Work-Life Integration Conference, Indiana State University, Terre Haute IN, Oct. 27 2014. Lonnie Golden , Professor of Economics and Labor-Employment Relations, Penn State University, Abington College [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Work-Life Integration Conference, Indiana State University, Terre Haute IN, Oct. 27 2014 Lonnie Golden, Professor of Economics and Labor-Employment Relations, Penn State University, Abington College [email protected]MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF WORKING TIME, WORK FLEXIBILITY AND CONSEQUENCES FOR WORK-LIFE AND WORKERS’ WELL-BEING Acknowledgments: Susan Lambert, Julia Henly, Jaeseung Kim, at University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration
Transcript
Work-Life Integration Conference, Indiana State University, Terre Haute IN, Oct. 27 2014
Lonnie Golden, Professor of Economics and Labor-Employment Relations, Penn State University, Abington College [email protected]
MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF WORKING TIME, WORK FLEXIBILITY AND CONSEQUENCES FOR WORK-LIFE AND WORKERS’ WELL-BEING
Acknowledgments:Susan Lambert, Julia Henly, Jaeseung Kim, at University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration
and Henly, 2014).• Degree of Autonomy/Flexibility; Control over Timing
(Golden, Henly&Lambert, 2013; Gornick and Frase, 2012)
Literature on subjective well-being, work and flexibility—theoretical foundations – dimensions beyond duration of work hours…Worker Well-Being and Organizations
Motivated by Role Conflict, Exchange, Boundary Theories:• Schedule fit between desired and actual schedule of work hours affects work-life
satisfaction more than length of hours (Hill, 2001).• Effects of long hours exacerbated by worker’s lack of control over scheduling (Berg, 2004).
– More control over work time acts as a buffer, by moderating the negative relationship between work hours and life interference (Fenwick and Tausig 2001; Hughes and Parkes 2007; Berg, Kalleberg and Appelbaum, 2003).
• Greater unpredictability of hours tends to reduce worker well-being, particularly for hourly paid jobs/lower incomes (Henly and Lambert, 2010)…in part due to irregular schedule. – Lower variability in work hours is as important an influence on meeting family and
social commitments as higher flexibility (Heisz and LaRochelle-Cote, 2006; Costa,2006).
• Well-being depends on hourly vs. salaried status, respond differently to the same gain in income or work conditions (DeVoe&Pfeffer, 2009).
• Flexitime work schedules often facilitate better outcomes than traditional fixed-hour schedules, better coordination of daily work and life responsibilities (Berg, et al. 2004; Kelly, et al, 2014)
• When combined with Employee Participation, schedule flexibility moderates work-life conflict, on balance (Wang, 2011, in Lewin, Kaufman and Gollan).
• Workers with flexible daily starting and ending times also more likely to be working long hours (Golden, 2009; Kelliher and Anderson, 2010). • with extra effort as an act of reciprocation or exchange, results in greater work centricity.
More scheduling flexibility, more happy? Or a double-edged sword?
However: scheduling flexibility may be a double-edged sword.
Fixed work schedules offer predictability, regularity, impermeable borders (Schieman&Young, 2011; Duxbury and Julien (2014).
….thus, fixed schedules have advantages, too fixed schedules might also offer workers a sense of predictability and regularity and impermeable borders (Schieman and Young, 2011) (and may be less costly for employers).
“Flexibility” in timing is not necessarily the same as “Control” over timing (MacDermid and Tang, 2009).
Time Sovereignty: individual decision latitude, discretion, autonomy in scheduling work across day, week, year, life cycle…
7
Defining Flexibility in the Academic Literature: a Matter of Degree, Scale/Spectrum
Variability, unpredictability: set according to employer needs, with no advance notice of changes
Degrees of Flexibility for Employees?The amount of flexibility occurs along a continuum—3 distinct points
along it, potential well being gained from flexible working…a matter of degree
First-degree flexibility: would exist if a worker’s workplace features a set daily work schedule for employees but at least periodically allows the employee, if approved, to start or leave somewhat earlier or later than the usual fixed schedule.
characterizes most flextime practices, formal workplace programs that permit employees to vary their starting and ending times in a range or band around a required core set of hours each day. It may also reflect the more informally arranged flexible schedule arrangements, those that allow employees to periodically vary starting and/or ending times of their workday if it can be arranged with a supervisor and/or co-workers.
