Work–Family Balance and Alternative Work Schedules

Abstract

In 2008, the State of Utah implemented a 4-day workweek for their employees. This article examines the impact on employees using a postimplementation survey. For employees on the 4-day schedule, there were no significant differences by gender on work–family balance or on the impact of the schedule. However, women did demonstrate slightly more positive attitudes toward the 4-day schedule. Employees with children at home reported lower work–family balance and greater impact of the 4-day schedule. In contrast, no difference in attitudes toward the 4-day schedule was found by age, although work–family balance differed among age groups. There were differences in work–family balance between employees on the 4-day schedule and those on traditional schedules; however, the more substantial factor was whether an employee selected his or her schedule. The current study highlights the importance of engaging employees when making significant organizational changes, such as transitioning from traditional work schedules to alternative schedules.

Keywords

work–family balance alternative work schedules compressed workweek

Introduction

Around the globe, employers in every sector of the economy are seeking strategies to improve employee productivity and work environments. This issue is especially critical for public sector organizations as they face several significant challenges. For example, in the United States, governments face a looming tide of retirements, which will require either replacing employees or restructuring work and work processes. In other countries, a broad range of issues drive the need for new employees; these range from immigration to urban migration. In 2008, the world suffered a significant economic slowdown, triggered at least in part by the collapse of the U.S. housing market. As a result of the economic crisis, governments saw revenues shrink. Because personnel costs are often the largest expenditure for governments, especially subnational governments, public organizations frequently responded by targeting human resource–related costs. For example, many organizations implemented furloughs, pay freezes, and layoffs. As a result of these policy choices, many organizations struggled to address the potential declines in productivity or the resultant shortage of personnel. Many of the employees affected by furloughs or pay freezes stuck with their public sector employer because of the extremely tight labor market. However, as the economy has recovered, public employees have seen new opportunities ranging from retirement to sector shifting. Governments must now manage personnel in this changing environment. Employers, especially in the public sector, need to find creative strategies to be employers of choice for a workforce that sees service opportunities not simply limited to government service (Mulvaney, 2014; Vandenabeele, 2008). A strategy frequently used during the last 25 years has been to offer non-traditional benefits (e.g., child care, dependent care, employee assistance programs) and alternative work arrangements (e.g., flextime, job sharing, telecommuting, and compressed workweek) to assist employees in balancing the demands from work and family.

Over the last several years, there has been increased interest in non-traditional benefits and alternative work arrangements in the public sector. For example, according to a BBC report, about one third of men in the Netherlands either work part-time or 40 hr in 4 days (Barford, 2013). In 2013, public sector workers in the nation of the Gambia shifted to a model of working 40 hr in 4 days. Although organizations throughout the world have begun implementing similar forms of flexible work schedules, more research is needed on the impact of such schedules on individual employees and on the workplace. The current research seeks to respond to the call for closer attention to the variables that affect work–family interaction and specific types of flexible work arrangements (T. D. Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013).

This study adds to the existing literature in several ways. It examines the first statewide adoption of an alternative work schedule in the United States. Second, it presents new analytical frameworks for analyzing attitudes and impacts of compressed work schedules. Third, the article examines the connection between compressed work schedules and work–family balance. Finally, various demographic characteristics of the respondents are considered to provide a more complete picture of the impact of compressed work schedules on employees. To do this, we focus on the U.S. state of Utah, which implemented a compressed workweek schedule (four 10-hr days) for employees. The article proceeds as follows: First, the literature on compressed workweeks and work–family balance is presented. Then, the relationship of demographic variables to the use of compressed workweeks and also to levels of work–family balance is examined, and research hypotheses are presented. This is followed by the methods used to collect data and the measures used in the current study. Finally, the results are presented, followed by a discussion of the management implications from this study.

Compressed Workweek Schedules

A compressed workweek schedule involves working longer shifts for fewer days of the week, rather than the traditional 8-hr workday 5 days a week. Although this work arrangement is not new, it has seen renewed interest during the last several years. Thirty-five percent of all U.S. organizations (public and private) responding to a recent survey indicated that they offer some form of compressed work schedule to their employees (Society for Human Resource Management, 2013). Research in the public sector found that 46% of U.S. cities offer compressed work schedules to at least some of their employees (Facer, Wadsworth, & Arbon, 2009). Most organizations offering a compressed work schedule have implemented either a 4/10 or a 9/80 schedule, with the 4/10 being the most common. Under a 4/10 work schedule, the employee works four 10-hr days during the week, exchanging longer workdays for an extra day away from work. The extra day off often comes on either a Friday or a Monday, thereby creating a longer weekend for the employee. A 9/80 schedule is worked over a 2-week period, with the employee working 9-hr workdays Monday through Thursday and one 8-hr Friday; every other Friday is a day off work.

Compressed workweeks offer several potential benefits to the organization and to the employee. For example, research has found that compressed workweeks are related to increased productivity (Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Dunham, Pierce, & Castaneda, 1987; Facer et al., 2009; Latack & Foster, 1985) and customer service (Facer et al., 2009), along with greater levels of job satisfaction (Baltes et al., 1999; Dunham et al., 1987; Facer & Wadsworth, 2008). In addition, the use of alternative work schedules is related to a decrease in turnover (Kim & Wiggins, 2011), absenteeism (Ronen & Primps, 1981; Tombari & Spinks, 1999), commuting costs (Pierce, Newstrom, Dunham, & Barber, 1989), and levels of anxiety and stress for the employee (Dunham et al., 1987; Ivancevich, 1974), and is positively related to job satisfaction and perceived organizational support (Ko, Hur, & Smith-Walter, 2013), and organizational commitment (Mulvaney, 2014).

The biggest organizational drawbacks of compressed work schedules are related to difficulties with scheduling and decreased face time with employees (Facer et al., 2009). From the employee perspective, the major drawback is the longer workday, which has the potential to lead to fatigue (Ono, Watanabe, Kaneko, Matsumoto, & Miyako, 1991), although previous research finds little evidence of increased errors due to fatigue (Latack & Foster, 1985). Although longer workweeks (working more than 40 hr per week) are found to be associated with decreased levels of work–family balance (McNamara, Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, Brown, & Valcour, 2013) and various health symptoms (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997), there is research suggesting that longer workdays are associated with positive outcomes, including good physical health and decreased psychological distress (Amendola, Weisburd, Hamilton, Jones, & Slipka, 2011). Studies on the relationship between longer workdays and work–family conflict have found mixed results with research suggesting a positive relationship (Bond, 2004), whereas other research has found no relationship between work–family conflict and longer workdays (Loudoun, 2008).

