The Relationship of Workplace Flexibility to Employee Engagement among Information Technology Employees in India

Abstract

Historically, organizations have been provisioning flexible work arrangement (FWA) options in the workplace to help employees achieve a balance between work obligations and private obligations. We explore the utilization of FWA offerings in the Indian information technology (IT) industry and its relation to employee engagement (EE). Employees working in IT organizations in Bengaluru, India, were approached and data were obtained from 504 participants. The study found that availability of FWA options coincided with their utilization. Disconcertingly, only 7 per cent of the employees were “highly engaged”, 51 per cent were neither engaged nor disengaged and 41 per cent of the employees were disengaged with their current organization. FWAs were positively related to EE. We find congruence that FWA options lead to better EE warranting further exploration that can guide FWA policies.

Keywords

Flexible work arrangements employee engagement information technology India

Introduction

Across the world, the lines that separate the workplace from home and family are thinning and what was earlier considered disconnected domains of work and home is no longer true (Drago, Scutella, & Varner, 2002). These domains were divided sharply along gender lines and roles in yesteryears but recent decades have witnessed the increasing participation of women in the paid workforce with simultaneous changes in family structures and living arrangements as well as an increase in dual-earner families where women still bear caregiving roles (Albion, 2004; Ugargol et al., 2016). This is visible even in India, a country strongly influenced by culture and boundaries of gendered expectations (Donnelly, 2015; Qian & Sayer, 2016). Women often have to provide care to older adults at home in addition to childcare responsibilities (Ugargol and Bailey, 2018).

While researchers have defined work–life balance as managing different domains of one’s life in such a manner that they complement each other and not compete with each other (Brough et al., 2014), organizations and families are forever attempting ways and means to address this gap. Drago et al. (2002) have identified the “care gap” in the workforce as one of the main contributions of the demographic transition. When organizations fail to support employees in their attempts to bridge their work and family life, it leads to severe strain and concerns for both (Dollard & Bakker, 2010) and organizations have realised this over the years (Kossek, 2005).

Such is the magnitude of organizational costs that can ensue from ignoring the personal commitments and responsibilities of employees that organizations strive to ensure and enhance employee autonomy and integration of work and non-work lives (Carless & Wintle, 2007; De Cieri, Holmes, Abbott, & Pettit, 2005). The world of work has tried adapting to the needs of their employees to accommodate for their home and family world. This has not been a smooth transition and there have been multitudes of tensions and difficulties in managing diverse workforces and catering to their needs (Catteeuw, Flynn, & Vonderhorst, 2007) and the Indian software industry also showcases similar concerns (Donnelly, 2015).

Workplace Flexibility and Employee Engagement

With rapid changes in the diversity of the workforce, global nature of work and changes in the way work is delegated and accomplished, there is an increasing need for a proactive response from the organization to work towards ensuring employee engagement (EE) which can be a pivotal tool to maintain and retain committed and productive employees (Parkes & Langford, 2008). Lockwood (2007) states that “employee engagement strategies enable people to be the best they can at work, recognizing that this can only happen if they feel respected, involved, heard, well led, and valued by those they work for and with”. Organizations are currently increasingly presented with challenges in managing the diverse workforce by working on supportive employee policies and programmes that increase EE (Myers & Dreachslin, 2007)

Several researchers have found that EE has a strong influence on employee commitment, loyalty and importantly retention (Jamrog, 2004; Saks, 2006). Kahn (1990, 1992) defines EE as being psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role while Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) define it as “an employee’s involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with work” adding that EE can be considered a part of employee retention. The attention on EE is now renewed because it tends to bring about positive consequences for organizations and can be the driving force behind retention and decreased turnover intentions (Harter et al., 2002).