Second-degree flexibility goes further, providing workers the discretion, either at the onset or sometime during the course of employment, to set and adjust to their preference the daily timing of their work, across either the day or the week.
For example, if there were no core hours on at least some days, employees could concentrate their standard workweek in fewer than five days, sometimes around a core set of days, compressing the workweek or stretching it out over a worker’s preferred days (e.g., off on Friday or Wednesday). Both the first and second degrees involve providing a fixed volume of daily or weekly work hours.
Third-degree flexibility would allow employees to adjust not only the timing but the duration of their hours across a week or year.
For example, an ability to refuse without penalty a request to work more than one’s “standard” hours, or to have honored a request for shorter or fewer workdays or part-time status when less work is preferred (presumably with some, if not commensurate reduction in compensation).autonomy or outright control of work time, allows employees to establish anywhere from no to firm boundaries or borders in their WL integration efforts, if they wish (Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton 2005).
From ISSP, but just to get sense of incidence of employees’ “control”
Formal vs. Informal Flexibility
Offered by employers depends on:Nature and type of work/job/employment contract;Nature of enterprise/firm.HRM formal and informal strategy and tactics.
Ability to Address ongoing personal and family needs, with Time Off:
Time Off in Short Increments• Short-Term Time Off (STO) is used to address ordinary predictable and unpredictable
needs: Examples?: Expected vs. Unexpected needs?(e.g., a sick employee, a sick child, school conference, a death in the family, a home repair).
Episodic Time Off (EPTO) is used to address a recurring predictable need for time off from work (e.g., an employee who has -- or cares for -- an illness or chronic health condition that flares up sporadically, an employee who volunteers regularly in the community, an employee who is obtaining advanced training).
Time Off in Long IncrementsExtended Time Off (EXTO) is used to address a need for time off for a single reason
extends for more than five days but less than a year (e.g., caring for a newborn, having a serious health condition or caring for a family member with a serious health condition, or military).
Career flexibility: Career Exit, Maintenance and Reentry with multiple points for entry and re-entry over the course of a career this includes formal leaves and sabbaticals, and taking longer than a year out of the paid labor market.leave the workforce completely, but need and/or want to reenter the workforce later.
Tradeoffs between Dimensions of Hours:Workers may be willing to trade-off longer duration of hours (H) (i.e., less L) for more work-schedule flexibility, to maintain a constant level of utility (U), subject to diminishing returns:
L (# hours of non-work time)
= Flexibility to supply hours on your preferred schedule
U
WF Conflict vs. Enrichment Role theory and scarcity theory of role accumulation:
Amount of human energy is fixed and diminishes with each role added…leads to “role strain,” “overload,” conflict and further negative well being consequences such as: stress. Assumption: People have a finite amount of both physical/material resources and
PSYCHOLOGICAL resources. Creates potential for Time based; strain-based; behavior based conflicts. “Antecedents” associated with WF conflict:
Demographics: e.g., young children present, conflict more strongly experienced by women than men.
Attitudinal: traditional thinking vs. commitment to LF and career (which leads to more conflict experienced)
Workplace characteristics: Autonomy; Schedule Flexibility; Job Security, “FIT”… more of these
Greater WFC leads to lower job and life satisfaction
greater Job Demands; Routine tasks, role “ambiguity” and boundary spanning activities
leads to more conflict.
Well being—depends on preference for segmentation vs. integration, work and non-work time, activitiesOutcomes of Interest• Workers’ reported work-family interference frequency• Workers’ reported level of happiness
• Requires viewing workers holistically…as having multiple roles, in addition to as “ideal worker”
US’s GSS Data and QWL module (76 items)• Data are drawn from the 2002, 2006 and the 2010 US General Social
Survey (GSS) (total n=4,381 employed) with one of its compendium modules—the Quality of Worklife (QWL) module
• 36 percent of employed are salaried, 52 percent are paid hourly (remainder 12 % are contractors, contingents) = unique data set with this question.
• Limitations of data: – self rated perceptions or subjective self-reports subject to errors.– given that they are cross sectional data, outcomes are likely to be
partly endogenous with having more flexible daily schedules
Four Central Questions: filling research gaps--
1. Do indicators of workers’ flexibility/control over hours contribute independently to work-family conflict, happiness?
2. Do some types of work schedule flexibility matter more than others? 3. Does flexibility matter more for either hourly than salaried workers
(interactions)?• how robust, when controlling for job characteristics that might be
responsible (job demands, job autonomy, security at work)?4. Implications for interventions: Are there evidence-based organizational practices and FLSA reform proposals as “workplace flexibility” to be truly worker- or family-friendly?
