flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and...

The Journal of Psychology, 2010, 144(1), 61–81Copyright C© 2010 Heldref Publications

Flexible Work Arrangements, JobSatisfaction, and Turnover Intentions:

The Mediating Role of Work-to-FamilyEnrichment

LAUREL A. MCNALLThe College at Brockport, State University of New York

ALINE D. MASUDAEADA, Barcelona, Spain

JESSICA M. NICKLINUniversity of Hartford

ABSTRACT. The authors examined the relation between the availability of 2 populartypes of flexible work arrangements (i.e., flextime and compressed workweek) and work-to-family enrichment and, in turn, the relation between work-to-family enrichment and(a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover intentions. In a sample of 220 employed workingadults, hierarchical regression analyses showed that work-to-family enrichment mediatedthe relation between flexible work arrangements and both job satisfaction and turnoverintentions, even after controlling for gender, age, marital status, education, number ofchildren, and hours worked. Thus, the availability of flexible work arrangements such asflextime and compressed workweek seems to help employees experience greater enrichmentfrom work to home, which, in turn, is associated with higher job satisfaction and lowerturnover intentions. The authors discuss the implications for research and practice.

Keywords: compressed workweek, flexible work arrangements, flextime, work–familyenrichment

BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS in the workforce (Bond,Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2002), more individuals face the challenge ofmanaging work and family responsibilities. Most research on the work–family

A version of this paper was presented at the European Association of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology 2009 Congress.

Address correspondence to Laurel A. McNall, The College at Brockport State Universityof New York, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport, NY 14420, USA; [email protected](e-mail).

61

62 The Journal of Psychology

interface has adopted a scarcity perspective, suggesting that involvement in multi-ple roles leads to interrole conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Yet, sociologicaltheorists (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974) have suggested that multiple-role member-ship can generate resources that offer benefits to individuals. Consequently, therehave been calls to study the positive side of the work–family interface (Parasur-aman & Greenhaus, 2002), which has been labeled by a variety of terms suchas positive spillover (Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006), facilitation (Wayne,Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007), enhancement (Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer,& King, 2002), and enrichment (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006;Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In the present study, we addressed work–family en-richment, defined by Greenhaus and Powell as the “extent to which experiences inone role improve the quality of life in the other role” (p. 73). Carlson et al. recentlydeveloped a bidirectional measure of work–family enrichment, but more researchis needed to understand the antecedents and consequences of enrichment.

The purpose of the present study was to extend the knowledge of work–familyenrichment by examining the availability of flexible work arrangements as apossible antecedent variable. Flexible work arrangements are defined as “employerprovided benefits that permit employees some level of control over when and wherethey work outside of the standard workday” (Lambert, Marler, & Gueutal, 2008,p. 107). On the basis of Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) model of work–familyenrichment, we proposed that flexibility is one major driver of the enrichmentprocess. Second, we examined the relation between work–family enrichment andtwo important work outcomes relevant to retention: job satisfaction and turnoverintentions. According to Wayne, Randel, and Stevens (2006), more research isneeded on how enrichment is related to work-related outcomes to make the caseto organizations that enrichment is important and deserves attention. In particular,in the present study, we focused solely on work-to-family enrichment because ofrecent evidence showing that work-to-family enrichment is more strongly relatedto work-related variables (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover intentions) than family-to-work enrichment (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, in press; Wayne, Musisca,& Fleeson, 2004; Wayne et al., 2006). Last and most important, we proposedthat work-to-family enrichment may be an intervening mechanism in the relationbetween flexible work arrangements and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnoverintentions. To our knowledge, the mediating role of work-to-family enrichmenthas not been explored in the literature.

Thus, our research contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, weanswered the call to study the positive side of the work–family interface (Parasur-aman & Greenhaus, 2002), which, at present, is underrepresented compared withwork–family conflict. Work–family enrichment is recognized as conceptually dis-tinct from work–family conflict (Frone, 2003), but research on the antecedents andconsequences of enrichment remains scarce (Beham, 2008). Thus, we exploredhow the availability of flexible work arrangements increases enrichment, which,

McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin 63

in turn, relates to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Thus, thisstudy expands the conceptual understanding of work-to-family enrichment andoffers practical implications for organizations seeking to help employees withwork–family balance issues.

Flexible Work Arrangements

Many organizations have begun to offer flexible work arrangements to helpemployees balance work and family demands (Galinsky, Bond, & Sakai, 2008). Inthe present study, we focused on two types of flexible work arrangements: flextimeschedules (i.e., employees can select work hours given certain restrictions by theorganization) and compressed workweek schedules (i.e., employees often workmore hours per day but fewer days per week; Lambert et al., 2008). According tothe 2008 Employee Benefits Survey by the Society for Human Resource Manage-ment (2008), 59% of human resources professionals reported that their organiza-tions offer employees flextime, and 37% reported that their organizations offer acompressed workweek. The rationale for focusing on these two types of flexiblework arrangements stems from research in the work–family conflict literature thatsuggests that flextime may be more effective than flexplace (i.e., flexibility in thelocation where work is completed) in preventing both work interfering with familyand family interfering with work (Byron, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran,2006; Shockley & Allen, 2007), and this may also apply to enrichment. Thus,we focused on the two types of flexible work arrangements that pertain to timeflexibility (i.e., flextime and compressed workweek) rather than location flexibilityto better isolate what specific types of flexible work arrangements influence thepositive side of the work–family interface.