There is also an understated value that EE is related to positive business results (Council, 2004). Saks (2006) in his pioneering article on antecedents and consequences of EE opines that traditional household roles have undergone a “role reversal” of sorts especially among working couples with children wherein the parents take turns to manage the household in general and children in particular. These parents seek for work flexibility more than anything else. Saks also postulates that apart from flexibility, employees long for organizational support (Ugargol, 2013) through training programmes and incentives that may contribute in increasing engagement. Parkes and Langford (2008) and Council (2004) found that organizations that wished to improve EE would focus on understanding what employees perceive as support from their organization and make attempts to fulfil that. The care gap or engagement gap that many researchers have noted is nothing but the difference between the expectations of employees in terms of support and what is actually provided to them from these organizations. These could range from supportive offerings such as flexible work arrangements (FWAs) or training and development offerings that can motivate employees to stay (Saks, 2006; Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, & Delbridge, 2013).

Flexible work options (FWOs) have also been referred to as FWAs and flexible work schedules in literature and we refer to them here as FWAs (Richman, Civian, Shannon, Jeffrey Hill, & Brennan, 2008). The essence of these terms with regard to organizations is necessarily the same and is used to denote the work flexibility dimensions in an organizational set-up. The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work-life policies, the use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to EE and expected retention have also been explored (Albion, 2004; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001). In this study, we have used the term FWA interchangeably with FWOs to underline that these offerings are nothing but options provided by employers to enable employees to balance their work and life and contribute better to the organization.

This study focuses on assessing utilization of seven of the FWOs that are commonly provisioned across organizations, namely, flexible working hours, flexi-shift arrangements, work from home/satellite offices/telecommuting, part-time employment, job sharing, extended leave and parenthood leave, and assessing their impact on EE. FWAs are generally defined as work options that permit flexibility in terms of “where” work is completed (often referred to as telecommuting or flexplace) and/or “when” work is completed (often referred to as flex-time or scheduling flexibility; Parkes & Langford, 2008; Rau & Hyland, 2002). FWAs have been based on “when”, “where”, “quantity” and “continuity of employment” of work.

Flexibility in the start and finish timing of work as in when work begins and ends, for example, flextime, shift work and so on.

Flexibility in the place of work as in where work is accomplished, for example, work from home/satellite office/telecommuting and so on.

Flexibility in the quantity of work as in quantum of workload, For example, job sharing, part-time work and so on.

Flexibility in continuity of employment as in granting career breaks or time off, for example, parenthood leaves (maternity and paternity) and extended leave (educational, sabbaticals, travel, family, disability, etc.). (Gramm & Schnell, 2001; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2009)

Historically, FWOs can be traced back to the pre-industrialization era in the USA where most workers were either peasants or self-employed, thus determining their own work schedules (Ronen, 1981). Post the industrialization period, a traditional full-time employer-set work schedule was 40 hours a week in which employees were required to work for 8 hours each day in a 5-day working week with fixed start and end times. On account of the layoffs that ensued during the Great Depression in the 1930s, W.K. Kellogg Company, global producers of cereals, was the first to modify the three fixed 8-hour shift schedules to four 6-hour shift schedules. This had a positive impact on employee morale and reduced the cost of production as well as brought down the number of accidents. It was found that women leveraged the new 6-hour shift work policy to a great extent; similarly, the different abled and men nearing retirement also utilized this benefit (Avery & Zabel, 2001; Hunnicutt, 1996) to a large degree. Though Kellog’s reverted back to the earlier 8-hour schedule during the economic slowdown of the 1980s, it had by then introduced the flexible work schedule concept to the world (Kossek & Michel, 2011).

The influence of work–life balance achieved through FWOs or FWAs has also been investigated. Christensen and Staines (1990) found that though the introduction of employee work–life balance programmes caused neither drastic changes nor improvements in employee work behaviour and satisfaction at work, nevertheless, organizations continued with the benefits to cater to employees’ needs and perceptions. Scandura and Lankau (1997) have articulated that by leveraging the social exchange ideology, organizations can expect a good measure of commitment, loyalty and job performance from their employees. Our study invokes the social exchange theory to help understand how organizations and employees relate to each other and what reciprocal motives drive their continued interaction (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002).

