CONSEQUENCES OF EXTENDED WORK HOURS: A COMPARISON OF MOONLIGHTERS, OVERTIMERS, AND MODAL EMPLOYEES Muhammad Jamal and Ronald L. Crawford

Stringent corporate controls on employee moonlighting and/or overtime are not uncommon. But are they necessary? Even the concept of overtime may need to be rethought-what about the “normal working hours” of managers and professionals who work hours at home orLon the road-hours typically uncompensated?

Extra earnings occupy a peculiar place in peoples’ thinking. In good economic times, extra-earning may represent a pathway to luxuries, a nest egg, or self-improvement; in today’s gloomy climate, the additional money more likely acts as a cushion, a way of forestalling or reducing the impacts of rising prices and shrinking real incomes. Sending homemakers and other household members out to work, bidding for promotions or higher-paid hourly jobs, and changing employers are some ways in which people may augment their incomes. How- ever, the two most typical patterns are working overtime for the current employer and moonlighting

Having employees working extra hours may produce worthwhile benefits from managemect’s perspective. Overtime, for example, can be a more flexible and less costly alternative to hiring additional workers, and may moderate some wage demands. Moonlight- ing may provide experience, stimulation, or respon- sibility which cannot realistically be built into the primary job, ultimately producing less frustrated or more valuable employees. Both overtime and moonlighting, however, may also involve problems which limit or overshadow any positive contributions.

Managerial concerns about expanded work weeks fall into three broad categories. The first, which is most evident in the literature of overtime, is that the extra hours may be symptoms of a more per-

vasive underlying problem. Baird and Beccia (1980) have reported that overtime is frequently used to compensate for low productivity during regular hours, which could reflect mismanagement, techni- cal (e.g., maintenance) problems, or conscious ma- nipulation of output. A comparable focaI issue in moonlighting is conflict of interest, through which competitors, regulatory agencies, or social interest organizations could be acquiring sensitive informa- tion at bargain rates. A second class of reservations about extra working hours might be termed human- istic, in the sense that the additional time and effort may be harmful to the worker. Thus, overwork or fatigue might result in illness, accident-proneness, reduced mental health, impaired social function, or habituation to an untenable level of earnings or lifestyle. Those concerns, in turn, imply the third category, a parallel set of issues for the company: poorer job performance, absenteeism, related costs for extra compensation, manpower, supervision and replacements, reduced job satisfaction and commit- ment, and loss of valued workers to other firms or self-employment.

Previous Research

The limiting parameters of extended hours were described by Wilensky (1963), who concluded that the primary governing factors are the presence and knowledge of opportunities, motivation by workers

18 Consequences of Extended Work Hours

to take advantage of them, and having the appro- priate skills and qualifications. Unfortunately, no one has yet measured the distribution or interaction of those factors in the working population, but their role as ultimate constraints remains clear. When a firm does not schedule any overtime, for example, that option does not exist for its workers.

Official statistics (Statistics Canada, 1976; U.S. De- partment of Labor, 1976) place the proportion of moonlighters at 54% of the non-farm work force. The prevalence of regular paid overtime is perhaps half of those rates. These figures should be read, however, with great caution. Government statistics are compiled from such sources as wage and with- holding reports, and thus systematically underrepre- sent or actually exclude unreported work, cash and barter transactions, self-employment, and invest- ments (Crawford, 1978). Canadian and U.S. statis- tics also suggest that moonlighting is more common among males, workers with more dependents, lower wage earners, married men, and formerly married women. The sampling bias in those studies, how- ever, could mean that other classes of workers simply find other (e.g., unreported) sorts of extra work more attractive or accessible.