Work–Family Balance

Changes in the world of work and workers’ attitudes have made studying the relationship between work and family even more important. Researchers and practitioners have shown increased interest in learning how the work and family domains interact and in understanding the extent to which these domains affect each other, most recently in the area of work–family balance (e.g., Baxter & Chesters, 2011; Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; McNamara et al., 2013; Valcour, 2007).

Work–family balance is increasingly popular as a key element in the employment strategies of many organizations. Work–family balance is “the degree to which an individual is able to simultaneously balance the temporal, emotional, and behavioral demands of both paid work and family responsibilities” (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001, p. 49). Similarly, Higgins, Duxbury, and Johnson (2000) defined work–family balance as “a sense of having achieved a satisfactory resolution of the multiple demands of work and family domains” (p. 19).

Because both work and family roles compete for a person’s time, employees may experience difficulty while striving to find balance between the two; this highlights the interdependence of work and family roles. A person’s stress in one role may have an adverse effect on his or her performance in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In contrast, those who are able to balance the demands from these two important domains generally experience greater levels of job satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2009; Rocereto, Gupta, & Mosca, 2011), organizational commitment, family satisfaction (Carlson et al., 2009), and general well-being (Greenhaus et al., 2003).

Compressed Workweek Schedule and Work–Family Balance

One way for organizations to help employees manage the demands of balancing work and family life is through the use of alternative work schedules (T. D. Allen et al., 2013; Fiksenbaum, 2014; Ko et al., 2013). Previous research has found that employees working a flexible work schedule are more likely to report greater levels of positive spillover between the work and family domains (Ezra & Deckman, 1996; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2010), which is related to higher job satisfaction (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Kacmar, 2010) and lower turnover (McNall et al., 2010). Tausig and Fenwick (2001) noted that alternative work schedules can favorably alter the perception of balance between work and family demands. This might be due to the employees’ perception of flexibility, which is positively related to higher levels of work–family balance (Baxter & Chesters, 2011; Hill et al., 2001) and negatively related to work–family conflict (Fiksenbaum, 2014). Seventy-four percent of municipal HR directors reported that the most commonly perceived benefit for employees on alternative work schedules is improved work–family balance (Wadsworth, Facer, & Arbon, 2010). Research focusing on compressed work schedules found that employees on such a schedule reported higher levels of work–family balance (Julien, Somerville, & Culp, 2011; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001) than their counterparts. Therefore, based on previous research that has consistently demonstrated positive benefits associated with compressed work schedules, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 1a: Employees who work a 4-day work schedule will report higher levels of work–family balance than employees on a traditional work schedule.

One of the benefits of alternative work schedules can be the control employees have over their work schedule. Previous research found that employees who participated in the decision-making process of selecting a compressed workweek schedule reported higher levels of satisfaction with the schedule (Latack & Foster, 1985). Other scholarship notes that the lack of control for the employee can lead to higher levels of work–family conflict (T. D. Allen et al., 2013; Pisarski, Lawrence, Bohle, & Brook, 2008). Employee control over work time is positively related to work–family balance (Beham & Drobnic, 2010), even when employees work long hours (Valcour, 2007). These findings suggest that employees who have the option of selecting an alternative work schedule might experience greater levels of work–family balance. Accordingly,

Hypothesis 1b: Employees who voluntarily choose a 4-day work schedule will report higher levels of work–family balance than employees who are required to work a 4-day schedule.

Gender

Compressed workweek schedule

Much has been said in the literature about the role of gender in the recent growth of alternative work schedules. For example, some studies suggest that this growth is due to the increase of women in the workplace, particularly of working mothers (e.g., Wang & Bianchi, 2009). Women continue to devote more time to domestic responsibilities than men, regardless of the number of hours worked outside the home (Baxter & Chesters, 2011; Fagan & Press, 2008; Mackay & Rhodes, 2013; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004; Wang & Bianchi, 2009). For example, women are more likely to attend school activities for their children and to take family members to doctor’s appointments. Such responsibility is a contributing factor to women’s higher rates of absenteeism in the workplace (Vistnes, 1997). With alternative schedules, it may be possible to schedule family activities and doctor’s appointments for the employee’s additional day off, thereby reducing the need to take time off work. Previous research on work–life policies suggests that the impact of such policies on work–family enrichment is greater for women than for men (Baral & Bhargava, 2011). Consequently,

Hypothesis 2a: Women will report greater satisfaction with the compressed workweek schedule than men.

Work–family balance

The differences between men and women in their perceptions of work–family interaction have been a major research focus in the last decade (e.g., Aryee, Tan, & Srinivas, 2005; Minnotte, 2012; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007). For example, research studies have found that women tend to experience higher levels of work–family conflict (e.g., Hughes & Galinsky, 1994) and lower levels of work–family balance (e.g., Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Mackay & Rhodes, 2013; Minnotte, 2012) than men. Yet other researchers have found very few gender differences in the levels of work–family balance (e.g., Aryee et al., 2005; Lyness & Kropf, 2005; Zhang et al., 2012). There are significant inconsistencies in previous findings related to the degree in which men and women perceive work–family balance (Byron, 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). However, the general consensus is that because of women’s complex family responsibilities (Cunningham, Baines, & Charlesworth, 2014), they face greater challenges in achieving work–family balance. Thus,

Hypothesis 2b: Women will report lower levels of work–family balance than men.

Children

Compressed workweek schedule

One potential drawback for employees on compressed workweeks is the difficulties related to the care of children in the home (Fagan & Press, 2008). Potential difficulties might include arranging child care for the longer workday and taking care of unplanned family demands, such as staying home to care for a sick child (Valcour, 2007) or taking children to doctors’ appointments and school activities. Employees who have children living in their homes might experience greater levels of stress and anxiety on a compressed workweek schedule, both in the short term (e.g., arranging child care) and the long term (e.g., unplanned family demands), resulting in decreased levels of satisfaction with the schedule. Similar to previous research on the relationship between children and work–family balance (e.g., Lyness & Kropf, 2005; McNamara et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2012), all children under the age of 18 who were living in the home are included in the analysis, rather than limiting it to young children. Based on previous research, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 3a: Employees who have children living in their home will report lower levels of satisfaction with the compressed workweek schedule than those who do not have children at home.