How hard is it for employees to take time off?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Not at all hard
Not too hard
Somewhat hard
Very hard
Not at all hard
Not too hard
Somewhat hard
Very hard
Sal
arie
dW
orke
rsH
ourly
Wor
kers
General happiness
Very Happy Pretty Happy Not Too Happy
Pattern: Ease of taking time off tends to be associated with greater happiness, for both types of workers, though not always by smooth gradation.
# of Kids (<12, M, SD) 0.4 (0.8) 0.4 (0.8) 0.5 (0.9) 0.4 (0.9) *
# of Work Hours per week 41.7 (14.7) 45.5 (12.9) 38.9 (13.9) 42.6 (19.7) ***
Years on job 7.4 (8.5) 8.3 (8.3) 6.1 (7.6) 10.2 (11.4) ***
Has a Second Job (%) 17.0 14.8 18.1 19.3 **
How often are employees allowed to change their starting and quitting times on a daily basis?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Sal
arie
d W
orke
rsH
ourly
Wor
kers
General happiness
Very Happy Pretty Happy Not Too Happy
Pattern: Smoother gradation for hourly than salaried workers for flex day…
Is it mandatory for employees to work extra hours?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Yes
No
Yes
No
Sal
arie
dW
orke
rsH
ourly
Wor
kers
General happiness
Very Happy Pretty Happy Not Too Happy
Four Key Hypotheses:
1. Employees will indicate lower well being indicator if they possess less control/discretion/autonomy/influence over:– daily start and end times of work, – ability to take time off during work,
2. Time off during workday might be valued the same (vs. more) as schedule adjustment at margins of the workday
• Why? Speculate maybe former is Unanticipated and latter anticipated?
3. Hourly paid workers benefit the same (vs. more) than salaried employees, thus, incremental effect may vary in strength/size.4. The relationships will remain robust to various controls for: duration of work hours, demographic and occupational characteristics, and interactions by worker class/classification/job quality
Key Independent Variables: AUTONOMY in Work Schedule
• Ability to SET STARTING AND ENDING TIMES– How often are you allowed to change your starting and quitting times on a daily basis?– 1 Often 2 Sometimes 3 Rarely 4 Never (is then REVERSED)– Higher = more discretion– Descriptive: Salaried 2.9 (1.2); Hourly 2.2 (1.7); Other 3.3 (1.1)***
• Ability to TAKE TIME OFF DURING DAY– How difficult is it to take time off during your work to take care of personal or family
matters? – 1 Not at all hard; 2 Not too; 3 Somewhat; 4 Very hard (REVERSED)– Higher = more discretion– Descriptive: Salaried 3.1 (0.9); Hourly 3.0 (1.0); Other 3.1 (1.0) n.s.
• Overtime worked because it is mandatory (required by employer)
Three “Dependent Variables”
Work-Family Conflict How often do the demands of your job interfere with family life?
– 1 Often 2 Sometimes 3 Rarely 4 Never (REVERSED)– Higher = more conflict– Full Sample 2.3 (1.0); Salaried 2.5(0.9); Hourly 2.1 (1.0); Other
2.4 (1.0) ***
• Work Stress How often do you find your work stressful?• Used up How often during the past month have you felt
used up at the end of the day?