Studies of the motivation of peopfe who work extra hours indicate a broad range of reasons. Some workers have little real choice. Overtime may be effectively mandatory, if not officially, or they may need the extra money to make ends meet. Some investigators (Michelotti, 1975; Shishko and Rostker, 1976) have emphasized positive financial incentives such as building capital, paying for luxuries or higher education, and developing tax shelters. A portfolio of investments, an apartment house, or a small business, for example, take time and attention much like overtime or paid outside employment, but enjoy tax treatment which may make them still more attractive. The reasons people work additional time may not be entirely financial; Grossman (1975), Miller and Sniderman (1974), Mulally (1976), and others have concluded that change of pace, develop ing new skills, being one’s own boss, doing work which is enjoyable but not feasible as a career, and similar considerations are also operating.

Surveys of company attitudes and policies (Habbe, 1957; Davey and Brown, 1970) indicate widespread concern about possible ill-effects of extra employ- ment. However, those reservations are not borne

out in practice. Except for outright conflict of in- terest (e.g., selling a competitor‘s product or leaking confidential information), most firms report only implicit restrictions. And those may be enforced only in cases of genuine abuse. Hiring employees of other firms as moonlighters does not appear to arouse the same caution. That seems to be the other fellow’s problem.

The Focus of This Study

There have been no prior systematic studies of the human or corporate outcomes or consequences of extended working hours in present day industry, although anecdotal reports are common. The data reported here thus represent an initial attempt to determine the effects of overtime and moonlight work, and to consider the implications of those findings for management action.

The Sample for the study was drawn from business organizations in a western Canadian metropolitan area. Six companies agreed to participate in the survey. They were drawn from the cement products, electrical equipment, woodworking, and advertising industries. All rank-and-file workers in the partici- pating companies were given copies of the research questionnaire. Salaried employees were excluded because the notion of paid overtime did not gener- ally apply. With one follow-up, 404 (45%) usable questionnaires were received. The majority of the respondents were married (68%), male (76%), over age 35 (68%) and belonged to a union (53%). The respondents are representative of their company work forces, and offer adequate coverage of the major classes of industrial workers.

Measures

lob Holding. Patterns of job holding were assessed by asking respondents whether or not, at the time of the survey, they were engaged in a second paid job outside the company, or working overtime on a regular basis in the company. Those who were working outside the company were labeled ‘moon- lighters.’ Those who were engaged in regular over- time were called ‘overtimers.’ Employees who were not moonlighting or working overtime regularly were considered modal employees.

M m t a f Health. The measures of mental health that were used were workers’ responses to a 54-item

Human Resource Management, Fall 1981 19

scale developed to tap Komhauser’s six dimensions of mental health: manifest anxiety, self-esteem, hos- tility, sociability, and life satisfaction (Komhauser, 1%5). Following Komhauser, a composite index of mental health was constructed by combining the scores on the 54 items of mental health. A higher score on the composite index indicates a higher de- gree of mental health, and vice versa.

Qdity of Life. Quality of life was assessed by asking respondents how they perceive their overall quality of life at this time. This scale was adopted from London, Grandall and Seals’ study (1977).

S&l ZnvoIvemmt. Social involvement was meas- ured in terms of reported participation in voluntary organizations (e.g:, union, church or ethnic groups, civic or social clubs). For each individual, measures were obtained of the number of voluntary organ- izations joined, executive positions held, and meet- ings attended during the two months previous to answering the questionnaire, and the hours the individual spent in voluntary organization activities in the four previous weeks.

Reported Absenteeism. Absenteeism was assessed by asking each worker how many times they were absent from work in the previous four months.

Job Performance. Job performance was assessed with three questions concerning: 1) the workers’ perception of their performance in comparison to CO- workers’, 2) the workers’ judgment of how their supervisor rates their performance in comparison to co-workers’, and 3) the workers’ estimate of how co-workers rate the subjects’ performance in com- parison to their own performance. These measures were derived from Porter and Lawler’s study (1967) of managerial effectiveness.

Turnover Intention. Anticipated turnover was as- sessed by asking each worker to give his or her probability of staying with the same company two years from the day the questionnaire was answered. This measure has been reported as a reasonably valid measure of turnover (Kraut, 1975).