Work–family balance

Previous research suggests that the presence of children in the home is negatively related to work–family balance (Baxter & Chesters, 2011; Saltzstein et al., 2001; Valcour, 2007). Interestingly, Rocereto et al. (2011) found no differences in work–family balance between those with children at home and those with no children in the home, for employees using a flextime schedule. However, they found that the presence of children in the home made a significant difference in work–family balance for employees not using a flextime schedule, such that those with children at home reported lower levels of work–family balance than their peers with no children in the home. Therefore,

Hypothesis 3b: Employees who have children living in their home will report lower levels of work–family balance than those with no children in the home.

Age

Compressed workweek schedule

Organizations have cited attracting and retaining a talented workforce as one of the benefits of alternative work schedules (Facer et al., 2009; Wise & Bond, 2003). Previous research suggests that compressed workweek schedules are especially seen as a benefit to younger employees (Kim & Wiggins, 2011), whereas older employees experience greater levels of fatigue and dissatisfaction with the longer workdays (R. E. Allen & Hawes, 1979) and lower levels of performance (Reid & Dawson, 2001). Therefore, the following is predicted:

Hypothesis 4a: Employee age will be negatively related to satisfaction with compressed workweeks, such that younger employees will be more likely to report a positive assessment of the schedule than older employees.

Work–family balance

Previous research has found mixed results on the relationship between work–family balance and employee age. For example, Lyness and Kropf (2005) found a positive relationship between age and work–family balance for their participants located in the organization headquarters, whereas those respondents working outside the headquarters report no significant relationship between the two variables. A meta-analysis found very little difference in work–family balance or the related construct of work–family conflict by age (Ng & Feldman, 2012). Parkes and Langford (2008) reported a small, yet significant, relationship between levels of work–family balance and age, such that work–family balance increased as age increased. The exception is for those employees between ages 30 and 49, who reported a lower level of work–family balance. The authors (Parkes & Langford, 2008) suggest that this might be a result of increased responsibility due to children at home. Based on the previous research, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 4b: Employee age will be positively related to work–family balance, such that older employees will be more likely to report higher levels of work–family balance.

Method

During summer 2008, gasoline prices and overall energy costs in the United States increased dramatically. As a result, many private and public sector organizations sought strategies to help the organization and employees cope with these price increases. One strategy, which received considerable media attention (e.g., Armour, 2008; “Four-day workweek,” 2008), was the implementation of compressed workweeks. Perhaps the most notable implementation of compressed workweeks was the State of Utah. Starting in August 2008, the state implemented a mandatory 4-day workweek for the majority of state employees by closing offices on Fridays. Employees who wanted to be exempt from the schedule had to seek an exemption directly from the governor’s office, reducing the likelihood that employee preference would exclude an employee from the 4-day workweek. Employees who were granted the exemption were provided with the opportunity to work a traditional schedule. Some positions would not fit the 4-day schedule, such as corrections and law enforcement. A legislative audit reported that about 75% of Utah employees were working the 4/10 schedule during this time (Legislative Auditor General, 2010).

The Utah Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM) conducted a series of surveys to track the impact of the 4-day workweek on employee attitudes and behaviors. DHRM’s staff, in consultation with the research team, developed the items on the surveys. The data used in this study were gathered in May 2009, 9 months after initial implementation of the revised work schedule. Although these data were gathered several years ago, it is still very relevant. As the first large-scale state government implementation of a mandatory alternative work schedule, it is important to review and assess how the policy affects employee attitudes and behaviors.

Data were collected using a web-based survey sent to state employees; paper copies were distributed to employees without access to a computer. This data collection effort was widely known by employees. Reminders to employees were sent through a variety of mechanisms including follow-up emails and organizational newsletters. Responses were received from 10,583 employees, representing about 42% of the state’s total workforce. Questions on the survey ranged from basic information about the impact of their work schedule to child care. In addition, two questions on the survey were very salient to the employees. The first asked whether the employees wanted to continue the 4/10 schedule. The second question addressed alternative holiday leave options. Prior to the 4-day workweek, the state had 10 paid holidays for a total of 80 hr. With the switch to 10-hr workdays, the state initially reduced the number of holidays to nine. However, moving forward, the state wanted to assess employee preferences on the options for paid holidays. As a result of the salience of these issues, there was a strong response from employees across the state.

Employees represented more than 35 different state agencies. Four agencies had fewer than 60% of responding employees working the 4/10; three of these agencies are relatively small, with a total of 61 responses; the larger agency had 350 total responses. Fourteen agencies had more than 90% of their respondents working a 4-day schedule. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics (N = 10,583).

	%
Gender
Female	55.4
Male	44.6
Age (M 44.7)
18-35	26.1
36-46	26.2
47-54	23.6
55 and up	24.1
Children at home	45.5
Work full-time	95.7
Supervisor	26.3
Work schedule
4/10 schedule	80.9
Traditional 5-day	9.9
Other	7.8
Working 4/10 prior	20.3

Measures

Previous research on alternative work schedules has made use of fairly simple measures that assess employees’ general satisfaction with the work schedule (Dunham et al., 1987; Mahoney, Newman, & Frost, 1975; Puntenney, 1994; Wadsworth et al., 2010). Although this perspective from the employee or supervisor is helpful, one of the goals of this study was to better understand the more nuanced experience of employees using an alternative work schedule. Very few measures are available to do so. Because of this gap in previous research, two scales were created: 4/10 Impact and 4/10 Attitude.