Often 34.9 %
Sometimes 18.6 %
Rarely 15.1 %
Never 31.2 %
Not at all hard 42.2 %
Not too hard 31.0 %
Somewhat hard 15.7 %
Very hard 11.1 %
DESCRIPTIVE data, from 2006 GSS (only)All Workers
How often allowed to
change schedule
How hard is it to
take time off
How often job interferes with family life for salaried workers
Male Female
Often 17.6% Often 15.5%
Sometimes 31.7% Sometimes 28.8%
Rarely 33.1% Rarely 33.2%
Never 17.6% Never 22.4%
How often job interferes with family life for workers paid by the hourMale Female
Often 10.2% Often 10.1%
Sometimes 22.9% Sometimes 23.1%
Rarely 31.1% Rarely 33.8%
Never 35.8% Never 33.0%
Control Variables
Demographic• Education• Age, Age squared• Race• Gender• Marital Status• Number of Children• Survey year
Job-related• Seniority on job• Second job• Number of work hours
Additional Controls for Robustness Tests• Work shift time (night,
rotating, and irregular/on-call shift)
• Job autonomy (freedom to decide what to work, involvement in work decision, and opportunity to develop my abilities)
• Job demands (not enough staff and work speed)
OLS Regression for Work Family Conflict :Main Effects of Daily Schedule Discretion, with controls (not shown)
Set Start/End Time-0.0380* 0.0126(0.0149) (0.0153)
Time Off During Work-0.211*** -0.213***(0.0170) (0.0177)
Must work 0.104** 0.0459
(0.0390) (0.0387)N 4,337 4,337 4,337 4,337R2
0.077 0.107 0.077 0.108
Fatigue is diminished by having time off during work, flex schedule, ability to refuse OT work
Control Variable Results of Note:• Duration of weekly hours (Hrs1) positively associated with all 3 outcomes:
• Irregular schedule: positively associated with WFC and work stress but not fatigue:
(night shift increased WFC but actually reduced stress)• Feeling secure in one’s job reduced all 3 adverse outcomes• Higher income levels had greater WFC, higher and low incomes had more work
stress, and income had little relation to fatigue.
Four Key Findings…and implications for future research1. Workers possessing some ability to take time off during work to attend to family or personal matters report: lower work-family conflict, work stress and fatigue.• Cannot rule out endogeneity that such workers seek or stay in jobs that provide discretion.• Reduced fatigue is most unique findings, since duration of work hours is controlled for.
2. Workers able to influence their starting and ending times of work report lower work stress and fatigue, and somewhat reduced work-family conflict:• However, the effect is not as strong as taking time off during the day
– thus, control over when you DO work (starting and ending times) is less consequential than control over time DURING work
– Moreover, work-family conflict is actually exacerbated, when controlling for other aspects of job quality…why? More permeable boundaries between work and non-workplaces?
3. Effects of having scheduling discretion are typically stronger among hourly paid workers … Why? • Taking time off during the day might be more important (appreciated, valued) to hourly workers…have not yet
“hedonically adapted” to such flexibility as much as salaried might.• Relative deprivation effect? The lower incomes (thus fewer $resources) of hourly paid to respond to non-work
demands? Relatively larger benefit for coordinating with spouse/other activities?
4. Interaction effect for being an hourly worker, with the ability to take time off during work was reduced after adding job quality variables, so part of the reduced stress and work-family conflict is due to the hourly workers’ poorer labor/work conditions, but not all.• Need to explore which job conditions reduce or eliminate the interaction effect…to suggest which organizational risk
factors and interventions would be most effective.Future—apply upcoming GSS QWL 2014 and its panel feature in 2008 and 2012, especially Irregular Shift, and Fatigue, combine with happiness as part of overall well-being index…
Summary: Hours, Discretion and Worker Happiness
Duration of work hours has no discernable relationship positive or negative with happiness level
Number of hours, extra days worked per month and full-time work hours all neutral neither non-mandatory nor mandatory overtime are associated with happiness…
suggests that there may be offsetting factors at work. workers less happy if they work evening shifts or on irregular work schedules (if salaried).
Controlling for other relevant factors, workers are happier if they report possessing some degree of control over the timing of their daily start and end times of work, and the ability to take time off during the day to attend to family or personal matters
When controlling for an individual’s income level, the contribution of work scheduling discretion to happiness remains robust;
effects of discretion are essentially unchanged and actually far exceeds the relative size effect of income.
Cant rule out endogeneity that happier people seek or stay in jobs that provide discretion …
the ability to take some time off during a workday seems to be the type of flexibility most strongly associated with greater happiness.
Stronger size effects among hourly paid workers (just as high income yields for them…)
Implications:- Results are contrary to a purely economic frame: income doesn't explain much variation in indicators of well-being- Longer hours may play a different role in determining quality of life for hourly and salaried workers (the more you work, the more money you earn as an hourly worker; what does overtime even mean when you're a salaried worker? )- Taking time off during the day might be more important to hourly than salaried workers; o discretion over starting and end times, may be especially appreciated by hourly workers. - There is a difference between control over when you DO work (starting and quitting time),control over when you DON'T work (overtime hours voluntary), and control over time DURING work (can take time off during day).