Research has revealed that flexible work arrangements are associated with avariety of important organizational attitudes and outcomes. For example, a meta-analysis of 31 studies by Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) foundthat flexible and compressed workweek schedules were related to productivityand performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and satisfaction with work sched-ules. Research has also shown that flexible work arrangements may influence thework–family interface. Helping employees with work–life balance was the impetusfor the creation of flexible work arrangements (Lee, MacDermid, & Buck, 2002).In particular, studies have shown that perceived schedule flexibility is negativelyrelated to work–family conflict (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Hammer,Allen, & Grigsby, 1997; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006), but less is known abouthow flexible work arrangements may influence enrichment (for an exception, seeWayne et al., 2006). To better understand the relation between flexible work ar-rangements and enrichment, we first explored the theoretical underpinnings of theenrichment process.


A Model of Work–Family Enrichment

In the past, one major barrier to work–family research has been the lack ofan overarching and integrating theoretical framework (Eby, Casper, Lockwood,Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). As previously mentioned, work by Sieber (1974) andMarks (1977) offered some insight into the enrichment process. Sieber’s theory ofrole accumulation argued that people choose to participate in multiple roles for avariety of rewards, such as greater role privileges, lower strain, greater status, andpersonality enrichment. Furthermore, Marks’s expansionist approach argued thatsome roles may generate resources that increase energy, which can be directed in asecond role. More recently, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) expanded these findingsand provided a comprehensive theoretical framework of work–family enrichment.According to Greenhaus and Powell’s model, enrichment occurs when resourcegains in one role (e.g., work) promote improved performance in another role (e.g.,family). In this model, resource generation enables improved performance in theother role either directly (i.e., instrumental path) or indirectly (i.e., the affectivepath).

Greenhaus and Powell (2006) identified a variety of resources that drive thework–family enrichment process, including skills and perspectives (e.g., inter-personal skills, coping skills, respect for individual differences), psychologicaland physical resources (e.g., self-efficacy, hardiness, optimism), social-capitalresources (e.g., networking, information), flexibility (e.g., flexible work arrange-ment), and material resources (e.g., money, gifts). The resource relevant to thepresent study is flexibility. Greenhaus and Powell defined flexibility as “discre-tion in determining the timing, pace, and location at which role requirements aremet” (p. 80). Thus, the resources that an employee gains in his or her work role(e.g., flexibility) may directly improve his or her parenting role or may indirectlyproduce positive affect (e.g., enthusiasm, alertness, high energy), which, in turn,benefits the employee’s interactions with his or her family.

Flexible Work Arrangements and Work–Family Enrichment

Hence, on the basis of Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) model, it is possiblethat flexible work arrangements may play a key role in the resource generationprocess, thereby increasing work–family enrichment. Past research has shownthat flexible scheduling increases perceptions of control over work and familymatters, and this, in turn, lowers work–family conflict (Thomas & Ganster, 1995).It is also possible that employees generate resources by having flexible workarrangements, making them better equipped to handle work and family demands.To date, only one study has explored how work–family enrichment use is relatedto enrichment. Contrary to expectations, Wayne et al. (2006) found that family-friendly benefits use did not predict work–family enrichment. However, this lack offindings may be related to the fact that their sample did not widely use the available


family-friendly benefits. Moreover, they used a total benefit usage score that wasbased on a variety of family-supportive benefits (i.e., information and referralservices for child care, special care services and resources for caring for elderlyparents or handicapped persons, child care subsidy, flextime, job sharing, flexiblespending accounts, telecommuting, part-time work) rather than more specifictypes of flexible work arrangements. Wayne et al. urged researchers to “continueto examine the availability and use of various formal policies in isolation and inconjunction with one another to determine their relationship with enrichment” (p.457).

Thus, in the present study, we focused on two specific types of time flexibility.The availability of flextime and a compressed workweek schedule may indicateoverall organizational support for employees and their families (Allen, 2001).This idea is consistent with signaling theory (Spence, 1973), which suggests thatobservable actions by the organization (e.g., having flexible, family-friendly poli-cies) may be interpreted as a signal of more unobservable characteristics such ascare and concern for employees on behalf of the organization. Wayne et al. (2006)also pointed out that flexible work arrangements may generate more perceptionsof control over work–family matters, thereby increasing positive attitudes at workthat may transfer to more positive affect at home (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).Thus, we predicted the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The availability of flexible work arrangements (i.e., flex-time and compressed workweek) will positively relate to perceptions ofwork–family enrichment.