The first scale (4/10 Impact) focuses on the impact of the 4/10 schedule on individual employees; the scale sums 11 different factors affecting employees and then creates a scale with a maximum possible score of 100. Each question was phrased, “Compared to a normal 5-day workweek, what has been the impact of the 4-day/10-hr work schedule (for you personally) on . . . .” (child care, use of public transportation, second job, personal school schedule, work schedule of significant other, personal activities outside work, involvement in community activities, use of carpooling, overall health, personal exercise habits, and quality time with family). For missing values, the value of the item was imputed by using the mean value for the other items in the scale. High scores indicate high levels of positive impact on the employee, whereas low scores indicate high levels of negative impact. The scale, out of 100, has a mean score of 68.2 and a standard deviation of 21.7. The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha score of .94.

A scale focusing on employees’ attitudes toward the 4/10 schedule was also created, using the same summation strategy. This scale consists of 16 statements, seven of which were negatively phrased, but were reverse-coded in the analysis. The resulting scale, 4/10 Attitude, has a Cronbach’s alpha of .97. High scores indicate an employee reported a strongly positive view of the 4/10 work schedule. The mean score for this scale is 75.3 with a standard deviation of 20.2.

Finally, Valcour’s (2007) five-item scale was used to measure employees’ work–family balance. Previous research on work–family balance has often relied on single-item indicators (e.g., Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007; Vandenabeele, 2008); this research seeks to incorporate a broader definition of work–family balance by using Valcour’s multiple-item scale. Two of the items were negatively worded on the survey instrument and were reverse-coded during data analysis. High scores on this summative scale indicate high levels of work–family balance, whereas low scores indicate low levels of work–family balance. Like the other two scales, this scale has a maximum value of 100. The mean score on this scale is 69.6 with a standard deviation of 22.5 and the Cronbach’s alpha was .96.

The analysis also included a number of control variables from the survey: gender, age, and the presence of children under the age of 18 living in their home. In addition, the following workplace characteristics were used to enhance the analysis: respondents’ supervisory status, full-time (or part-time) status, current work schedule (4/10 work schedule, traditional work schedule, or other), and their work schedule prior to the mandatory implementation.

Results

Correlations

First, a correlation analysis was conducted to see initial strength of relationships among the variables as presented in Table 2. All variables except supervisory status demonstrate a significant relationship with the dependent variables. Correlation among the three dependent variables is quite strong ranging from rs = .82 to .86 (p < .000). Significant correlations between the dependent variables and the independent variables range from a high of r = .77 between preference to continue the 4/10 schedule and attitudes toward the 4/10 schedule and a low of r = −.02 between females and work–family balance. Based on this correlation analysis, it appears that age has little to no influence on the dependent variables, whereas gender is only marginally influential. Overall, it appears that work schedule experience and attitude toward continuing with the 4-day schedule are the most influential variables. However, these bivariate correlations do not control for the influence of other variables.

Table 2.

Correlations (N = 10,478).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. 4/10 Attitude
2. Work–family balance	.86***
3. 4/10 Impact	.82***	.85***
4. Continue 4/10	.77***	.67***	.62***
5. Working 4/10 Prior	.21***	.21***	.20***	.16***
6. Currently on 4/10	.27***	.16***	.15***	.24***	.17***
7. Currently on 5/8	−.25***	−.14***	−.14***	−.26***	−.14***	−.71***
8. Children at home	−.05***	−.07***	−.06***	−.05***	−.00	−.04***	.01
9. Supervisor status	−.01	−.01	−.01	−.01	.01	−.00	.02	.04***
10. Age 36-46	−.02*	−.03**	−.02*	−.03*	−.00	−.02*	.01	.33***	.06***
11. Age 47-54	.02	.03**	.01	.00	.02*	.02*	−.02	−.09***	.07***	−.33***
12. Age 55 and older	−.01	.01	−.00	.00	.03**	.03*	−.01	−.37***	.05***	−.34***	−.31***
13. Gender	.01	−.02	−.01	−.01	−.13***	−.02*	.00	−.16***	−.18***	−.04**	.03**	.02*

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Regression Analysis

To test the hypotheses and control for influence of multiple variables, three ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models were used, one for each dependent variable. This section presents the results of these models. The three models are presented: 4/10 Impact, 4/10 Attitude, and Work–Family Balance. The hypotheses are then reviewed in light of the findings.

Table 3 presents the first model that seeks to explain the perceived impact of the 4/10 work schedule. Overall, the model explains nearly 40% of the variation in the perception of the impact of the 4-day workweek using 10 independent variables. The most substantial impact is from an employee’s desire to continue working the 4/10 schedule. Employees who desire to continue the 4/10 schedule score 41 points higher on the 4/10 Impact scale than employees who prefer to revert to a traditional schedule (p < .000). In other words, if a respondent wanted to continue the 4/10 schedule, he or she reported a much higher positive perceived impact of the 4/10 schedule. Employees who worked a 4/10 prior to the mandatory implementation perceived the impact 5 points higher than other employees. Interestingly, even employees currently on the traditional schedule exhibited a 3-point increase in their perception of the impact of the 4/10 schedule, all else equal. This was stronger than the increase of nearly 2 points exhibited by employees who started working the 4-day schedule after the schedule shift. Employees with children at home had a 1.5 point lower assessment of the 4-day schedule’s impact than their peers without children at home. No other variables (supervisory status, age, or gender) had a significant influence on an employee’s perception of the impact of the 4-day schedule.

Table 3.

Regression: Dependent Variable 4/10 Impact.

	B	β	t	Significance
(Constant)	41.463		46.759	.000
Continue 4/10 Schedule^a	32.197	.607	71.228	.000
Working 4/10 Prior^a	5.302	.100	11.907	.000
Currently on 4/10^a	1.808	.029	2.593	.010
Currently on 5/8^a	3.166	.036	3.246	.001
Children at home^a	−1.545	−.036	−3.828	.000
Supervisor status^a	−0.25	−.005	−0.605	.545
Age 36 to 46^a	−0.07	−.001	−0.14	.889
Age 47 to 54^a	0.129	.003	0.25	.802
Age 55 or older^a	−0.864	−.017	−1.611	.107
Gender (1 = female, 0 = male)	0.13	.003	0.349	.727

Note. n = 9,004. R² = .398; F = 660.799; p < .000.

1 = yes, 0 = no.