The social exchange theory provides a sound theoretical foundation to explain why employees can become more or less engaged in their work and organization. As Saks (2006) defines it, engagement is the degree to which an individual is attenuate and absorbed in the performance of their roles. EE has become a new construct that helps explain a range of concepts such as job performance and organizational commitment to job resources and job burnout (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010). Meyer and Allen (1991) had identified the impediments to utilizing the available FWOs in the absence of encouragement from supervisors. It was found that employees utilizing FWOs against the will of their reporting supervisors came to lose on their job growth prospects and questions were asked about their level of work commitment too.

Albion (2004) researched that FWOs allow for leave entitlements or variation of hours and since they do not involve any such financial penalty they are hence welcome by the employees. These include options such as flex-time, parental leave, carer’s leave, telecommuting and so on. Despite this offering, employees can be reluctant to use these options if they perceive that such use will be viewed unfavourably by their supervisors or if they feel there is a lack of organizational support for their use in the long run.

Engagement as a process integrates the active use of emotional, cognitive and behavioural energies at the workplace while working in tandem with the organization’s objectives and strategies (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). It is here that FWOs become a means of ensuring that talent is attracted, engaged, developed and retained to gain competitive advantage (Burke & Cooper, 2004). Organizations have been employing flexibility in the workplace to maintain employee motivation and performance (Herrbach, Mignonac, Vandenberghe, & Negrini, 2009). In today’s competitive business environment, organizational leaders are expected to devise and execute strategic, financial and operational changes proactively to ensure business success and continuity. The triad of people-process-profits is the key determinant of an organization’s success and effectiveness. In order to achieve this, an organization will have to align the people component to its overall strategy by engaging with people at the systemic, procedural and skill levels. By engaging with people and ensuring that their work–life balance is fulfilled, organizations can achieve better financial performance, higher customer satisfaction and increase retention (Donnelly, 2015; Saks, 2006).

Work engagement has been defined as a positive work-related state of mind characterized by vigour and dedication to the job (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Engagement is of importance in relation to flexibility in the workplace since the aim of FWOs/FWAs is to achieve a balance between work obligations and private obligations through which employees can stay and become engaged in their work (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costs, 2008). Several researchers have stated that there exists a positive relationship between EE and expected outcomes for both employees and the organization. At the employee level, EE has been shown to reduce burnout and stress syndrome (BOSS) leading to greater work-life balance (Stairs, 2005). Though traditional definitions of workplace flexibility have been conceptualized as those human resource practices that help employees balance their work and non-work responsibilities, particularly their childcare duties (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013; Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012), however, with changing times and needs, the contemporary definition states that workplace flexibility is the degree to which employees are able to make choices and arrange core aspects of their working lives (Hill et al., 2001).

Therefore, broader definitions of workplace flexibility are now in vogue which state that “the opportunity of workers to make choices influencing when, where, and for how long they engage in work-related tasks” (Hill et al., 2001). Though flexibility in human resource management was primarily designed for middle-aged workers with children (Allen et al., 2013), it becomes essential to differentiate between the effects of age so that the influence on EE can be ascertained. Lyons and Kuron (2014) found that work–life balance has become important not only for younger generations but also among older workers. This article contributes to research on EE and the role of flexibility in the workplace by exploring an active state of employees, namely, EE, rather than passive work states such as commitment or organizational support (Bal & Lange, 2015).

When employees have the opportunity to use flexibility, they gain more resources to achieve work-related goals and have more control over their work (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014). Hence, we carry forward the findings of Bal and Lange (2015) who found that the availability of FWAs will provide the necessary resources to counteract potential stress occurring from balancing work obligations and private obligations, and thus, these offerings can provide employees with more energy to invest in the job. We therefore hypothesise that the availability of FWAs positively relate to EE.

The Indian Context

The rise of the Indian software services and IT-enabled services industries can be seen as a direct outcome of developments in the global economy. Many companies located in the advanced industrial economies began outsourcing and offshoring an increasingly large proportion and range of their work to places such as India where skilled human resources were more easily available at a lower cost (Upadhya & Vasavi, 2006). The process of internationalization of the production, distribution and management of goods and services accelerated rapidly in the 1990s (Castells 1996, p. 116), coinciding with the period when India’s IT industry took off. India in general and Bangalore in particular emerged as one of the most sought-after destinations globally in relation to software services and software product development sector (GoI-MEITY, 2016; Upadhya & Vasavi, 2006).