Outcomes of Work–Family Enrichment

As previously mentioned, to establish the importance of enrichment to or-ganizations, it is necessary to link work-to-family enrichment with work-relatedoutcomes. Thus, we examined the relation of work-to-family enrichment to twooutcomes: job satisfaction and turnover intentions. First, job satisfaction is de-fined as the appraisal and feelings one has toward the job (Locke, 1976). Studieshave found that people who report greater work–family enrichment were morelikely to report higher job satisfaction (Aryee, Srinivas, & Tan, 2005; Balmforth& Gardner, 2006). Second, turnover intentions is defined as a conscious and de-liberate willingness to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993). The relationbetween work–family enrichment and turnover has been somewhat mixed. Forexample, Balmforth and Gardner found that greater enrichment was related tolower turnover intentions, but Gordon, Whelan-Berry, and Hamilton (2007) didnot find support for this relation, suggesting that more work is needed to clarifythis relation.

Following Greenhaus and Powell (2006), resources acquired at work (e.g.,flexibility) may result in better performance at work, which has the effect of


creating more positive affect at work, ultimately transferring to more positiveaffect in the family domain (i.e., work-to-family enrichment). In turn, individualsexperiencing more positive emotions about their work should experience higherjob satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Going beyond the definition ofthe term enrichment, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can be used to betterunderstand these relations. According to social exchange theory, when favorabletreatment is perceived by one party, the other party feels obliged to reciprocate(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Applying this to the work-to-family interface,when employees perceive that their organizations are helping them manage workand family roles, the norm of reciprocity compels the return of favorable treatmentoften in the form of favorable attitudes such as more positive feelings about the joband the organization (Aryee et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2006). Thus, we predictedthe following:

H2: Work-to-family enrichment will positively relate to job satisfaction.H3: Work-to-family enrichment will negatively relate to turnover intentions.

Mediating Role of Work–Family Enrichment

As previously mentioned, we were also interested in the mediating role ofwork-to-family enrichment in explaining the relation between flexible work ar-rangement and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover (see Figure 1). Thus far, wepredicted flexible work arrangements to be related to enrichment, which, in turn,we expected to be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related toturnover intentions. It is also likely that flexible work arrangements are related toboth job satisfaction and turnover intentions. For example, Baltes et al.’s (1999)meta-analysis found that both flexible work schedules and compressed workweekschedules had a positive effect on job satisfaction. Allen (2001) also found thatflexible benefits were positively related to job satisfaction and negatively relatedto turnover intentions. Similarly, Batt and Valcour (2003) found that access toflexible scheduling practices predicted lower turnover intentions.

Signaling theory (Casper & Harris, 2008; Grover & Crooker, 1995) may alsoexplain why flexible work arrangements influence attachment to the organization

Flexible work arrangements• Flextime• Compressed workweek

Work–familyenrichment

Organizational outcomes• Job satisfaction• Turnover intentions

FIGURE 1. Relations among flexible work arrangements, work–family enrich-ment, and organizational outcomes.


in the form of increased job satisfaction and decreased turnover intentions. As pre-viously discussed, the availability of flexible work arrangements may signal thatthe organization cares about the well-being of its employees (Grover & Crooker).Ryan and Kossek (2008) suggested that work-life policies are linked to variousorganizational outcomes through perceptions of inclusion (i.e., in which an indi-vidual feels accepted and valued). Organizations promote inclusion by fulfillingpersonal needs (e.g., for a flexible schedule) and signaling the organization’s val-ues (e.g., family-friendly workplace; Ryan & Kossek). Taken together, it followsthat flexible work arrangements will lead to job satisfaction and turnover inten-tions through perceptions of work-to-family enrichment. Thus, we predicted thefollowing:

H4: Perceptions of work-to-family enrichment will mediate the positive rela-tion between the availability of flexible work arrangement and job satis-faction.

H5: Perceptions of work-to-family enrichment will mediate the negative re-lation between the availability of flexible work arrangement and turnoverintentions.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We recruited participants from an Internet database called StudyResponse(Stanton & Weiss, 2002), which is composed of individuals who expressed interestin participating in academic research studies.1 This database has been used in otherwork–family studies (e.g., Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006; Michel & Clark, 2009). Inexchange for participation, we entered respondents into a random drawing for giftcertificates from an online retailer. We sent e-mail invitations to 1,700 databasemembers who indicated that they were at least 18 years old and employed. Thefinal sample included 220 working adults (96 men, 107 women, 17 unreported),providing us with a response rate of approximately 12.9%. This response rateis consistent with other surveys of professionals in the applied psychology field(e.g., Masters, Moye, & Bartol, 2003; Nicklin & Roch, 2009). The mean age ofparticipants was 37.39 years (SD = 11.32 years). Regarding marital and parentalstatus, 70% reported living with a spouse or partner. Of participants, 53.6% ofparticipants did not have children, 21.4% had one child, and 24.7% had two ormore children. Participants held a broad range of job titles, with 14.5% working 25hr or fewer per week, 12.2% working 26–35 hr per week, 37.3% working 36–40hr per week, and 35.9% working 41 hr or more per week. Of participants, 116 re-ported that their company offered flextime, and 66 reported that their organizationoffered a compressed workweek schedule. Participants completed the survey inapproximately 15 min.


Measure

We asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with each itemusing a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree).