Flex-Time and Short Work W e e k Preference. Preference for flex-time and a short work week was measured by asking each worker to indicate his and her preference on a five-point Likert scale of ‘strong- ly favor‘ to ‘strongly disfavor.’ A higher score on

flex-time or a shorter work week indicates stronger preference.

Findings

Selected demogaphic and background characteris tics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. Men were about two times as likely to moonlight or work ove time as women, and unskilled workers and union members were substan tially overrepresented among moonlighters. The high proportion (roughly 25%) of moonlighting and overtimer respondents who worked on rotating shifts was not anticipated, as it might be expected that variable schedules would be

TABLE 1

Distribution of Moonlighters, Overtimers and Modal Employees 012 Demographic and

Background Vmiabfes

Variable

- Type of Employee

Modal Moonlighten Overtimers Employees

(N=62) (N=20) (N=321)

Sex Male Female

18-25 years 26-35 years

Age

364- Y- Education

up to 10th grade 1 1 th- 12th grade 13+ years of education

Mmita l Status Single Married Other1

Under $800 Income per M a t h

$800-$1000 $1001+

Lengrh.of Service Less than 2 years 2-5 years Over 5 years

Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled

Shift Time Morning‘ Afternoon Night Rotating

Union Membership Member Non-member

Skill Level

86% 147;

2170 52% 27%

4070 40%. 20%

18% 7470

8%

40% 3 9 4 2 1 70

29% 36% 35%

44% 24% 32%

69 9% 796 0%

24%

71% 29 Yo

85% 15To

15% 50% 35%

40% 55%

5 G/n

25% 700/,

5 %

32% 21vo 47%

30% 30% 40%

25% 30% 45%

65% 10%

0% 25%

55yo 45%

72Yo 28%

27% 40% 33%

29% 46% 25YC

26% 66%

8%

30% 33% 37%

37% 33% 30%

2270 40% 38%

79% 6 70 1%

14%

50% 50%

- I Other includes separated, widowed and divorced.

20 Consequences of Extended W o r k Hours

an obstacle to extra earnings. The most salient obser- vation, however, is the proportion of respondents who said they were moonlighting. That statistic is roughly triple the rates published by government sources, and appears attributable to the anonymity of the questionnaire. Use of verbal probes and in- clusion of irregular moonlighting, investment activ- ity, and barter transactions would, we believe, at least double that figure.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with unequal cell frequencies, was used to examine the differences on criterion variables among moon- lighters, overtimers, and modal employees. The results are summarized in Table 2. No statistically significant differences were found among moon- lighters, overtimers, and modal employees on four of the eleven dependent variables. In the present study, patterns of the respondents’ job holding were unrelated to their mental health, overall quality of life, job performance, and turnover intention. With regard to Participation in voluntary organizations, both moonlighters and overtimers were significantly more active than modal employees: they belonged to more voluntary organizations, attended more meet- ings of the voluntary organization, held more offices, and spent more hours in the activities of voluntary organizations than modal employees. Absenteeism was highest among overtimers, second highest among moonlighters and lowest among the modal em- ployees. All three rates were relatively low; however, the differences on absenteeism among the three groups were nonetheless statistically significant.

Moonlighters, as well as overtimen, exhibited greater preference for flex-time and a shorter work week than modal employees.

Discussion

The finding of greatest significance for management practice is the near absence of patterned relation- ships between work patterns and undesirable out- comes. Moonlighters, overtimers, and modal em- ployees all report similar levels of well-being, mental health, job stability, and performance. Only in days lost is there a significant difference favoring modal employees, and even the highest rate of absenteeism reported (equivalent to about six days per year) is within accepted industrial norms. Indeed, the figure for modal employees appears atypically low.

This finding raises doubts about the value of stringent corporate controls on moonlighting or overtime. Outright bans or rigid reporting systems appear unwarranted if there are few problems to prevent, and they are in practice easily circumvented. A more liberal policy, based upon intervening with workers who are clearly in difficulty or whose work has deteriorated, would appear more realistic for the circumstances.