Regressions : “Happy”
All workers Salaried workers Hourly workers
Coef. (S.E.) Coef. (S.E.) Coef. (S.E.)
Time off during day 0.058***(0.011)
0.047**(0.018)
0.081***(0.078)
Observations 2,982 1,132 1,583R2 0.10 0.07 0.06
Change start/end time 0.034***(0.009)
0.024(0.015)
0.035**(0.074)
Observations 2,982 1,132 1,583
R2 0.10 0.07 0.06
36
Notes:** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1Each separate model was adjusted for the survey year, income, demographic variables, working hours, working schedule, and whether working for government or non-profit agency.
Costs of employer providing flexibility (F) vs. staying with inflexibility
Employers that had been offering a traditional, fixed work schedule will incur some direct supervision costs (SC) when switching to better match S to employees’ preferences, including:
the up-front cost of transition to a new work scheduling system;the administrative and coordination costs of monitoring it once in place, including preventing abuse by some employees. any loss of output in the event employees always prioritize the timing of their peak productivity times to nonwork times.
An expanded cost computation weighs trade off between added supervisory costs (SC) versus the longer run cost offsets/savings (potential reduction in labor costs by better matching)
With Potential Gains in:
productivity arising from either increased effort or commitment,
job and work-life satisfaction (happier employees more productive (Fisher, 2011).
Hours devoted to job (especially unpaid)
…enhances future cost savings may be generated from reduced tardiness and longer average employee tenure, reduced turnover (associated human capital investment expenses).
…may offset or even surpass the costs of reorganizing, administering and coordinating schedules.
Flex is both a potentially productivity tool AND an employee benefit (if perceived safe to use)
Public Good CaseBusiness Case efficiency equity growth welfare criteria
• Increased labor market attachment of parents…increased participation, reduced “opt outs”…with on ramps and off ramps
• A minimum standard helps overcome the problem of adverse selection, that would make women/parents incur bigger wage reductions than others…
Public Goods case for Policy (beyond just the “business case”), incl. a public goods case: Aggregate Total Cost (TC) of providing more flexibility for workers: (Altman and Golden, 2007)
A Socially Optimal amount of flexibility provided, beyond the level provided by employers?
TC of flex time
TC for firms to offer flex time
TC to firms when NOT providing flex time
F*
TC
F (Total amount of flex time made available)
= Minimum TC point = optimal amount of flex time provided
… at perhaps less than all the workers who wish it or would benefit from it
Implication for Policies that would promote higher well-being:Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) reform
Transform from a protective regulation to an opportunity, to improve work-life balance beyond, what is currently available only to select employees as a working condition.Suggests adding an individual “right to request” (softer touch regulation), Modeled after the statutory right to request flexible work arrangements adopted in Anglo countries abroad, including UK, New Zealand and Northern Ireland, Australia.
The Flexibility for Working Families Act (H.R. 2559, S. 1248), an individual employee “right to request” a change in 4 terms of employment, the: number of work hours; daily scheduling times or being on call; location where the employee is required to work; length of notification the employee receives of work schedule assignments.
burden on employer to respond to a written request "within a reasonable period," can deny the request only with sufficient reason and must propose an alternative change to the employee's hours, times, place or notification.
San Francisco is the first city to have a “right to request” ordinance, that employers with 20 or more staff give employees in caregiver roles the right to request a predictable or flexible work schedule. Vermont is first state, request arrangement to telework, job share, part time, or adjust schedules. Real Politic—in US, only feasible approach would be “individualized,” with the “business case”
improving process that to request occasional time off, flexibility that has an enormous impact on employees and families for very low cost to the employer (Cahill and James, 2013).
Plus a “right to refuse” mandatory overtime (an extension of “right to refuse DANGEROUS work,”) which would have greater impact than “comp time for OT” proposal.
Request for Comp Time could actually be incorporated…e.g.,with only the premium 50% however, with straight time $pay for the OT, where workers can use comp time credits over the course of a work day, since that is most influential on well-being.
Set Minimum Reporting Requirements, currently exist only in a few US States…”Zero Hours Contracts,” …because reducing precarity has bigger effects than increasing their income (Lewcheck, Pocock), also Bypass legislative branch by executive: US DOL—require OT pay to “salaried” workers, by increasing base from $23k to $40k or even $50k—would add another 25% of salaried workers to FLSA coverage.
Youth Employment Regulations extended to older ages??