Work–Family EnrichmentWe assessed nine items from Carlson et al.’s (2006) Work–Family Enrichment

scale. Carlson et al.’s measure instructs participants to assess both the resourcesgained in Role A and the resulting positive effect in Role B, consistent with Green-haus and Powell’s (2006) definition of enrichment. In other words, participantswere instructed that to strongly agree with an item, they need to agree with thefull statement (e.g., “My involvement in work helps me to understand differentviewpoints and this helps me be a better family member”). There were three itemsmeasuring work-to-family development (e.g., “My involvement in work helps meto understand different viewpoints and this helps me be a better family member”),three items capturing work-to-family affect (e.g., “My involvement in work putsme in a good mood and this helps me be a better family member”), and three itemsmeasuring work-to-family capital (e.g., “My involvement in work helps me feelpersonally fulfilled and this helps be a better family member”). We averaged itemsinto an overall measure of work-to-family enrichment, consistent with other re-searchers (Kwan & Mao, 2008). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .94.

Job SatisfactionWe used three items from Spector et al.’s (2004) study to assess job satisfac-

tion. A sample item was “In general, I like my work.” In the present study, theCronbach’s alpha was .80.

Turnover IntentionsWe used three items from Colarelli’s (1984) study to measure turnover inten-

tions. A sample item was “I frequently think about quitting my job.” In the presentstudy, the Cronbach’s alpha was .80.

Flexible Work ArrangementTo assess the availability of flexible work arrangements, we asked participants

whether a flextime schedule and a compressed workweek were currently avail-able to them. Specifically, participants were asked, “Does your company offerflexibility in when you start or end your workday (also known as flextime)?” Forcompressed workweek, participants were asked, “Does your company allow youto work four longer days per week instead of 5 regular days (also known as acompressed workweek)?” We assigned 1 to participants who answered yes and 0to participants who answered no. We summed the answers to the two questionsinto one categorical variable that represented the amount of available flextime


options. Variables ranged from 0 (no flextime available) to 2 (2 flextime optionsavailable). Consistent with other researchers (Batt & Valcour, 2003; Grover &Crooker, 1995; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), we measured access to benefits ratherthan usage because we were interested in the availability of work–family programsas a symbol of organizational concern for work and family issues.

Control VariablesWe controlled for a number of variables that have been influential in previous

work–family research (e.g., Grzywacz & Butler, 2005; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000;Hammer, Cullen, Neal, Sinclair, & Shafiro, 2005; Wayne et al., 2004) includinggender, which we coded as 1 for male and 2 for female; age; education, whichparticipants reported on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (less than high school)to 8 (advanced degree); marital status, which we coded as 0 for no partner, 1 forpartnered; number of children; and number of hours worked, which participantsreported on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (15 hours or less) to 8 (more than 50hours).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of allstudy variables. Age was positively related to both job satisfaction and work-to-family enrichment (p < .05) and negatively related to turnover intentions (p< .01). Gender was also significantly and positively related to job satisfaction(p < .05). The availability of flexible work arrangements was significantly andpositively related to both work-to-family enrichment and job satisfaction (p < .01)and negatively related to turnover intentions (p < .05).

Testing the Hypotheses

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression anal-yses with control variables entered in the first step and the independent variablesentered in the second step. Tables 2 and 3 show the variables included in eachstep for job satisfaction and turnover intentions, respectively. In support of H1, wefound that the availability of flexible work arrangements and controls significantlypredicted work-to-family enrichment, F(7, 190) = 6.04, p < .001, total R2 = .18,with flexible work arrangement positively related to and contributing uniquelyto work-to-family enrichment, β = .06, p < .01, �R2 = .12, p < .01. H2 wasalso supported: Work-to-family enrichment and controls significantly predictedjob satisfaction, F(7, 192) = 6.02, p < .001, total R2 = .40, with work-to-familyenrichment positively related to and uniquely predicting job satisfaction, β = .60,p < .01, �R2 = .34, p < .01. Similarly, H3 was supported, with work-to-family


TA

BL

E1.

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

csan

dC

orre

lati

ons

amon

gSt

udy

Var

iabl

es

Mea

sure

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

1.Jo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

n3.

780.

83—

2.W

FE3.

580.

73.5

8∗∗—

3.FW

A0.

530.

50.2

9∗∗.3

2∗∗—

4.T

urno

ver

2.59

1.06

−.72

∗∗−.

45∗∗

−.20

∗—

5.A

ge(y

ears

)37

.39

11.3

2.1

8∗.1

8∗−.

04−.

23∗∗

—6.

Gen

der

1.53

0.50

.15∗

.07

.07

−.08

−.07

—7.

Mar

itals

tatu

s0.

700.

46.0

6.1

3.0

5−.

08.0

7.2

1∗∗—

8.E

duca

tion

leve

l4.

401.

63−.

03.0

4.0

6.1

0.0

3−.

08.0

8—

9.C

hild

ren

0.82

1.08

.06

.10

−.14

∗−.

13−.

13.1

5∗.2

9∗∗−.

01—

10.W

ork

hour

s5.

821.

92−.

02−.

05.0

1.0

1−.

12−.