The second model examined the attitudes of employees toward the 4-day workweek. This model explains 60% of the variation in an employee’s positive views of the 4-day workweek using 10 independent variables (p < .000), as shown in Table 4. The most influential factor affecting an employee’s positive perceptions was their desire to continue the 4-day workweek. Employees desiring to continue the 4-day schedule were 36 points higher on the 4/10 Attitude Scale (p < .000). Employees who worked the 4-day schedule prior to the mandatory implementation scored 4 points higher than employees not previously working the 4-day schedule (p < .000). Beyond the impact of previous experience with the 4-day workweek, those working the 4-day schedule after the mandatory implementation had 4.5 points higher than those not working that schedule (p < .000). Only one other variable met the traditional standard of statistical significance; female employees were 1.2 points higher on the 4/10 Attitude Scale than their male counterparts (p < .000). Two other variables approached statistical significance; employees 55 and older had a 0.8 point reduction (p = .065) in their 4/10 Attitude Scale, and employees with children at home had a 0.5 point reduction in their score (p = .098).

Table 4.

Regression: Dependent Variable 4/10 Attitude.

	B	β	t	Significance
(Constant)	42.495		62.895	.000
Continue 4/10 Schedule^a	36.288	.740	104.822	.000
Working 4/10 Prior^a	3.870	.079	11.341	.000
Currently on 4/10^a	4.530	.080	8.522	.000
Currently on 5/8^a	0.280	.004	0.390	.696
Children at home^a	−.510	−.013	−1.653	.098
Supervisor status^a	0.501	.011	1.590	.112
Age 36 to 46^a	0.042	.001	0.110	.912
Age 47 to 54^a	0.152	.003	0.388	.698
Age 55 or older^a	−0.758	−.016	−1.844	.065
Gender (1 = female, 0 = male)	1.204	.030	4.227	.000

Note. n = 8,673. R² = .605; F = 1,331.691; p < .000.

1 = yes, 0 = no.

The final model examines work–family balance. This model explains 46% of the variation in work–family balance using the same 10 variables as the other models. As shown in Table 5, the strongest influence on work–family balance was an employee’s preference to continue the 4-day schedule; employees who wanted to continue the 4/10 schedule scored 36 points higher on the work–family balance scale. Employees working the 4-day schedule prior to mandatory implementation score 5.5 points higher, all else equal. Interestingly, employees on the traditional schedule score 4.8 points higher than workers on other schedules all else equal. Although not quite significant, employees on the 4-day schedule only score about 1.2 points higher on the work–family balance scale than employees not on the 4/10 schedule (p = .079). The other statistically significant factor was age, with employees in the 47 to 54 age group scoring 1.4 points higher on the work–family balance scale than other employees.

Table 5.

Regression: Dependent Variable Work–Family Balance.

	B	β	t	Significance
(Constant)	40.088		46.453	.000
Continue 4/10 Schedule^a	36.057	.659	81.373	.000
Working 4/10 Prior^a	5.558	.101	12.649	.000
Currently on 4/10^a	1.19	.019	1.756	.079
Currently on 5/8^a	4.839	.057	5.29	.000
Children at home^a	−1.902	−.042	−4.793	.000
Supervisor status^a	−0.257	−.005	−0.636	.525
Age 36 to 46^a	0.400	.008	0.816	.415
Age 47 to 54^a	1.369	.026	2.71	.007
Age 55 or older^a	0.287	.005	0.544	.586
Gender (1 = female, 0 = male)	−0.188	−.004	−0.513	.608

Note. n = 9,074. R² = .459; F = 770.437; p < .000.

1 = yes, 0 = no.

Review of Hypotheses

This section systematically reviews the hypotheses in light of the findings reported above. The first set of hypotheses focus on the impact of an employee’s work schedule on his or her work–family balance. Hypothesis 1a proposes that employees on the 4-day schedule will have higher levels of work–family balance than their colleagues working traditional schedules. Employees on the traditional 5/8 schedule reported almost 5 points higher levels of work–family balance than those not on a 5/8 schedule. In contrast, those on a 4/10 schedule report 1.2 points higher work–family balance than those not currently on a 4/10 work schedule. These findings do not support H1a. Rather, those employees on a traditional work schedule report higher levels of work–family balance than those on the compressed work schedule.

H1b proposes that employees who voluntarily chose the 4-day schedule would report higher levels of work–family balance than their peers who were required to work the schedule. In Table 5, employees who were on the 4/10 schedule prior to the mandatory implementation, and therefore presumably chose that schedule, reported a 5.6 point higher score on the work–family balance scale (p < .000) than their peers who started to work a 4-day schedule at the time of the mandatory implementation, in support of Hypothesis 1b.

The second set of hypotheses focus on the impact of gender on preferences and beliefs about the 4-day workweek and work–family balance. Hypothesis 2a proposes that women will report greater satisfaction with the compressed work schedule. Women report higher levels of positive attitudes about the 4/10 workweek than men (1.2 points), a statistically significant finding (p < .001). However, women do not have a different set of perceptions about the impact of the 4-day workweek than their male colleagues. Therefore, this hypothesis is partially supported. Hypothesis 2b proposes that women will report lower levels of work–family balance. The data do show a slightly lower score for women (−0.188); however, this difference is neither of a meaningful magnitude nor of a statistical significance. Therefore, similar to previous research in this area (e.g., Aryee et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2012), significant gender differences in the work–family balance of the respondents are not found.

The third set of hypotheses focus on the presence of children living in the home. Hypothesis 3a proposes that employees with children at home will have lower levels of satisfaction with the 4-day work schedule. Employees with children at home report a 1.5 point lower score on their perception of the impact of the 4-day schedule (p < .000). Employees with children at home also report decreased positive attitudes about the 4/10 workweek (0.5 points); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .098). Therefore, the research finds partial support for H3a. Full support is found for Hypothesis 3b; employees with children at home report a 1.9 point decrease on their work–family balance score (p < .000) compared with employees with no children at home.

