.34***
0.11***
1.72***
0.60

0.72
0.26
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.06
0.76
0.75

0.14
0.27
0.26
0.27*
0.34***
0.18***
1.96***
1.56

0.56
0.23
0.18
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.66
1.69

0.14
0.39
0.24
0.07
0.34**
0.14**
2.01**
1.53

0.74
0.29
0.12
0.18
0.14
0.07
0.85
2.22

1.09
0.35
0.24
0.07
0.35**
0.13**
1.93**
1.65

1.52
0.30
0.21
0.18
0.14
0.07
0.87
2.24

0.38
0.55
3.46***

0.43
0.53
0.67

0.35
0.58
3.73***

0.45
0.55
0.78

0.38
0.51
3.70***

0.45
0.56
0.78

0.29
0.08
0.07*

0.54
0.20
0.04

0.28
0.59
0.07*
0.29

0.54
0.73
0.04
0.40

Non-work environment
Spousal/partner support
Extent of primary care
Lifestyle
Gender  primary care

Model D
SE

0.89

Work environment
Supervisor support
Coworker support
Workgroup use

Log-likelihood
Degree of freedom
v2
Dv2
Pseudo R2

Model C
SE

0.55
0.28
0.04
124.53
8
35.21***
0.24

82.44
11
77.31***
42.09***
0.45

117.87
11
41.87***
6.66*
0.28

0.40
0.15
0.03

79.07
14
80.67***
45.46***
0.47

78.51
15
81.23***
46.02***
0.47

p < .10.
p < .05.
p < .01.

morning) and having more time for other activities (e.g. a second job or longer vacations). Respondents
reported how much each factor aected their willingness to use FWAs. Possible responses ranged from 1
(has no aect) to 5 (highly aects). Because each item represents an independent reason why individuals
may use FWAs, the items were summed. Thus individuals with higher scores had a greater willingness to
use FWAs.

3. Results
Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for all variables. Table 2 shows
the results of a stepwise logistic regression in which control variables (gender, race, education, age, tenure,
work hours, supervisory responsibilities, and marital status) are reported in Model A, work environmental
variables are added as a group in Model B, non-work environmental variables are entered as a group in Model
C, both groups of variables are entered together in Model D and nally Model E contains all variables plus the
interaction between gender and primary care.
Model A includes only the control variables. This model compared with the constant only model was statistically signicant, v2 (df = 8) = 35.21, p < .01. An employees tenure with the company (b = 0.31, p < .01),
average number of weekly work hours (b = 0.16, p < .01) and supervisory responsibility (b = 1.27, p < .01)
were signicant predictors of use of FWAs. The probability of using FWAs was 1.4 times more likely for every
one year increase in tenure indicating the odds increased by almost 50% for every year increase in tenure. For
full-time employees, those working 35 h or more per week, for every 1 h increase in hours worked per week the