24∗∗

.05

.13

.11

—

Not

e.W

FE=

wor

k-to

-fam

ilyen

rich

men

t;FW

A=

flexi

ble

wor

kar

rang

emen

t.G

ende

rw

asco

ded

1fo

rm

ale

and

2fo

rfe

mal

e;m

arita

lst

atus

was

code

d0

for

nopa

rtne

ran

d1

for

part

nere

d.E

duca

tion

leve

lwas

mea

sure

don

an8-

poin

tsca

lera

ngin

gfr

om1

(les

sth

anhi

ghsc

hool

)to

8(a

dvan

ced

degr

ee);

wor

king

hour

sw

asm

easu

red

onan

8-po

ints

cale

rang

ing

from

1(1

5ho

urs

orle

ss)

to8

(50

hour

sor

mor

e).

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.


TA

BL

E2.

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ions

Res

ults

for

Job

Sati

sfac

tion

Var

iabl

eB

SEB

βt

�R

2F

dfs

pTo

talR

2

Reg

ress

ion

1:FW

Apr

edic

ting

WFE

6.04

7,19

2<

.001

.18

Step

1A

ge0.

010.

00.2

02.

96∗∗

Gen

der

−0.0

00.

10.0

0−0

.01

Edu

catio

n0.

000.

03.0

10.

12C

hild

ren

0.12

0.05

.18

2.50

∗∗

Mar

itals

tatu

s0.

090.

11.0

60.

82H

ours

wor

ked

−0.0

20.

03−.

06−0

.90

Step

2FW

A0.

330.

06.3

65.

35∗∗

.12∗∗

Reg

ress

ion

2:W

FEpr

edic

ting

job

satis

fact

ion

18.6

87,

194

<.0

01.4

0

Step

1A

ge0.

000.

00.1

01.

71G

ende

r0.

230.

10.1

42.

32∗∗

Edu

catio

n−0

.02

0.03

−.04

−0.6

5C

hild

ren

0.01

0.04

.01

0.13

Mar

itals

tatu

s−0

.11

0.11

−.06

−0.9

7H

ours

wor

ked

0.02

0.03

.05

0.84

Step

2W

FE0.

700.

07.6

010

.48∗∗

.34∗∗

(Con

tinu

edon

next

page

)


TA

BL

E2.

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ions

Res

ults

for

Job

Sati

sfac

tion

(Con

tinue

d)

Var

iabl

eB

SEB

βt

�R

2F

dfs

pTo

talR

2

Reg

ress

ion

3:FW

Apr

edic

ting

job

satis

fact

ion

5.18

7,19

2<

.001

.16

Step

1A

ge0.

020.

00.2

33.

33∗∗

Gen

der

0.21

0.12

.13

1.79

Edu

catio

n−0

.02

0.03

−.03

−0.4

9C

hild

ren

0.10

0.06

.13

1.82

Mar

itals

tatu

s−0

.05

0.13

−.03

−0.3

6H

ours

wor

ked

0.01

0.03

.01

0.17

Step

2FW

A0.

340.

07.3

14.

68∗∗

.09∗∗

Reg

ress

ion

4:FW

Aan

dW

FEpr

edic

ting

job

satis

fact

ion

16.7

88,

191

<.0

01.4

1

Step

1A

ge0.

010.

00.1

21.

99G

ende

r0.

220.

10.1

32.

14E

duca

tion

−0.0

20.

03−.

04−0

.67

Chi

ldre

n0.

020.

05.0

30.

53M

arita

lsta

tus

−0.1

10.

11−.

06−0

.97

Hou

rsw

orke

d0.

020.

03.0

50.

80St

ep2

FWA

0.12

0.07

.11

1.86

WFE

0.65

0.07

.56

9.09

.35∗∗

Not

e.W

FE=

wor

k-to

-fam

ilyen

rich

men

t;FW

A=

flexi

ble

wor

kar

rang

emen

t.


TA

BL

E3.

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ion

Ana

lyse

sfo

rTu

rnov

erIn

tent

ions

Var

iabl

eB

SEB

βt

�R

2F

dfs

pTo

talR

2

Reg

ress

ion

1:FW

Apr

edic

ting

WFE

6.04

7,19

2<

.001

.18

Step

1A

ge0.

010.

00.2

02.

965∗∗

Gen

der

−0.0

00.

10.0

0−0

.01

Edu

catio

n0.

000.

03.0

10.

12C

hild

ren

0.12

0.05

.18

2.49

∗∗

Mar

itals

tatu

s0.

090.

11.0

60.

82H

ours

wor

ked

−0.0

20.

03−.

06−0

.91

Step

2FW

A0.

330.

06.3

65.

35∗∗

.12∗∗

Reg

ress

ion

2:W

FEpr

edic

ting

turn

over

10.5

97,

194

<.0

01.2

8

Step

1A

ge−0

.02

0.01

−.18

−2.8

9∗∗

Gen

der

−0.1

20.

14−.

06−0

.87

Edu

catio

n0.

080.

04.1

21.