The final set of hypotheses focus on the age of employees. Hypothesis 4a proposes that age will be negatively associated with satisfaction of compressed workweeks. There are no significant differences among age groups on the perceptions of the impact of the schedule. However, the oldest group of employees (ages 55 and older) did have a small (less than 1 point) reduction in the positive attitudes about the 4/10 work schedule compared with younger employees, but this difference only approached statistical significance (p = .065), providing no support for H4a. Hypothesis 4b proposes that employee age would be positively related to work–family balance. In the analysis, employees between the ages of 47 and 54 report the highest level of work–family balance (an increase of 1.4 points, p = .007). Although these scores are higher than their younger peers, they are also higher than their older peers; accordingly, Hypothesis 4b is partially supported. All told, two of the hypotheses are supported, three found partial support, and there is a lack of support for three hypotheses.

Discussion and Conclusion

In contrast to the expected relationship, employees who work the traditional work schedule report higher levels of work–family balance when compared with workers on other schedules. Accordingly, these findings suggest that choice of schedule can make a positive and significant impact on an employee’s perception of work–family balance. However, this changes when work schedule preferences were considered; those employees who indicated a desire to continue the 4/10 schedule had significantly higher levels of work–family balance than all other employees. Having a preference to keep the schedule was related to an increase of 36 points on the work–family balance scale. In this way, it appears that employee choice can be activated through engagement.

Interestingly, although women in the study report higher positive attitudes about the compressed work schedule, they report no significant difference in their levels of work–family balance when compared with the men. Prior research on the relationship between gender and work–family balance has been mixed, with previous research finding that women experience lower levels of work–family balance (e.g., Mackay & Rhodes, 2013; Minnotte, 2012) than men or finding no difference in work–family balance by gender (e.g., Zhang et al., 2012). These results deserve continued attention given research findings that women continue to devote more time to family responsibilities than men (Fagan & Press, 2008; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004).

As predicted, the presence of children in the home is associated with greater negative impact of the compressed work schedule. Although arranging child care is an important responsibility of working parents, it typically is a short-term challenge, meaning that once it is resolved, it does not continue to persist as a challenge. Whereas unplanned family demands, such as a child’s illness, naturally preclude scheduling time off and thereby potentially cause increased stress for parents. Interestingly, there was no significant difference in positive attitudes about the compressed work schedule when comparing employees with children in the home with those with no children in the home, suggesting that although the negative impact might be greater, the employees with children in the home still generally look at the use of compressed work schedules in positive ways. Similarly, the presence of children in the home is associated with lower levels of work–family balance. This finding is similar to previous research on the presence of children under the age of 6 in the home (e.g., Fagan & Press, 2008), yet extends that to any children under the age of 18. It might be that young children require a great deal of time and energy to care for outside work, but similar requirements are also needed to care for children in the pre-adolescent and teenage years.

Although previous research suggests that compressed work schedules will specifically benefit younger employees (Kim & Wiggins, 2011), the current research finds that age is not an indicator of satisfaction with the schedule. Although there has been some concern about the physical impact of the longer workdays on older employees (R. E. Allen & Hawes, 1979), no significant difference by age was found in the impact of compressed work schedule or the attitude toward the compressed work schedule. Organizations that plan to implement such programs should consider extending the program to employees of all ages.

It appears in this study that there is an inverted u-shaped impact of age on work–family balance; it peaks with employees in their late 40s to mid-50s. Zhang et al. (2012) found similar results as their respondents aged 31 to 45 reported higher levels of work–family balance than older employees. In contrast, research on generational differences in work–family synergy found that Baby Boomers (ages 33-51 at the time of the study) reported the lowest levels of work–family synergy and highest levels of work–family conflict (Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008). Clearly, additional work is needed on the relationship of age and work–family balance.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

This study is one of the first to look at the impact of a compressed work schedule and the attitude of employees regarding such a schedule. One of the strengths of the current study is the large number of responses used in the research, enabling researchers to gain a better perspective of the variables of interest. In addition, the study assesses the impact of several demographic variables (gender, age, and presence of children in the home) on the employees’ perceptions regarding a compressed work schedule and their ability to balance work and family activities.

Two of the three scales used in the current research are original to this study. These scales were created to better understand the nuances of employee experience with the compressed work schedule. The two scales (4/10 Impact and 4/10 Attitudes) have high Cronbach’s alphas (.94 and .97, respectively), suggesting strong scales usable for future research. These scales can be adapted for use in future research on other forms of alternative work schedules, providing a more nuanced perspective of the impact on employees and the attitude of employees toward the alternative work schedule.

One possible limitation, often found in data using survey methodology, is the potential for common method bias. However, due to the perceptual nature of this research, survey methodology was appropriate. Crampton and Wagner (1994) argued that research has failed to show evidence of meaningful inflation with self-report methods. To compensate for the potential common method bias, we followed the suggestion by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) to counterbalance the question order, avoid complex syntax, and ensure respondents that their anonymity is protected.

Although the study has a large sample size, it is based on one organization’s experience with a compressed work schedule, potentially limiting its generalizability. Future research in other settings is needed to ascertain whether these findings are generalizable to other organizations. In addition, research is needed to study the impact of other forms of alternative work schedules, such as flexible schedules and telecommuting, on these variables of interest.

The study did find some significant age differences in the levels of work–family balance reported by employees. Previous research on the relationship between age and work–family balance found that levels of work–family balance increased as the age of the employee increased (Parkes & Langford, 2008). The only exception in their study was for employees between the ages of 30 and 49, who reported a lower level of work–family balance. The current study found the highest levels of work–family balance in employees 47 to 54, rather than the oldest employees. These findings suggest that additional work is needed in this area to better understand the relationship between age and work–family balance.

The current study looks specifically at work–family balance, one variable of the work–family interaction. Future research might look at the impact of alternative work schedules on levels of work–family conflict and work–family enrichment. Both of these variables can be viewed from the work-to-family perspective and also from the family-to-work perspective, both of which would provide greater understanding of the work–family interaction. It might be that alternative work schedules provide the means to decrease the negative impacts from one direction (e.g., work to family), with little or no impact on the other direction (e.g., family to work).

Managerial Implications

These findings are important for managers for three reasons. First, they suggest that although variability exists by demographic variables, there is great similarity between groups in their response to changes in work schedules. Second, employee voice opportunities affect the employee’s perceptions of the policy change. And finally, there is no “one right” schedule for all employment situations.

