Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender
Objective The study examines the associations between two distinct forms of workplace flexibility—flexible schedules and working at home—and workers' well‐being, with special attention to the distinct reasons for working at home and gender differences. Background Workplace flexibility can be a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of marriage and family 2020-06, Vol.82 (3), p.892-910 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 910 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 892 |
container_title | Journal of marriage and family |
container_volume | 82 |
creator | Kim, Jaeseung Henly, Julia R. Golden, Lonnie M. Lambert, Susan J. |
description | Objective
The study examines the associations between two distinct forms of workplace flexibility—flexible schedules and working at home—and workers' well‐being, with special attention to the distinct reasons for working at home and gender differences.
Background
Workplace flexibility can be a key resource to manage work and family responsibilities. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the types of flexibility that provide either a benefit or disadvantage for workers. In particular, insufficient attention has been paid to different reasons employees have for working at home and their implications.
Method
Using the General Social Survey, we created a pooled sample across the four waves of data (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, N = 6,945). Workers' well‐being was measured with job satisfaction, job stress, daily fatigue, and work‐to‐family conflict. Multivariate regression analysis and several sensitivity tests were conducted.
Results
The study found benefits of flexible schedules for work‐related well‐being. Working at home as part of one's job had some benefits, but working at home to catch up on work had consistent disadvantages for worker well‐being. Moreover, the ability to adjust start and end times of work and working at home to catch up on work were associated with elevated work‐to‐family conflict, particularly for female workers.
Conclusion
The findings suggest the potential advantages and unintended consequences of different flexibility arrangements for workers, and these implications may differ by gender. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jomf.12633 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2404086354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2404086354</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3673-4c4a7a535e5a98fece193d22fa78e31b40a7df626ab190cf760068ac5b5b99a63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1Ow0AQRlcIJEKg4QSW6JAc9n_tEiIcQEFpQClX6_UsstnYZp0I3HEEzshJcDA1XzPFvG9GegidEzwjQ66qZuNmhErGDtCEKE5ippg6RBOMKY0p5-IYnXRdhYfQFE-QWjfhtfXGQpR5-Cjz0pfbPjJ1Ee03EKI1eP_9-XUDZf0S5X20gLqAcIqOnPEdnP3NKXrObp_md_FytbifXy9jy6RiMbfcKCOYAGHSxIEFkrKCUmdUAozkHBtVOEmlyUmKrVMSY5kYK3KRp6mRbIouxrttaN520G111exCPbzUlGOOE8kEH6jLkbKh6boATreh3JjQa4L1Xozei9G_YgaYjPB76aH_h9QPq8ds7PwAieFlQw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2404086354</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Kim, Jaeseung ; Henly, Julia R. ; Golden, Lonnie M. ; Lambert, Susan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jaeseung ; Henly, Julia R. ; Golden, Lonnie M. ; Lambert, Susan J.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
The study examines the associations between two distinct forms of workplace flexibility—flexible schedules and working at home—and workers' well‐being, with special attention to the distinct reasons for working at home and gender differences.
Background
Workplace flexibility can be a key resource to manage work and family responsibilities. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the types of flexibility that provide either a benefit or disadvantage for workers. In particular, insufficient attention has been paid to different reasons employees have for working at home and their implications.
Method
Using the General Social Survey, we created a pooled sample across the four waves of data (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, N = 6,945). Workers' well‐being was measured with job satisfaction, job stress, daily fatigue, and work‐to‐family conflict. Multivariate regression analysis and several sensitivity tests were conducted.
Results
The study found benefits of flexible schedules for work‐related well‐being. Working at home as part of one's job had some benefits, but working at home to catch up on work had consistent disadvantages for worker well‐being. Moreover, the ability to adjust start and end times of work and working at home to catch up on work were associated with elevated work‐to‐family conflict, particularly for female workers.
Conclusion
The findings suggest the potential advantages and unintended consequences of different flexibility arrangements for workers, and these implications may differ by gender.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2445</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1741-3737</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Attention ; Employed Women ; Families & family life ; Family conflict ; Family work relationship ; Fatigue ; Fatigue (Biology) ; Female employees ; Females ; Flexibility ; Gender ; Gender differences ; Job satisfaction ; Labor Force Nonparticipants ; Literature Reviews ; Occupational stress ; schedule flexibility ; Telecommuting ; telework ; Teleworking ; Well being ; Women ; Work at home ; Workers ; Working Hours ; workplace flexibility ; Workplaces ; work‐to‐family conflict</subject><ispartof>Journal of marriage and family, 2020-06, Vol.82 (3), p.892-910</ispartof><rights>2019 National Council on Family Relations</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Jun 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3673-4c4a7a535e5a98fece193d22fa78e31b40a7df626ab190cf760068ac5b5b99a63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3673-4c4a7a535e5a98fece193d22fa78e31b40a7df626ab190cf760068ac5b5b99a63</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2451-1414</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjomf.12633$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjomf.12633$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27321,27901,27902,33751,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jaeseung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henly, Julia R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Lonnie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambert, Susan J.</creatorcontrib><title>Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender</title><title>Journal of marriage and family</title><description>Objective
The study examines the associations between two distinct forms of workplace flexibility—flexible schedules and working at home—and workers' well‐being, with special attention to the distinct reasons for working at home and gender differences.
Background
Workplace flexibility can be a key resource to manage work and family responsibilities. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the types of flexibility that provide either a benefit or disadvantage for workers. In particular, insufficient attention has been paid to different reasons employees have for working at home and their implications.
Method
Using the General Social Survey, we created a pooled sample across the four waves of data (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, N = 6,945). Workers' well‐being was measured with job satisfaction, job stress, daily fatigue, and work‐to‐family conflict. Multivariate regression analysis and several sensitivity tests were conducted.