In the Indian context, direct employment from the IT-BPM industry reached 3.7 million in 2016 (GoI-MEITY, 2016) and the size of the entire IT workforce in Bangalore is estimated to be close to 2 million. Out of the top 600 IT firms in India, 21.8 per cent are located in Mumbai, 20.3 per cent in Bangalore, 18.5 per cent in the National Capital Region and 10.7 per cent in Hyderabad (Basant & Rani 2004, p. 5323; NASSCOM, 2006; Upadhya & Vasavi, 2006). Gendered contexts such as in India provide the perfect backdrop for exploring FWAs (Ugargol and Bailey, 2018) and whether organizations and employees perceive them as precursors to better engagement (Desai, Majumdar, Chakraborty, & Ghosh, 2011; Mukherjee, 2008).

A probable reason for the industry’s fast growth is the readily available supply of expertise and trained manpower in the city (Parthasarathy, 2005). However, given the difficulty faced by companies in this space in recruiting, maintaining and retaining the workforce, it is imperative to look at whether an organization can recruit, maintain and retain the workforce by developing and/or continuously improving upon the organizational support, supervisory support dimensions, in tandem with FWOs, training and development. This can contribute in creating a positive perception in the minds of the employees with respect to the organization thereby leading to an “intention to stay”.

In India, though women represent 42 per cent of undergraduate students in computer science and computer engineering as of 2011, which is more than double the proportion in the USA (Government of India [GoI], 2012–13), their representation in the ICT workforce is highly stratified, with the largest numbers of female workers concentrated in entry-level positions and lower-tier industries such as business process and IT outsourcing services (NASSCOM and Mercer, 2009). This gap in gender composition in the IT industry is a cause for concern. The twenty-first century has presented opportunities to women to come out of their traditional roles and take up various jobs; however, this has led to researchers identifying what is called a “care gap” in terms of managing the priorities of a family and children (Drago et al., 2002; Ugargol, 2015). FWAs or schedules are alternative work options that enable work to be conducted outside the temporal or spatial boundaries of a “standard work day thus ameliorating some of the burdensome aspects of work-home balancing” (Rau, 2003).

What began in the USA in the form of flexibility in work hours and varied work schedules has become a global phenomenon now (Jacobs, Gerson, & Gornick, 2004) and is now a reality for a nation such as India which is grappling with the demographic transition on one hand and the increasing employment opportunities in the IT space on the other (Connell & Stanton, 2014; Donnelly, 2015). Hence, with this background, the purpose of this study was to test the effect of FWAs on EE such that organizations in an Indian IT context can benefit from the exploration and utilise the findings to understanding their employees better.

Method

Participants

Between March and April 2017, 504 employees working in different IT organizations in Bengaluru, India, participated in the study on FWAs. Data were obtained from 504 participants (443 males, 87.90%; 61 females, 12.1%). Most participants were aged between 26 and 30 years (233 participants). Most participants had worked in their current organization for less than 2 years (219 participants) while most of them had a total work experience of 2–5 years (259 participants). A majority of the employees had a work experience of 2–5 years and most of the employees had worked for less than 2 years in the current organization. Of the total, 45.20 per cent of the respondents were married and 18.70 per cent of them had children (one or more). More details about the respondent profile are available in Table 1.

Table 1.

Respondent Profile

	Categories	n	Percentage
Qualification	Graduates	76	15.10
	Post-graduates	179	35.50
	>Post-graduation	9	1.80
	Professional degree	240	47.6
Gender	Male	443	87.90
Gender	Female	61	12.10
Marital Status	Married	228	45.20
	Never married	252	50.00
	Others (separated/divorced)	24	4.80
Age	<25 years	142	28.20
	26–30 years	233	46.20
	31–40 years	122	24.20
	41–50 years	7	1.40
Tenure in current IT organization	0–1.99 years	219	43.50
	2–3.99 years	154	30.60
	4–5.99 years	78	15.50
	6 years or more	53	10.50
Total Work Experience	2–5 years	259	51.4
	6–10 years	216	42.90
	11–15 years	29	5.80
Current Designation	Software engineer Senior software engineer	268	53.20
	Consultant	127	25.20
	Software support	14	2.80
	Marketing & corporate	22	4.40
	Communications	17	3.40
	Support staff	56	11.1

Source: Derived from statistical analysis of primary data collected by the author.