85∗∗

Chi

ldre

n−0

.10

0.06

−.10

−1.5

9M

arita

lsta

tus

0.09

0.16

.04

0.58

Hou

rsw

orke

d−0

.03

0.04

−.05

−0.8

5St

ep2

WFE

−0.6

60.

09−.

44−6

.97∗∗

.18∗∗

(Con

tinu

edon

next

page

)


TA

BL

E3.

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ion

Ana

lyse

sfo

rTu

rnov

erIn

tent

ions

(Con

tinue

d)

Var

iabl

eB

SEB

βt

�R

2F

dfs

pTo

talR

2

Reg

ress

ion

3:FW

Apr

edic

ting

turn

over

4.69

7,19

2<

.001

.15

Step

1A

ge−0

.03

0.01

−.28

−4.0

4∗∗

Gen

der

−0.1

00.

16−.

05−0

.67

Edu

catio

n0.

070.

05.1

11.

61C

hild

ren

−0.1

90.

07−.

20−2

.70∗∗

Mar

itals

tatu

s0.

040.

17.0

10.

20H

ours

wor

ked

−0.0

20.

04−.

03−0

.38

Step

2FW

A−0

.31

0.09

−.22

−3.3

1∗∗.0

5∗∗

Reg

ress

ion

4:FW

Aan

dW

FEpr

edic

ting

turn

over

9.37

8,19

1<

.001

.28

Step

1A

ge−0

.02

0.01

−.20

−3.0

4∗∗

Gen

der

−0.1

10.

14−.

05−0

.74

Edu

catio

n0.

080.

04.1

11.

81C

hild

ren

−0.1

20.

07−.

12−1

.82

Mar

itals

tatu

s0.

090.

16.0

40.

58H

ours

wor

ked

−0.0

30.

04−.

05−0

.80

Step

2FW

A−0

.11

0.09

−.08

−1.1

9W

FE−0

.61

0.10

−.41

−6.0

1∗∗.1

9∗∗

Not

e.W

FE=

wor

k-to

-fam

ilyen

rich

men

t;FW

A=

flexi

ble

wor

kar

rang

emen

t.


enrichment and controls predicting turnover intentions, F(7, 194) = 10.59, p <

.001, total R2 = .28, and work-to-family enrichment negatively relating and con-tributing uniquely to the variance of turnover intentions, β = −.44, p < .01, �R2

= .18, p < .01.Next, we tested our meditational hypotheses using the steps that Baron and

Kenny (1986) put forth. According to Baron and Kenny, four conditions should beupheld for mediation to occur. First, the independent variable must be related to thedependent variable. As previously shown, flexible work arrangement was related tojob satisfaction and turnover intentions. Second, the independent variable must berelated to the mediator. Also as previously shown, the availability of flexible workarrangements was related to work-to-family enrichment. Third, the mediator mustbe related to dependent variable. Our results show that work-to-family enrichmentwas related to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The last step is that the effectof the independent variable on the dependent variable must be nonsignificant whenthe mediator is included in the model. As Tables 2 and 3 show, all of the conditionswere satisfied. To test the indirect effect of flexible work arrangements on jobsatisfaction and turnover through work-to-family enrichment, we also calculatedthe Sobel test. The Sobel test multiplies the unstandardized path coefficients andthen divides the results by the standard error (Baron & Kenny). The Sobel testproduces a test statistic (Z), along with accompanying significance levels. We usedPreacher and Leonardelli’s (2001) interactive mediation tool to calculate the Sobeltest. We found that the availability of flexible work arrangements had a uniqueindirect relation with job satisfaction (Z = 4.96, p < .01) and turnover intentions(Z = −4.37, p < .01), thus supporting H4 and H5.

Discussion

The study of the positive side of the work–family interface is a more recentphenomenon, and thus, less is known about the antecedents and consequences ofwork-to-family enrichment. An important contribution of the present study is that itadds to the understanding of the work–family enrichment process, which begins toprovide a more balanced conceptualization of the overall work–family interface. Inparticular, we found that availability of flextime and compressed workweek sched-ules influences work-to-family enrichment, which in turn relates to job satisfactionand turnover intentions. Previous research has found support for the relation be-tween flexible work arrangements and important organizational outcomes (Balteset al., 1999), consistent with signaling theory (Casper & Harris, 2008; Grover& Crooker, 1995; Spence, 1973), but our study is unique because we exploredand found evidence of the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment betweenflexible work arrangements and (a) job satisfaction and (b) turnover intentions.