Several different factors may, together, account for the paucity of unwanted outcomes. First, the de- mands of moonlight or overtime work may not be as great as anecdotal evidence has suggested. The total work week of moonlighters and overtimers may, in most cases, be less than the normal work week of a generation ago (a generation not adverse

TABLE 2

Patterns of Job Holding Related to Mean Scores on Mental Health, Qwzlity of Life, Social Participation, and Other Outcome Variables

Pa- of Job Holding Modal

Criterion Moonlighters Overtimeas Employees F P Variables (N-62) (N=20) (N=321)

________

Mental Health 169.39 165.65 169.51 0.08 NS Quality of Life 3.19 3.40 3.24 0.25 NS Participation in Voluntao Organizations

Memberships Held Positions Held Meetings Attended Hours Spent

Job Performance Reported Absenteeism Turnover Intention Flextime Preference Shorter Work Week Preference

3.85 2.63 2.77 3.18 7.90 1.29 2.88 3.65 4.25

3.75 1.90 2.75 2.90 7.35 2.05 2.70 3.89 3.75

3.21 6.28 2.05 4.93 2.13 6.73 2.40 6.66 7.98 1.08 0.52 18.78 2.80 0.18 3.24 3.75 3.47 10.23

.o 1

.o 1

.o 1

.o 1 NS .O 1 NS .05 .O 1

Himtan Resource Management, Fall 1981 21

to earning something on the side). If those extra hours are taken from time which others now spend watching TV, at the pub, or in a similar fashion, the entire issue might be moot. Alternatively, employees may adapt more readily to extended schedules than management has suspected. Shift work, for example, places significant strains on family and social life, yet most shift workers adapt satisfactorily unless their shifts are varied. An additional possible ex- planation may lie in selective factors affecting who decides to work extra hours, and who subsequently continues, reduces, or eliminates those schedules. A hal alternative is that significant problems do occur, but are su&ciently infrequent, insidious in onset, or unique not to appear in the type of survey utilized for this study. A problem which took ten years or more to emerge, for example, would not be evident to most of our respondents.

Additional research is necessary to sort out ,the relative contribution of the preceding factors. None- theless, there is some support in the data on volun- tary activities and work schedule preferences for the notion that differences between employees account for participation (success and failure) in extended work hours. Those data indicate that moonlighters and overtimers are also more active in civic, religious, and recreational programs, and would probably welcome less rigid work schedules so as to enable still more activity. The critical differences might be constitution, temperament, intellect, ability to plan or organize, aspirations, maturity, or still other factors. When identified, however, they could pro- vide managers with a more objective basis upon which to select or counsel employees for overtime or outside work.

The way in which extended work hours vary across time, and across social and economic factors also requires further study. If participation remained constant throughout the year and were independent of other influences, it would be reasonable to con- clude from the data that the issue is largely self- managing, and requires intervention only in ex- ceptional cases. That outlook assumes, however, that no future developments will occur to draw a s u b stantially larger portion of the labor force into extended work schedules. Peaks and troughs of work flow do, in fact, characterize numerous indus- tries, including construction, farming, offshore re-

sources, garments, recreation, and automobiles. An- nual report time is the bane of many office workers’ existence. The Sturm und Drang of those rush periods, nonetheless, is usually predictable, transient, and compensated by lulls, time off, and various other perks.

We are less confident in predicting what might re- sult if a more general lengthening of work hours occurred, involving masses of people unaccustomed to such regimens. Yet that could well come to pass. The effects of falling buying power during the cur- rent economic difficulties could set off a search for extra work despite the general decline of growth in business activity. Local booms, notably those asso- ciated with oil and gas discoveries, may transform even economic backwaters more rapidly than the work force can grow or adapt, but at wages which many will find irresistible. Over the longer term, there looms the very red prospect of shortfalls of critical classes of workers, especially in the crafts and skilled trades. That again could result in longer hours, not always voluntarily, for many workers. Whether or not this will generate more problems among overtimers or moonlighters remains uncer- tain, but in the absence of more definitive data, workers’ adaptation clearly bears monitoring.