Procedure

The data for this study were collected by the doctoral researcher through a non-probability convenience sampling method. A total of 551 employees working in IT organizations in Bengaluru city were approached in person and asked to participate in the study. Out of the 551 questionnaires served, 504 of them agreed to participate and returned the filled survey questionnaire with a response rate of 87.65 per cent. The survey form included a brief description of the study and a consent form that informed participants about the purpose of the study and obtained written consent from them. Participants were asked to complete the survey as part of a study on employee work experience and attitudes towards FWAs. Participation was voluntary and participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential.

Measures

Flexible Work Arrangements

In order to measure the impact of flexibility in an organization, the FWO questionnaire (FWOQ; version 2) developed by Albion (2004) consisting of 13 items measuring “work–life balance” and “barriers” to FWA options was employed. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with respondents indicating their agreement or disagreement with each statement (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicated favourable attitudes towards the use of FWAs. Reliability was ascertained through the Cronbach alpha score. The score for this measure in the sample was 0.671.

Employee Engagement

Studies have operationalized EE in a variety of ways (see Ellis & Sorensen, 2007; Gibbons, 2006, Saks, 2006). EE in our study was assessed with a validated 12-item scale that measured EE—the Gallup Q12 or Gallup Workplace Audit (Standardized) Questionnaire developed by The Gallup Organization (1999) consisting of 12 items measuring engagement levels. This scale categorized employees into (a) “engaged employees” (employees who work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward); (b) “not engaged” employees (not engaged employees are essentially “checked out”. They are sleepwalking through their workday. They are putting in time but not enough energy or passion into their work); and (c) “actively disengaged” employees (employees who aren’t just unhappy at work; they’re busy acting out their unhappiness. Every day, these workers undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish). The scores can thus range from a minimum of 12 to a maximum of 60. The higher scores represent the higher level of engagement of the employees. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was a good 0.872.

Range Interpretation

Scores 4 and 5 (High includes 48–60): The employee is highly engaged.

Score 3 (Neutral includes 36–47): The employee is neither engaged nor disengaged.

Score 1 and 2 (Low 12–35): The employee is disengaged.

Descriptive statistics for demographic variables are presented in Table 1.

Results

We found that only 7.14 per cent of the 504 employees were highly engaged with their organizations. This is similar to what Gallup (2013) found in the Indian IT sector where engaged employees were found to be 9 per cent of the IT workforce (O’Boyle & Harter, 2013). A majority of the respondents (51.38%) were neither engaged not disengaged, indicating their neutrality, and disconcertingly, 41.47 per cent of the employees were disengaged with their current organization (Table 2).

Table 2.

Employee Engagement Range, Distribution and Interpretation

Range	N	Percentage	Interpretation
Scores 4 and 5 (high 48–60)	36	7.14	The employee is highly engaged
Score 3 (neutral 36–47)	259	51.38	The employee is neither engaged nor disengaged
Score 1 and 2 (low 12–35)	209	41.47	The employee is disengaged

Source: Derived from statistical analysis of primary data collected by the author.

Table 3 provides information on the utilization of FWAs by the respondents (employees) in their current IT organization. All the respondents had availed of at least one type of FWAs. These FWAs included (a) flexible working hours, (b) flexi-shift arrangements, (c) work from home/satellite office/telecommuting, (d) part-time employment, (e) job sharing, (f) extended leave and (g) parenthood leave. A majority (81.74%) of respondents had availed of flexible working hours, 23.21 per cent had availed of flexi-shift arrangements, 39.29 per cent of them had availed work from home/satellite office/telecommuting options, 2.2 per cent had availed part-time employment, 2.77 per cent had availed job-sharing option, 15.48 per cent had availed extended leave option and 14.88 per cent had availed parenthood leave.

