an article by Melissa Brown and Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes (Boston College School of Social Work, MA, USA) published in Community, Work & Family Volume 19 Issue 4 (2016)
Abstract
As an increasing number of employees become caregivers, the role of workplace resources in supporting caregivers has attracted the attention of researchers, employers, and policy-makers.
Workplace flexibility is one type of resource that has attracted particular interest, with research exploring whether flexibility (that is, giving employees some control over when and/or where work gets done) is related to important outcomes for both employees and employers.
This investigation develops and tests a mediational model explicating the process through which workplace flexibility – operationalized in three distinct ways – impacts caregiver stress among US employees.
Using a sample of 211 caregivers from the National Study of the Changing Workforce (2008), results show that work-to-family conflict mediates the relationship between perceived workplace flexibility and caregiver stress as well as the relationship between access to flexible work options and caregivers stress.
However, the mediational model is not supported when flexibility is operationalized as respondents’ formal use of flexible work options. Implications for employers and future research are discussed.
Showing posts with label workplace_flexibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workplace_flexibility. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Monday, 25 February 2013
Returning to Work After Maternity Leave: Childcare and Workplace Flexibility
an article by Margaret J Nowak and Marita Naude Gail (Thomas Curtin University, Australia) published in The Journal of Industrial Relations Volume 55 Number 1 (February 2013)
Abstract
This article explores how responsibilities for childcare are managed as part of family decisions made around the return to work following a period of maternity leave.
We surveyed all women health professionals identified as on maternity leave on payroll records of the Health Department, Western Australia, and one private sector national provider of hospital services.
Survey questions were designed following a review of the literature and prior empirical work. The design enabled us to collect both quantitative information and interpretive qualitative responses from participants.
Over 50% of respondents expected to have childcare provided wholly by family members, while 15% anticipated the use of formal arrangements alone.
The planned arrangements for care can best be understood within a framework of a ‘family budget’ of time to be allocated between market-based work and childcare.
Attitudes to childcare are central to this ‘time economies’ framework.
Respondents experienced dissonance between the stated organizational family-friendly policy of their workplaces and practices at the management level. Employer-centred flexibility often disrupted their child-care arrangements.
We identify important employment policy issues for workplaces that would facilitate the optimal return to the workforce by professional women following maternity leave.
Hazel’s comment:
Oh yes, the difference between what the Employee Handbook says will happen and what your line manager actually agrees to can be immense!
Abstract
This article explores how responsibilities for childcare are managed as part of family decisions made around the return to work following a period of maternity leave.
We surveyed all women health professionals identified as on maternity leave on payroll records of the Health Department, Western Australia, and one private sector national provider of hospital services.
Survey questions were designed following a review of the literature and prior empirical work. The design enabled us to collect both quantitative information and interpretive qualitative responses from participants.
Over 50% of respondents expected to have childcare provided wholly by family members, while 15% anticipated the use of formal arrangements alone.
The planned arrangements for care can best be understood within a framework of a ‘family budget’ of time to be allocated between market-based work and childcare.
Attitudes to childcare are central to this ‘time economies’ framework.
Respondents experienced dissonance between the stated organizational family-friendly policy of their workplaces and practices at the management level. Employer-centred flexibility often disrupted their child-care arrangements.
We identify important employment policy issues for workplaces that would facilitate the optimal return to the workforce by professional women following maternity leave.
Hazel’s comment:
Oh yes, the difference between what the Employee Handbook says will happen and what your line manager actually agrees to can be immense!
Monday, 5 November 2012
Schedule flexibility in hourly jobs: unanticipated consequences and promising directions
Susan J. Lambert and Julia R. Henly (University of Chicago, USA) and Anna Haley-Lock (University of Wisconsin, USA) published in Community, Work & Family Volume 15 Issue 3 (2012)
Abstract
This article considers the challenge of extending conventional models of flexibility to hourly jobs that are often structured quite differently than the salaried, professional positions for which flexibility options were originally designed.
We argue that the assumptions of job rigidity and overwork motivating existing flexibility options may not be broadly applicable across jobs in the US labor market.
We focus specifically on two types of flexibility: (1) working reduced hours and (2) varying work timing.
We first review central aspects of the US business and policy contexts that inspire our concerns, and then draw on original analyses from US census data and several examples from our comparative case-study research to explain how conventional flexibility options do not always map well onto hourly jobs, and in certain instances may disadvantage workers by undermining their ability to earn an adequate living.
We conclude with a discussion of alternative approaches to implementing flexibility in hourly jobs when hours are scarce and fluctuating rather than long and rigid.
Hazel’s comment:
The authors were looking specifically at the US labour market but it would seem to me that the conclusions would translate well to the UK labour market.
Extending flexibility is not always a good idea.
Abstract
This article considers the challenge of extending conventional models of flexibility to hourly jobs that are often structured quite differently than the salaried, professional positions for which flexibility options were originally designed.
We argue that the assumptions of job rigidity and overwork motivating existing flexibility options may not be broadly applicable across jobs in the US labor market.
We focus specifically on two types of flexibility: (1) working reduced hours and (2) varying work timing.
We first review central aspects of the US business and policy contexts that inspire our concerns, and then draw on original analyses from US census data and several examples from our comparative case-study research to explain how conventional flexibility options do not always map well onto hourly jobs, and in certain instances may disadvantage workers by undermining their ability to earn an adequate living.
We conclude with a discussion of alternative approaches to implementing flexibility in hourly jobs when hours are scarce and fluctuating rather than long and rigid.
Hazel’s comment:
The authors were looking specifically at the US labour market but it would seem to me that the conclusions would translate well to the UK labour market.
Extending flexibility is not always a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