The generalizability of the findings to other classes of employees beyond the blue-collar rank-and-file is questionable. The “normal working hours” of managers and professionals are often loosely defined, are unlikely to include work hours at home or on the road, hours which are typically uncompensated. The payoff for those hours may be raises, promo- tions, or bonuses. Thus overtime would have to be reconceptualized or at best treated in a very different perspective. A comparison of the actual work hours of managers, professionals, or sales people with rank-and-file employees who work extra hours might, however, be instructive. The traditional image of moonlighting might also require modifica- tions. Paid outside activities such as consulting, directorships, and teaching are actively encouraged for public relations and development purposes in many firms. Higher ranking employees also appear to engage in different kinds of moonlighting activi- ties: instead of working directly for another firm, managers and similar employees seem more apt to deal in investments, real estate, small business en-

22 Consequences of Extended Work Hours

terprises, and comparable undertakings. If the time and energy devoted to those activities is considered moonlighting, the prevalence of such activities may make the non-moonlighter an exception. At the opposite end of the social and income spectrum, multiple jobs and long hours also appear very common among low-paid and marginal workers, who often piece together several short-term, part- time, and pick-up activities to supplement their primary employment. The number of hours the working poor expend to make ends meet may be difficult to factor out as a determinant of their job performance or personal difficulties. The effects of limited education and training, separation by geo- graphic and transportation barriers and by subcul- tural differences from the economic mainstream, health deficits, and similar factors also contribute, to the extent that work patterns may be more an effect than a cause.

Ronald L. Crawford

is an Associate Professor of Management at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec. His research interests center on job stress, organizational effectiveness, ffow of modern technology, organizational inertia and industrial mental health. He has published in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Industrial Medicine, and Industrial Relations, Laval.

Mu harnmad Ja ma1

is an Associate Professor of Management at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec. His research interests center on job stress, moonlightin crosscultural manage- ment studies, and shift work. H e f as published extensively in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and Industrial Relations and consults in the areas of work scheduling and performance appraisal.

References

Baird, L. S. and Beccia, P. J. “The Potential Misuse of Overtime,” Personnel Psychology, 1980, 33, pp. 557-565.

Crawford, R. L. “Moonlighting: New look for an Old Practice,” Slcpervisory Management, August, 1978, p p 1-9.

Davey, P. J. and Brown, J. K. “The Corporate Reaction to IMoonlighting,” Conference Board Record, June, 1978, pp. 31-35.

Grossman, A. (Untitled), Monthly Labor Review, February, 1975.

Habbe, S. “Moonlighting and Its Control,’’ Management

Kornhauser, A. T h e Mental Health of the Industrial Work- er. New York: John Wile and Sons, 1965.

Kraut, A. I. “Predicting %urnover of Employees from Measured Job Attitudes,” OrganizationaI Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, p p 233-243.

Record, July, 1957, pp. 234-237.

The Labour Gazette, June, 1976, p. 290. London, M., Grandall, R., and Seals, G. W. “The Contribu-

tion of Job and Leisure Satisfaction to Quality of Life,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, p p 328-334.

Michelotti, K. “Multiple Job Holders in 1975,” Monthly Lnbm Review, November, 1975.

Miller, G. and Sniderman, S. “Multiple Job Holding of Wichita Public School Teachers,” Public Personnel Man- agement, September-October, 1974.

Mulally, J. “Moonlighting: Even Managers Do It,” In- dustty Week , June 21, 1976.

Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey, 1968.

Shishko, R. and Rostker, B. “Multiple Job Holding,” American Economic Review, November, 1976.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Labor Force Reports Nos. 18, 139, 166, 177, 182. Cited in Statistical Abstract of the United States, US. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976.

Wilensky, H. “The Moonlighter,” Industrial Relations, October, 1963, pp. 105-124.

Human Resource Management, Fall 198 1 23