114

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

probability of using FWAs decreased by .87 or 13%. Results also revealed employees with supervisory responsibility were over 8 times more likely to use FWAs than those with no supervisory responsibility.
Model B added the work environmental variables to the rst model. When entered as a group, the work
environmental variables improved model t signicantly (Dv2 = 42.09, p < .01) suggesting these variables,
as a group, contributed to the increased likelihood of FWA use. However, no support was found for Hypothesis 1 (supervisory support) or Hypothesis 2 (coworker support). Only perceptions of workgroup use had a
signicant parameter estimate (b = 3.46, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 3. Employees who believed their
immediate workgroup used FWAs were 44 times more likely to use FWAs themselves than those who perceived their workgroup did not use FWAs.
Model C included the control and non-work environmental variables. The model itself was signicant (v2
(df = 11) = 41.87, p < .01) but the non-environmental factors as a group improved model t only at a marginally signicant level (Dv2 = 6.66, p < .10). These results indicate non-work variables are not as inuential as
work variables in predicting likelihood of FWA use. Spousal/partner support, primary care responsibilities
and lifestyle did not signicantly predict use of FWAs; therefore, Hypotheses 4, 5a, and 6 were not supported.
Model D included all the predictors entered together and was signicant (v2 (df = 14) = 80.67, p < .01). In
this model all the variables added as a group contributed to improved model t (Dv2 = 45.46, p < .001). As
with Model B, support was found for Hypothesis 3; if the perception was that the employees immediate workgroup used FWAs then the employee was more likely to use FWAs (b = 3.73, p < .01). However, unlike Model
C, the parameter estimate for the likelihood that lifestyle preferences contributed to the probability of FWA
use was signicant (b = .07, p < .10), thus supporting Hypothesis 6.
A closer look at these results suggested the possibility of a reciprocal suppression eect (Tzelgov & Henik,
1991), given that lifestyle and FWA use were not signicantly correlated as shown in Table 1 (r = .047).
A t-test revealed a statistically signicant dierence between the means on the lifestyle measure for supervisors
(25.89) and non-supervisors (32.00) suggesting supervisory responsibility could be a suppressor variable. Furthermore, logistic regression results using a subsample that excluded respondents with supervisory responsibilities indicated lifestyle was signicant in both Model C and Model D.
Model E included all the variables from Model D and the interaction term of gender and primary care
responsibilities. While the model itself was signicant (v2 (df = 15) = 81.23, p < .01) there was no signicant
interaction eect and thus no support was found for Hypothesis 5b.
4. Discussion
HET asserts that an individuals overarching goal is to become aware of the subtleties of the environment in
order to function eciently within it. People assess factors within their environment to determine if FWAs will
contribute to their ability to function optimally. The results of this study revealed that all but one of the signicant predictors of FWA usage were work related: tenure, hours worked, supervisory responsibility, and
perceptions of workgroup use. The one non-work variable that predicted FWA use after variance in the work
environment was controlled was personal lifestyle.
Perceived workgroup use was the strongest predictor of employees use of FWAs. Seeing ones peers successfully engaging in a certain behavior encourages and inspires people to actively engage in the same or similar behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Previous research has conrmed this theoretical principle. Kossek et al.
(1999) found workgroup use to be the strongest predictor of use of WLPs above other organizational factors.
Although neither supervisory support nor coworker support signicantly increased the likelihood of using
FWAs, other work related demographic variables showed strong predictive eects. An individuals job tenure,
hours worked and supervisory responsibilities all contributed to the likelihood of FWA use. Tenure was a signicant predictor of use suggesting that the longer one has been at an organization the more likely they are to
use FWAs. An explanation for this may be that people with longer tenure feel more comfortable within their
environment and probably have more seniority and therefore, can ask for greater exibility. Our data also
indicated that employees who worked more hours per week were less likely to use FWAs. Previous research
has found that employees who work an average of 40 hours per week used FWAs less than those who averaged less than 40 hours per week (Golden, 2001). An explanation for this is individuals who work on average
more than 40 hours per week already have to work overtime to meet the demands of their responsibilities, and

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

115

therefore, would not see exing their schedule as an aid in completing their work. It is also possible that individuals who use FWAs, just by the nature of exing their schedule work less hours; meaning they are able to
accomplish more in less time because they have more control over when and where they work. There is
research to support the idea that individuals who use FWAs are more productive (Baltes et al., 1999).
Personal lifestyle preference was the only non-work factor that signicantly predicted the probability of FWA
use. Based on HET, it was hypothesized that employees with greater personal lifestyle determinants would be
more likely to use FWAs and the results of this study support this, particularly for those in jobs without supervisory responsibilities. Because supervisors scored signicantly lower on the lifestyle measure compared to those
without supervisory responsibilities when this negative correlation was controlled, the relationship between
FWA use and lifestyle was enhanced. When supervisors were excluded from the sample, lifestyle preferences signicantly predicted the probability of FWA use. An explanation for this result is that individuals with various
lifestyle preferences are more likely to use FWAs in order to have more control over their environment particularly when they are not in supervisory positions because they have less autonomy over their time.
We also noted when supervisors were excluded from the sample the primary care variable also became signicant, although opposite to the hypothesized direction. These results suggest that supervisors and nonsupervisors appear to behave dierently with respect to use of FWAs. Further, the unexpected negative
and signicant relationship between FWA use and primary responsibilities for non-supervisors raises interesting questions for future research and employment policy. For example, it could be that individuals who have
primary care responsibilities cannot ex their schedules because other support services such as daycare and
senior centers typically operate during normal business hours. One of the advantages of oering exible work
schedules is that they can be used more widely and therefore contribute less to feelings of unfairness among
employees (Parker & Allen, 2001). Our results suggest fruitful avenues for future research that include a more
expansive denition of non-work-life domains.
4.1. Limitations
As with all research there were limitations to this study. The rst was the use of a self-reported survey data,
which may contribute to ination of relationships between variables. However, we followed the recommendations of Podsako et al. (2003) to counteract mono-method bias in the initial design of the study. For example,
the independent and dependent variables were collected at two dierent times (2 weeks apart) and we used
dierent scale endpoints to measure our variables.
Another limitation was the population used. Even though the participants were from two organizations,
they all worked in service oriented jobs in a bank and an insurance company, and the majority of the sample
was Caucasian and female. It is plausible that cultural norms in our sample of service organizations aected
the likelihood of FWA use. The fact that workgroup use was such a robust predictor of FWA use in this study
suggests normative inuences might play an important role. It is also plausible that results would dier in
other industries or in professions that are traditionally male dominated. An area for future research is to
examine the eect of cultural norms on FWA use across dierent organizational and professional contexts.
One last issue that should be addressed is the fact that this study combined extime and compressed workweeks into one variable. Although there is little theory to suggest that variations in type of FWAs would
impact the likelihood of use, and exploratory analyses of small subsamples of this data suggest there are
no signicant dierences, this remains a question for future research. For example, the incidence of compressed workweek use appeared to be lower than use of extime. This dierence might vary across organizational and job-level contexts.
4.2. Implications and conclusions
The results of this study suggest that many people imitate the behavior of others as a way to better balance
work and family. If an employee believes their workgroup uses FWAs then the employee is more likely to use
the program. This result conrms past research and highlights the importance of the normative inuences of
the workgroup on individual employee behavior.