Table 3.

Flexible Working Options (FWO) Availed by Employees in the Present Organization

FWA Options	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Availed (n)	412	117	198	11	14	78	75
N	504	504	504	504	504	504	504
Percentage	81.74	23.21	39.28	2.18	2.77	15.47	14.88

Source: Derived from statistical analysis of primary data collected by the author.

Notes: 1 = flexible working hours, 2 = flexi-shift arrangements, 3 = work from home/satellite office/telecommuting, 4 = part-time employment, 5 = job sharing, 6 = extended leave and 7 = parenthood leave.

Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the main study variables FWAs and EE. The mean score for responses to the FWA measure was 41.08 with a standard deviation of 5.80. The mean score for responses to the EE measure was 45.99 with a standard deviation of 7.41.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations of Domains (FWA and EE)

		FWA	EE
N	Valid	504	504
N	Missing	0	0
Mean		41.08	45.99
Median		41.00	46.00
Std. deviation		5.80	7.41
Minimum		24.00	19.00
Maximum		58.00	60.00

Source: Derived from statistical analysis of primary data collected by the author.

We then explored the correlations of the study variables. First, it is worth noting that there is a significant weak positive correlation between FWAs and EE (r = 0.289, p < 0.001). This is presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Correlations Between Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and Employee Engagement (EE)

		FWA	EE
FWAs	Pearson correlation	1	0.289^a
	Sig. (2-tailed)		p < 0.0001
	N	504	504
Employee Engagement (EE)	Pearson correlation	0.289^b	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	504	504

Source: Derived from statistical analysis of primary data collected by the author.

Notes: ^a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

^b Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

This weak positive correlation of 0.289 which is significant between FWOs and EE indicates that as employees avail and engage in FWAs their EE also improves.

Discussion

Although there is a lot of discussion about the importance of FWAs on EE, there is very little empirical evidence to support these claims, especially from an Indian context. The purpose of this study has been to investigate the effect of FWAs on EE among a sample of IT employees in Bangalore, India. We have based our hypotheses on the social exchange theory as applied to EE (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Saks, 2006). The findings of our analysis indicate that in general employees who have the flexibility they need are more engaged than those who do not have the flexibility they need.

First, we found that the availability of FWA options coincided with their utilization by employees. Even among the FWA options that were availed, we find that a majority of the employees utilized flexible working hours, flexi-shift arrangements and work-from-home arrangements indicating that these FWAs helped them manage their work–life balance and were conducive to their requirements. The utilization of FWA options was positively related to EE. While on the one hand the availability of FWOs in the large part of the IT sector today indicates the willingness or responsiveness of the organizations to usher in the new HR offerings based upon industry dynamics, employee demand or through a process of consultation, on the other hand, Dikkers, Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg and Kooij (2010) had found that high support (organizational and supervisor) occurred in tandem with high hindrance (time expectations and negative career consequences) and hence concluded that it is possible that two informal dimensions can co-exist within the experience of employees.

Therefore, while the organization may recognise and encourage the use of FWOs to address employee problems, they can also convey a message that those employees who do not work extra hours or the usual hours are not as committed as the others and hence less likely to be promoted or considered for promotion (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Kirby & Krone, 2002). It is therefore possible that respondents who chose not to use FWAs to ease their work–life interface problems might have ascertained that this non-use of FWA increases the perceived security of their jobs.

We find a general congruence that FWA options enable employees to become more engaged and consequently motivate and provide the opportunity to perform at work (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). The study clearly shows that offering flexible options to employees has potential benefits and that supportive organizations that foster work flexibility and ensure work-life balance to their employees see a more engaged workforce Although this study accounted for younger employees and represents only their perceptions, organizations should be aware that FWA options are not only important for parents with young children but also for employees who are senior in the organization who can potentially avail flexible options to cope with their needs for leisure and diminished physical capabilities as they age (Bal & Lange, 2015).