In the past, family-friendly benefits were often associated with increased numbers of women in the workplace and were typically considered a recruitment tool specifically to increase the number of women in the workplace. However, the current findings suggest that both male and female employees found attractive benefits from work schedule changes. Similar to previous research (Ko et al., 2013), the current findings suggest that men and women benefit equally from compressed work schedules and report high levels of satisfaction with their alternative schedule. Accordingly, family-friendly benefits should be equally available to both men and women, so that all employees can experience the potential positive impacts.

As organizations continue to concentrate on activities that will help their employees successfully balance their work and family activities, the conventional wisdom is that younger employees value family-friendly benefits, such as a compressed work schedule, more highly than their older counterparts. However, the findings of the current research suggest that this “wisdom” may underestimate the value older employees place on family-friendly policies. Although previous research (R. E. Allen & Hawes, 1979) has pointed to issues such as fatigue from the longer workdays, which many have assumed will affect older workers more significantly, the current study found very little difference between age groups in reported impact of the 4/10 schedule and attitudes about the schedule. These findings might relate to the results of previous research (Ng & Feldman, 2012) that found age was not significantly related to organizational change or health problems, suggesting that older employees are just as comfortable with organizational change and health issues are not a significant factor of differentiation by age.

Second, providing employees with an opportunity to voice their support (or opposition) to a policy can not only have a strong influence on how they see the impact of the policy, alternative schedules in this case, but also can affect their work–family balance. Employers need to be strategic and inclusive in the engagement of employees on important issues such as work schedules. This is especially critical given the increased concern and attention to work–family balance, and the potential impact it has on important organizational factors, such as organizational commitment and turnover intent (O’Neill et al., 2009). However, previous research suggests that some employees are reticent to participate in alternative schedules for fear that they may not be perceived as committed or critical to daily organizational operations, and may in turn receive fewer career opportunities (Saltzstein et al., 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999; Veiga, Baldridge, & Eddleston, 2004). Although the current research focuses specifically on a mandatory participation program, organizations can avoid potential negative outcomes by not only allowing employees to take advantage of “family-friendly” programs but also encouraging them to participate in such programs. In addition, managers should be trained on the benefits of these types of programs for the employees as well as for the organization.

Finally, it is clear that there is not one universal schedule that will meet all employees’ needs. Going back to the great tradition of scientific management, managers often want to find the one best way to do things. In the case of work schedules, there is not necessarily one schedule that is always better. Managers must consider a number of issues when deciding on the work schedule. In the public sector, some issues to consider are citizen access to services and to policy-making processes, employee satisfaction, and employee preference for work–family balance. By carefully considering these issues, managers may be much more successful in selecting a work schedule for their organization, or part of their organization, that not only enhances the ability to deliver public services but also enhances the work–family balance of employees.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lori L. Wadsworth is an Associate Professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University. Her research focuses on work-family interaction, particularly how organizations can help employees balance these important domains. Within this general theme, her research includes the use of flexible benefits, alternative work schedules, and social support.

Rex L. Facer is an Associate Professor at Brigham Young where he teaches in the Master of Public Administration program. His published research has recently focused on public sector pay and alternative work schedules.

References

Allen

R. E.

Hawes

D. K.

(1979). Attitudes toward work, leisure and the four day workweek. Human Resource Management, 18(1), 5-10.

Allen

T. D.

Johnson

R. C.

Kiburz

K. M.

Shockley

K. M.

(2013). Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66, 345-376.

Amendola

K. L.

Weisburd

Hamilton

E. E.

Jones

Slipka

(2011). An experimental study of compressed work schedules in policing: Advantages and disadvantages of various shift lengths. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 407-442.

Armour

(2008, June 1). Soaring fuel prices drive some to try four-day workweeks. USA Today. Available from http://www.usatoday.com/

Aryee

Tan

H. H.

Srinivas

E. S.

(2005). Rhythms of life: Antecedents and outcomes of work-family balance in employed parents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 132-146.

Baltes

B. B.

Briggs

T. E.

Huff

J. W.

Wright

J. A.

Neuman

G. A.

(1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496-513.

Baral

Bhargava

(2011). Examining the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between work-family antecedents and work-family enrichment. Gender in Management, 26, 122-147.

Barford

(2013, February 1). Should people be off on Fridays? BBC News Magazine. Available from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21242782

Baxter

Chesters

(2011). Perceptions of work-family balance: How effective are family-friendly policies? Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 14, 139-151.

10.

Beham

Drobnic

(2010). Satisfaction with work-family balance among German office workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 669-689.

11.

Beutell

N. J.

Wittig-Berman

(2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 507-523.

12.

Bond

(2004). Organisational culture and work-life conflict in the UK. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(12), 1-24.

13.

Byron

(2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.

14.

Carlson

D. S.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Kacmar

K. M.

(2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work-family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 330-355.

15.

Carlson

D. S.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Zivnuska

(2009). Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 1459-1486.

16.

Crampton

S. M.

Wagner

J. A.

(1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

17.

Cunningham

Baines

Charlesworth

(2014). Government funding, employment conditions, and work organization in non-profit community services: A comparative study. Public Administration, 92, 582-598.

18.

Dunham

R. B.

Pierce

J. L.

Castaneda

M. B.

(1987). Alternative work schedules: Two field quasi-experiments. Personnel Psychology, 40, 215-242.

19.

Ezra

Deckman

(1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56, 174-179.

20.

Facer

R. L.

Wadsworth

L. L.

(2008). Alternative work schedules and work-family balance: A research note. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 166-177.

21.

Facer

R. L.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Arbon

C. A.

(2009). Cities leading the way: The use of alternative work schedules. In 2009 municipal yearbook (pp. 28-33). Washington, DC: International City-County Management Association Press.

22.

Fagan

Press

(2008). Father influences on employed mothers’ work-family balance. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1136-1160.

23.

Fiksenbaum

L. M.

(2014). Supportive work-family environments: Implications for work-family conflict and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 653-672.

24.

Four-day workweek gaining ground in U.S. (The Bryant Park Project). (2008, July 3). National Public Radio. Available from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92177981

25.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

26.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Collins

K. M.

Shaw

J. D.

(2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510-531.

27.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and families are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.

28.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Carlson

D. S.

(2007). Conceptualizing work-family balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 455-471.

29.