116

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

Up to this point much of the research on individual characteristics has focused on gender (Butler et al.,
2004; Frone & Yardley, 1996; Grover, 1991; Kossek & Nichol, 1992), parental status (Thompson et al.,
1999), or primary care responsibilities (Kossek et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 1999) as the main determinants
of an employees use of WLPs. This study, which included gender and extent of primary care responsibilities
(parental status was part of this factor) and personal lifestyle, found that of all of them, personal lifestyle was
the strongest predictor an individuals choice to use FWAs, particularly amongst those without supervisory
responsibilities.
This study, in conclusion, has contributed to the research on work and family, particularly in the area of
FWAs by introducing new factors that have not been assessed previously. Our results indicate that workrelated variables are more predictive of FWA use than non-work factors, and that personal lifestyle preferences have more impact than family-care related factors particularly for those without supervisory
responsibilities.
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,
414435.
Anderson, S. E., Coey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to workfamily conict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787810.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Hu, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A metaanalysis of their eects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496513.
Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). The 2002 national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and
Work Institute.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Butler, A., Gasser, M., & Smart, L. (2004). A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benets. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65, 5770.
Clark, S. C. (2002). Employees sense of community, sense of control, and work/family conict in Native American organizations. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 61, 92108.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310357.
Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support and job satisfaction: A test of the buering hypothesis.
Work and Occupations, 27, 223243.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and
review of the literature (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124197.
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Allies or enemies: What happens when business professionals confront life choices? New York:
Oxford Press.
Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents importance ratings.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 351366.
Galinsky, E., & Stein, P. J. (1990). The impact of human resource policies on employees: Balancing work/family issues. Journal of Family
Issues, 8, 368383.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1993). The changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Hamill, S., ONeil, R., & Payne, C. K. (1989). Contributions of a supportive work environment to
parents well-being and orientation to work. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 755783.
Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them? American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 11571178.
Grover, S. L. (1991). Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 247255.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding and extra day a week: The positive inuence of perceived job
exibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50, 4958.
Kofodimos, J. R. (1993). Balancing act. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E., & Winters, D. (1999). Using exible schedules in the management world: The power of peers. Human
Resource Management, 38, 3349.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The eects of on-site child care on employee attitudes and performance. Personnel Psychology, 45,
485509.
Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., & Buck, M. L. (2002). Reduced-load work arrangements: Response to stress or quest for integrity of
functioning? In D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, workstress and health (pp. 169190). Washington: APA.
Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., Williams, M. L., Buck, M. L., & Leiba-OSullivan, S. (2002). Contextual factors in the success of reducedload work arrangements among managers and professionals. Human Resource Management, 41, 209223.

A.D. Lambert et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 107117

117

Parker, L., & Allen, T. D. (2001). Work/family benets: Variables related to employees fairness perceptions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 453468.
Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsako, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Repetti, R. L. (1987). Individual and common components of the social environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
710720.
Schabracq, M., Cooper, C. L., & Winnubst, J. A. M. (1994). Work and health psychology: Toward a theoretical framework. In M.
Schabracq, C. L. Cooper, & J. A. M. Winnubst (Eds.), Work and health psychology (pp. 329). New York: John Wiley.
Shinn, M., Wong, N. W., Simko, P. A., & Ortiz-Torres, B. (1989). Promoting well-being of working parents: Coping, social support, and
exible job schedules. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 3155.
Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 54, 416423.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When workfamily benets are not enough: The inuence of workfamily
culture on benet utilization, organizational attachment, and workfamily conict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392415.
Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Denitions, implications, and applications.
Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524536.