This article makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature on EE and by situating workplace FWA options and engagement in the IT domain, an area which is becoming synonymous with multitudes in India today. These findings regarding utilization of FWA options can help direct further exploration and build evidence to policy-level action. Certain limitations are inherent and we acknowledge them. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data does not permit that we can allow for an independent measure of EE or make causal inferences. The findings of the study cannot be generalized to all organizations because the data was covered from employees of self-selected organizations and respondents were purposively selected to participate in the study. Third, we are unable to comment on the influence of FWAs at different stages in an employee’s career and the changes that one might realise as necessary as time moves on.

We recommend that further research focus on the social exchange ideology to ascertain the relationship between predictors and EE. Future research might explore how having the flexibility one needs interacts with other aspects of job satisfaction and autonomy and whether this varies across age, gender, work experience and designation of the employee. It would also be prudent to explore the outcome of retention versus intention to quit, the work–life balance and whether EE mediates the effect of FWOs on these outcomes.

References

Albion, M. J.

(2004). A measure of attitudes towards flexible work options. Australian Journal of Management, 29(2), 275–294.

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(2), 345–376.

Avery, C., & Zabel, D. (2001). The flexible workplace: A sourcebook of information and research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326.

Bal, P. M., & De Lange, A. H. (2015). From flexibility human resource management to employee engagement and perceived job performance across the lifespan: A multi-sample study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 126–154.

Basant, R., & Rani, U. (2004). Labour market deepening in India’s IT: An exploratory analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(50), 5317–5326.

Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human resource management review, 19(1), 9–22.

Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu, O. L., Sit, C., et al. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724–2744.

Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2006). Reinventing HRM: Challenges and new directions. London, UK: Routledge.

10.

Carless, S. A., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: The role of recruiter function, work–life balance policies and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 394–404.

11.

Castells, M.

(1996). The rise of the network society Oxford. England: Blackwell.

12.

Catteeuw, F., Flynn, E., & Vonderhorst, J. (2007). Employee engagement: Boosting productivity in turbulent times. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), P151.

13.

Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal of Family Issues, 11(4), 455–476.

14.

Connell, J., & Stanton, P. (2014). Skills and the role of HRM: Towards a research agenda for the Asia Pacific region. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(1), 4–22.

15.

Council, C. L.

(2004). Driving performance and retention through employee engagement. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board, 32.

16.

De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J., & Pettit, T. (2005). Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 90–103.

17.

Desai, M., Majumdar, B., Chakraborty, T., & Ghosh, K. (2011). The second shift: working women in India. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(6), 432–450.

18.

De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474.

19.

Dikkers, J. S., Jansen, P. G., de Lange, A. H., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Kooij, D. (2010). Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 15(1), 59–77.

20.

Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579–599.

21.

Donnelly, R.

(2015). Tensions and challenges in the management of diversity and inclusion in IT services multinationals in India. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 199–215.

22.

Drago, R., Scutella, R., & Varner, A. (2002). Work and family directions in the US and Australia: A policy research agenda. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.

23.

Ellis, C. M., & Sorensen, A. (2007). Assessing employee engagement: The key to improving productivity. Perspectives, 15(1), 1–9.

24.

Gibbons, J. M.

(2006). Employee engagement: A review of current research and its implications. Conference Board Inc., New York, USA.

25.

Government of India. (2012–2013). All India survey on higher education. New Delhi. Retrieved from http://india.gov.in/all-india-surveyhigher-education-ministry-humanresource-development

26.

GoI-MEITY (2016). Fact sheet of information technology and business process management industry. Retrieved from http://meity.gov.in/content/fact-sheet-it-bpm-industry

27.

Gramm, C. L., & Schnell, J. F. (2001). The use of flexible staffing arrangements in core production jobs. ILR Review, 54(2), 245–258.

28.

Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.

29.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

30.

Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Negrini, A. (2009). Perceived HRM practices, organizational commitment, and voluntary early retirement among late-career managers. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 895–915.

31.

Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50(1), 49–58.

32.

Hunnicutt, B. K.

(1996). Kellogg’s six-hour day (Vol. 71). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

33.

Jacobs, J. A., Gerson, K., & Gornick, J. C. (2004). American workers in cross-national perspective. In

J. A.

Jacobs &

Gerson (Eds.), The time divide. Work, Family and Gender Inequality (pp. 119–147). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34.