These findings make important contributions to the work-to-family en-richment literature. First, we found that flexibility does appear to be a keydriver of the enrichment process, in support of Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006)


work-to-family enrichment model. Specifically, the availability of flextime andcompressed workweek schedules were related to work-to-family enrichment, per-haps because these arrangements indicate that the organization cares about em-ployees’ ability to balance work and life outside of work. This is contrary toWayne et al.’s (2006) findings that cumulative family-friendly benefit use was notrelated to work–family enrichment. However, we examined two specific forms offlexible work arrangement rather than a large number of family-friendly benefits.It may be the case that certain benefits are differentially related to enrichment,with flextime and compressed workweek schedules as perhaps more closely re-lated to enrichment than to other types of flexible work arrangements. Flextimeis more effective than flexplace in preventing both work interfering with familyand family interfering with work (Bryon, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran,2006; Shockley & Allen, 2007). We offer preliminary evidence that this may bethe case with enrichment, but more work is needed on other specific flexible workarrangements. For example, little is known about the relation between telecom-muting and enrichment, but more organizations are implementing telecommutingprograms (WorldatWork, 2006), and research indicates that this type of flexiblework arrangement may be useful in reducing work–family conflict (Gajendran& Harrison, 2007). Unfortunately, we could not examine the relation betweentelecommuting and enrichment because too few individuals had the option ofworking from home in our sample. This type of information would be relevantfor organizations interested in knowing which specific types of policies allowfor the greatest work–family enrichment. Furthermore, research is also needed inidentifying other important antecedents of work–family enrichment besides orga-nizational variables. There is some early indication that personality variables mayalso play an important role in perceptions of enrichment (Friede & Ryan, 2005).For example, Michel and Clark (2009) found that positive affect was positivelyrelated to work–family enrichment.

Second, both flexible work arrangements and enrichment were related to im-portant organizational outcomes, which is consistent with social exchange theory(Aryee et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2006). Employees may look for evidence thatorganizations understand and care about how they lead fulfilling lives outside ofwork. When employees see evidence for this care and concern in the form offlexible policies, they are more likely to reciprocate in the form of more positiveattitudes and behaviors such as higher job satisfaction and lower turnover inten-tions. Until recently, the majority of the work–family literature has suggested thatorganizations need to minimize work–family conflict to obtain positive outcomes.This study, coupled with the growing body of research on the positive side of thework–family interface, suggests that it may be just as important to look for ways tofacilitate enrichment, and that by doing so, positive outcomes are likely to ensue.More work is needed to continue to build the case for organizational investmentsin enrichment. Evidence for a relation between enrichment and more objective


work-related outcomes such as absenteeism and performance (Carlson, Ferguson,Kacmar, Grzywacz, & Whitten, 2009) may be particularly useful.

Limitations

As with any study, there are limitations in the present study that must beacknowledged. First, our data were correlational in nature and based on a singlesource, possibly inflating common method bias. In the future, perceptions ofwork–family enrichment should be captured from more than one source. Fol-lowing the lead of Lyness and Judiesh’s (2008) work, collecting perceptionsof work–family enrichment from coworkers, managers, and family memberswould be valuable for the development of a comprehensive theory of positivework–family interactions. Second, we only measured employee perceptions atone point in time. Thus, future researchers may benefit from more longitudinaldata (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Kelly et al., 2008) thatexamine the antecedents and consequences of enrichment over time, which wouldassist in pinpointing the direction of causality. Furthermore, our study capturedthe availability of flexible work arrangements; it may be interesting to further ex-amine how often these policies are used because previous research has shown thatthe intensity of certain flexible work arrangements (e.g., telecommuting) moder-ates the relation between use of flexible work arrangements and work outcomes(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Last, although our results are based on a diversesample of adults employed at different jobs and industries, our sample comprisedindividuals who signed up to participate in Internet-based research and conse-quently, future studies are needed to test these hypotheses in different samples. AsDipboye (1990) reminded, replication is key to generalizing any findings.

Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, this study suggests organizations consider offer-ing specific work policies such as flextime and compressed workweek schedulesto facilitate work-to-family enrichment. Employees expect an increasing level offlexibility from employers so they can better meet the demands of their work andpersonal lives. For example, a recent Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study (n.d.)involving 90,000 employees in 18 countries identified work/life balance as a topdriver for considering a job and ability to balance my work and personal life asa driver of retention. Thus, organizations looking to attract and retain top talentshould consider how to facilitate work–family enrichment by offering specificpolicies that permit greater schedule flexibility, which may indicate an overallsupportive work environment. Our results are consistent with those of previousresearch showing that individuals enjoy the benefits of autonomy and variety intheir work schedules (e.g., Grzywacz & Butler, 2005), which may benefit work-to-family enrichment and ultimately lead to higher job satisfaction and retention ofemployees.


NOTE

1. For more information, visit http://www.studyresponse.org.

AUTHOR NOTES

Laurel A. McNall is an assistant professor at the College at Brockport, State Univer-sity of New York. Her research interests include the work–family interface, organizationalattitudes, and reactions to technology in the workplace. Aline D. Masuda is a professorat EADA in Barcelona, Spain. Her research interests include the work–family interface,motivation, organizational attitudes, and cross-cultural management. Jessica M. Nicklinis an assistant professor at the University of Hartford. Her research interests include thework–family interface, telecommuting, self-regulated and dual-task motivation, organiza-tional justice, and counterfactual thinking.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational percep-tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.

Anderson, S., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives andinformal workplace practices: Links to work–family conflict and job-related outcomes.Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.

Aryee, S., Srinivas, E. S., & Tan, H. H. (2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and out-comes of work–family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,132–146.

Balmforth, K., & Gardner, D. (2006). Conflict and facilitation between work and family:Realizing the outcomes for organizations. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35(2),69–76.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexibleand compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-relatedcriteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Batt, R., & Valcour, P. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work–familyoutcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189–220.

