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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of marriage and family 2020-06, Vol.82 (3), p.892-910
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Jaeseung, Henly, Julia R., Golden, Lonnie M., Lambert, Susan J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Philosophy</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Sociology &amp; Social Sciences Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; 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