Jamrog, J.

(2004). The perfect storm: The future of retention and engagement. People and Strategy, 27(3), 26.

35.

Kahn, W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

36.

Kahn, W. A.

(1992). To be full there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), pp. 321–349.

37.

Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). The policy exists but you can’t really use it: communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50–77.

38.

Kossek, E. E.

(2005). Workplace policies and practices to support work and families: Gaps in implementation and linkages to individual and organizational effectiveness. In

S. M.

Bianchi ,

L. M.

Casper ,

K. E.

Christensen &

Berkowitz King (Eds.), Workforce/workplace mismatch work, family, health and well-being (pp. 97–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

39.

Kossek, E. E., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Flexible work schedules. In

Zedeck

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Building and developing the organization (pp. 535–572). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

40.

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1407–1428.

41.

Lockwood, N. R.

(2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s strategic role [White Paper]. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

42.

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.

43.

McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2009). Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61–81.

44.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

45.

Mukherjee, S.

(2008). Producing the knowledge professional: Gendered geographies of alienation in India’s new high-tech workplace. In

Upadhya &

A. R.

Vasavi (Eds.), An outpost of the global economy: Work and workers in India’s information technology industry (pp. 50–75). New Delhi: Routledge.

46.

Myers, V. L., & Dreachslin, J. L. (2007). Recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Healthcare Management, 52(5), 290–298.

47.

NASSCOM. (2006). Indian IT Industry—Factsheet. Retrieved 25 January 2018, from www.nasscom.org

48.

NASSCOM and Mercer. (2009). Gender exclusivity in India: Building empowered organizations. Retrieved from http://survey.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/upload/61812/NASSCOM_Mercer_Gender_Inclusivity_Report.pdf

49.

O’Boyle, E., & Harter, J. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for business leaders worldwide. Washington, DC: Gallup.

50.

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(3), 267–284.

51.

Parthasarathy, B.

(2005). The political economy of the computer software industry in Bangalore, India. In ICTs and Indian Economic Development (pp. 199–230). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

52.

Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 215–229.

53.

Qian, Y., & Sayer, L. C. (2016). Division of labor, gender ideology, and marital satisfaction in East Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 383–400.

54.

Rau, B.

(2003). Flexible work arrangements. In

E. E.

Kossek &

Pitt Catsouphes (Eds.), Work and family encyclopedia. Chestnut Hill, MA: Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

55.

Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. A. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 111–136.

56.

Richman, A. L., Civian, J. T., Shannon, L. L., Jeffrey Hill, E., & Brennan, R. T. (2008). The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention. Community, Work and Family, 11(2), 183–197.

57.

Ronen, S.

(1981). Flexible working hours: An innovation in the quality of work life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

58.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925–946.

59.

Saks, A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

60.

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377–391.

61.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.

62.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.

63.

Stairs, M.

(2005). Work happy: Developing employee engagement to deliver competitive advantage. Selection and Development Review, 21(5), 7.

64.

The Gallup Organization. (1992–1999). Gallup workplace audit (Copyright Registration Certificate TX-5 080 066). Washington, DC: U. S. Copyright Office.

65.

Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657–2699.

66.

Ugargol, A. P., & Bailey, A. (2018). Family caregiving for older adults: gendered roles and caregiver burden in emigrant households of Kerala, India. Asian Population Studies, 1–17.

67.

Ugargol, A. P., Hutter, I., James, K. S., & Bailey, A. (2016). Care needs and caregivers: Associations and effects of living arrangements on caregiving to older adults in India. Ageing international, 41(2), 193–213.

68.

Ugargol, J. D.,

(2013). Perceived Organizational Support and Its Influence on Employee Engagement. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2383850

69.

Ugargol, J. D.,

(2015). The Role of Work Flexibility on Employee Engagement: Reflections from the Knowledge Industry in India. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2669913

70.

Upadhya, C., & Vasavi, A. R. (2006). Work, culture and sociality in the Indian information technology (IT) industry: A sociological study. Final Report to the Indo-Dutch Program for Alternatives in Development, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.