Beham, B. (2008, April). Supportive work environments and work–family enrichment:Evidence from German hospital workers. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Bond, J. T., Thompson, C. A., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the National

Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family interference and its antecedents.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of

research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,28–43.

Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment:Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72,95–109.


Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Kacmar, K. M., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2009, April). Pay itforward: The positive crossover effects of supervisor work–family enrichment. Paperpresented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, New Orleans, LA.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring thepositive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–familyenrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.

Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realisticjob previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633–642.

Dipboye, R. L (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial and organizational psy-chology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrialand Organizational Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–34). New York: Wiley.

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work andfamily research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002).Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–197.

Friede, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-evaluationsinfluence the work–family interface. In E. E. Kossek & S. Lambert (Eds.), Work andlife integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J.C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbookof occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Gajendran, R., S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, the unknown abouttelecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541.

Galinsky, E., Bond, J., & Sakai, K. (2008). 2008 National Study of Employers. RetrievedJanuary 28, 2009, from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/2008nse.pdf

Gordon, J. R., Whelan-Berry, K. S., & Hamilton, E. A. (2007). The relationship amongwork–family conflict and enhancement, organizational work–family culture, and workoutcomes for older working women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,350–364.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and familyroles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory ofwork–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resourcepolicies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment ofparents and nonparents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work–familyfacilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational andHealth Psychology, 10, 97–109.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: Anecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between workand family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.

Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, A. (1997). Work–family conflict in dual-earner cou-ples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 50, 185–203.

Hammer, L. B., Cullen, J. C., Neal, M. B., Sinclair, R. R., & Shafiro, M. V. (2005).The longitudinal effects of work–family conflict and positive spillover on depressivesymptoms among dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10,138–154.


Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. (2006). Development and validationof a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 11, 249–265.

Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Scott, B. A. (2006). Work–family conflict and emotions: Effectsat work and home. Personnel Psychology, 59, 779–814.

Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., et al.(2008). Getting there from here. Research on the effects of work–family initiativeson work–family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 2,305–349.

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and bound-ary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–familyeffectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367.

Kwan, H. K., & Mao, Y. (2008, August). Role of citizenship behavior on personal learningand work–family enrichment. Paper presented at the 2008 Academy of ManagementConference, Los Angeles, CA.

Lambert, A. D., Marler, J. H., & Gueutal, H. G. (2008). Individual differences: Factorsaffecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 73, 107–117.

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, work stress, and health (pp. 169–190). Washington: American Psycho-logical Association.

Lyness, K. S., & Judiesh, M. K. (2008). Can a manager have a life and a career? Internationaland multisource perspectives on work-life balance and career advancement potential.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 789–805.

Locke, E. A. (1976): The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand.

Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain some notes on human energy time andcommitment. American Sociological Review, 2, 921–936.

Masters, S. S., Moye, N. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2003). Social exchange and justice: Furtherexamining the source of justice. In R. Eisenberger (Chair), Perceived organizational sup-port: Relationships with psychological contracts, fairness, and affectivity. Symposiumconducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Orlando, FL.

McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (in press). A meta-analytic review ofthe consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environmentsaffect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 4,555–574.

Michel, J. S., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Has it been affect all along? A test of work-to-familyand family-to-work models of conflict, enrichment, and satisfaction. Personality andIndividual Differences, 47, 163–168.

Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2009). Letters of recommendation: Controversy and con-sensus from expert perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17,76–91.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work-family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312.

Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March). Calculation for the Sobel test: Aninteractive calculation tool for mediation tests [Computer software]. Available fromhttp://www.unc.edu/˜preacher/sobel/sobel.htm


Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of theliterature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple rolesfor managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 369–386.

Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work–life policy implementation: Breaking down orcreating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47, 295–310.

Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the avail-ability of flexible work arrangements and work–family conflict. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 71, 479–493.

Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review,39, 567–578.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2008). 2008 employee benefits survey. Re-trieved December 31, 2008, from http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/surveys published/2008%20Benefits%20Survey%20Report.pdf

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Sanchez,J. I., et al. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work/family stressors, work-ing hours, and well-being: China and Latin America vs. the Anglo world. PersonnelPsychology, 57, 119–142.

Spence, A. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–379.Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: An intro-

duction of the StudyResponse Project (Tech. Rep. No. 13001). Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniversity, School of Information Studies.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnoverintention and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psy-chology, 46, 259–294.

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables onwork–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 6–15.

Towers Perrin. (n.d.). Global workforce study. Retrieved December 30, 2008, fromhttp://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url = global/publications/gws/index.htm&country = global

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facil-itation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences.Human Resource Management Review, 17, 63–76.

Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality inthe work–family experience: Relationships of the big five to work–family conflict andfacilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130.

Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work—familysupport in work–family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 69, 445–461.

WorldatWork. (2006). Telework trendlines for 2006. Retrieved August 22, 2007, fromhttp://www.workingfromanywhere.org/news/Trendlines2006.pdf

Original manuscript received March 19, 2009Final version accepted April 15, 2009

Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and...

Documents