Higgins

Duxbury

Johnson

K. L.

(2000). Part-time work for women: Does it really help balance work and family? Human Resource Management, 39, 17-32.

30.

Hill

E. J.

Hawkins

A. J.

Ferris

Weitzman

(2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50, 49-54.

31.

Hughes

D. L.

Galinsky

(1994). Gender, job and family conditions, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 251-270.

32.

Ivancevich

J. M.

(1974). Effects of the shorter workweek on selected satisfaction and performance measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 717-721.

33.

Julien

Somerville

Culp

(2011). Going beyond the work arrangement: The crucial role of supervisor support. Public Administration Quarterly, 35, 167-204.

34.

Kim

Wiggins

M. E.

(2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in the public sector? Public Administration Review, 71, 728-739.

35.

Hur

S. U.

Smith-Walter

(2013). Family-friendly work practices and job satisfaction and organizational performance: Moderating effects of managerial support and performance-oriented management. Public Personnel Management, 42, 545-565.

36.

Latack

J. C.

Foster

L. W.

(1985). Implementation of compressed work schedules: Participation and job redesign as critical factors for employee acceptance. Personnel Psychology, 38, 75-92.

37.

Legislative Auditor General. (2010). A performance audit of the working 4 Utah initiative: Report to Utah legislature number 2010-10. Salt Lake City, Utah: State of Utah.

38.

Loudoun

(2008). Balancing shiftwork and life outside work: Do 12-h shifts make a difference? Applied Ergonomics, 39, 572-579.

39.

Lyness

K. S.

Kropf

M. B.

(2005). The relationships of national gender equality and organizational support with work-family balance: A study of European managers. Human Relations, 58, 33-60.

40.

Mackay

Rhodes

R. A. W.

(2013). Gender, greedy institutions, and the departmental court. Public Administration, 91, 582-598.

41.

Mahoney

T. A.

Newman

J. M.

Frost

P. J.

(1975). Workers’ perceptions of the four-day week. California Management Review, 18(1), 31-35.

42.

McNall

L. A.

Masuda

A. D.

Nicklin

J. M.

(2010). Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144, 61-81.

43.

McNamara

T. K.

Pitt-Catsouphes

Matz-Costa

Brown

Valcour

(2013). Across the continuum of satisfaction with work-family balance: Work hours, flexibility-fit, and work-family culture. Social Science Research, 42, 283-298.

44.

Minnotte

K. L.

(2012). Family structure, gender, and the work-family interface: Work-to-family conflict among single and partnered parents. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33, 95-107.

45.

Mulvaney

M. A.

(2014). Leave programs/time off and work-stress family employee benefits programs, organizational commitment, and self-efficacy among municipal employees. Public Personnel Management, 43, 459-489.

46.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta-analytical data. Personnel Psychology, 65, 821-858.

47.

O’Neill

J. W.

Harrison

M. M.

Cleveland

Almeida

Stawski

Crouter

A. C.

(2009). Work-family climate, organizational commitment, and turnover: Multilevel contagion effects of leaders. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 18-29.

48.

Ono

Watanabe

Kaneko

Matsumoto

Miyao

(1991). Working hours and fatigue of Japanese flight attendants. Journal of Human Ergology, 20, 155-164.

49.

Parkes

L. P.

Langford

P. H.

(2008). Work-life balance or work-life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organisations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14, 267-284.

50.

Pierce

J. L.

Newstrom

J. W.

Dunham

R. B.

Barber

A. E.

(1989). Alternative work schedules. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

51.

Pisarski

Lawrence

S. A.

Bohle

Brook

(2008). Organizational influences on the work life conflict and health of shiftworkers. Applied Ergonomics, 39, 580-588.

52.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

53.

Puntenney

(1994). Adopting an alternative work schedule in a manufacturing environment. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 35, 68-72.

54.

Reid

Dawson

(2001). Comparing performance on a simulated 12 hour shift rotation in young and older subjects. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 58, 58-62.

55.

Rocereto

J. F.

Gupta

S. F.

Mosca

J. B.

(2011). The role of flextime appeal on family and work outcomes among active and non-active flextime users: A between groups and within groups analysis. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9, 57-65.

56.

Ronen

Primps

S. B.

(1981). The compressed work week as organizational change: Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 6, 61-74.

57.

Saltzstein

A. L.

Ting

Saltzstein

G. H.

(2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61, 452-467.

58.

Sarkisian

Gerstel

(2004). Explaining the gender gap in help to parents: The importance of employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 431-451.

59.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2013). 2015 employee benefits: An overview of employee benefits offerings in the U.S. Alexandria, VA: Author.

60.

Somech

Drach-Zahavy

(2007). Strategies for coping with work-family conflict: The distinctive relationships of gender role ideology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 1-19.

61.

Sparks

Cooper

Fried

Shirom

(1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391-408.

62.

Tausig

Fenwick

(2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 101-119.

63.

Thompson

C. A.

Beauvais

L. L.

Lyness

K. S.

(1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

64.

Tombari

Spinks

(1999). The work/family interface at Royal Bank Financial Group: Successful solutions-A retrospective look at lessons learned. Women in Management Review, 14, 186-193.

65.

Valcour

(2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1512-1523.

66.

Vandenabeele

(2008). Government calling: Public service motivation as an element in selecting government as an employer of choice. Public Administration, 86, 1089-1105.

67.

Veiga

J. F.

Baldridge

D. C.

Eddleston

K. A.

(2004). Toward understanding employee reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 337-351.

68.

Vistnes

J. P.

(1997). Gender differences in days lost from work due to illness. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50, 304-323.

69.

Wadsworth

L. L.

Facer

R. L.

Arbon

C. A.

(2010). Alternative work schedules in local government: Cui bono? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 322-340.

70.

Wang

Bianchi

S. M.

(2009). ATUS fathers’ involvement in childcare. Social Indicators Research, 93, 141-145.

71.

Wise

Bond

(2003). Work-life policy: Does it do exactly what it says on the tin? Women in Management Review, 18, 20-31.

72.

Zhang

Yip

P. S. F.

Chi

Chan

Cheung

Y. T.

Zhang

(2012). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the work-family balance scale in an urban Chinese sample. Social Indicators Research, 105, 409-418.