Results
The study found benefits of flexible schedules for work‐related well‐being. Working at home as part of one's job had some benefits, but working at home to catch up on work had consistent disadvantages for worker well‐being. Moreover, the ability to adjust start and end times of work and working at home to catch up on work were associated with elevated work‐to‐family conflict, particularly for female workers.
Conclusion
The findings suggest the potential advantages and unintended consequences of different flexibility arrangements for workers, and these implications may differ by gender.</description><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Employed Women</subject><subject>Families & family life</subject><subject>Family conflict</subject><subject>Family work relationship</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>Fatigue (Biology)</subject><subject>Female employees</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Job satisfaction</subject><subject>Labor Force Nonparticipants</subject><subject>Literature Reviews</subject><subject>Occupational stress</subject><subject>schedule flexibility</subject><subject>Telecommuting</subject><subject>telework</subject><subject>Teleworking</subject><subject>Well being</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Work at home</subject><subject>Workers</subject><subject>Working Hours</subject><subject>workplace flexibility</subject><subject>Workplaces</subject><subject>work‐to‐family conflict</subject><issn>0022-2445</issn><issn>1741-3737</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>88H</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2N</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD1Ow0AQRlcIJEKg4QSW6JAc9n_tEiIcQEFpQClX6_UsstnYZp0I3HEEzshJcDA1XzPFvG9GegidEzwjQ66qZuNmhErGDtCEKE5ippg6RBOMKY0p5-IYnXRdhYfQFE-QWjfhtfXGQpR5-Cjz0pfbPjJ1Ee03EKI1eP_9-XUDZf0S5X20gLqAcIqOnPEdnP3NKXrObp_md_FytbifXy9jy6RiMbfcKCOYAGHSxIEFkrKCUmdUAozkHBtVOEmlyUmKrVMSY5kYK3KRp6mRbIouxrttaN520G111exCPbzUlGOOE8kEH6jLkbKh6boATreh3JjQa4L1Xozei9G_YgaYjPB76aH_h9QPq8ds7PwAieFlQw</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Kim, Jaeseung</creator><creator>Henly, Julia R.</creator><creator>Golden, Lonnie M.</creator><creator>Lambert, Susan J.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PGAAH</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>POGQB</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PRQQA</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-1414</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender</title><author>Kim, Jaeseung ; Henly, Julia R. ; Golden, Lonnie M. ; Lambert, Susan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3673-4c4a7a535e5a98fece193d22fa78e31b40a7df626ab190cf760068ac5b5b99a63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Employed Women</topic><topic>Families & family life</topic><topic>Family conflict</topic><topic>Family work relationship</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>Fatigue (Biology)</topic><topic>Female employees</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Job satisfaction</topic><topic>Labor Force Nonparticipants</topic><topic>Literature Reviews</topic><topic>Occupational stress</topic><topic>schedule flexibility</topic><topic>Telecommuting</topic><topic>telework</topic><topic>Teleworking</topic><topic>Well being</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Work at home</topic><topic>Workers</topic><topic>Working Hours</topic><topic>workplace flexibility</topic><topic>Workplaces</topic><topic>work‐to‐family conflict</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jaeseung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henly, Julia R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Lonnie M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambert, Susan J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Religion & Philosophy</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Sociology & Social Sciences Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of marriage and family</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kim, Jaeseung</au><au>Henly, Julia R.</au><au>Golden, Lonnie M.</au><au>Lambert, Susan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender</atitle><jtitle>Journal of marriage and family</jtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>892</spage><epage>910</epage><pages>892-910</pages><issn>0022-2445</issn><eissn>1741-3737</eissn><abstract>Objective
The study examines the associations between two distinct forms of workplace flexibility—flexible schedules and working at home—and workers' well‐being, with special attention to the distinct reasons for working at home and gender differences.
Background
Workplace flexibility can be a key resource to manage work and family responsibilities. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the types of flexibility that provide either a benefit or disadvantage for workers. In particular, insufficient attention has been paid to different reasons employees have for working at home and their implications.
Method
Using the General Social Survey, we created a pooled sample across the four waves of data (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, N = 6,945). Workers' well‐being was measured with job satisfaction, job stress, daily fatigue, and work‐to‐family conflict. Multivariate regression analysis and several sensitivity tests were conducted.
Results
The study found benefits of flexible schedules for work‐related well‐being. Working at home as part of one's job had some benefits, but working at home to catch up on work had consistent disadvantages for worker well‐being. Moreover, the ability to adjust start and end times of work and working at home to catch up on work were associated with elevated work‐to‐family conflict, particularly for female workers.
Conclusion
The findings suggest the potential advantages and unintended consequences of different flexibility arrangements for workers, and these implications may differ by gender.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/jomf.12633</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-1414</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-2445 |
ispartof | Journal of marriage and family, 2020-06, Vol.82 (3), p.892-910 |
issn | 0022-2445 1741-3737 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2404086354 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Attention Employed Women Families & family life Family conflict Family work relationship Fatigue Fatigue (Biology) Female employees Females Flexibility Gender Gender differences Job satisfaction Labor Force Nonparticipants Literature Reviews Occupational stress schedule flexibility Telecommuting telework Teleworking Well being Women Work at home Workers Working Hours workplace flexibility Workplaces work‐to‐family conflict |
title | Workplace Flexibility and Worker Well‐Being by Gender |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T08%3A19%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Workplace%20Flexibility%20and%20Worker%20Well%E2%80%90Being%20by%20Gender&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20marriage%20and%20family&rft.au=Kim,%20Jaeseung&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=892&rft.epage=910&rft.pages=892-910&rft.issn=0022-2445&rft.eissn=1741-3737&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jomf.12633&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2404086354%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2404086354&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |