A more equal deal? Employer-employee flexibility,gender and parents’ work-family tensions in Sweden

1 Introduction

Schedule flexibility has been widely promoted as a ‘family-friendly’ work arrangement that will alleviate work-family tensions and allow parents to share paid work and care more equally. Meanwhile, the relations between flexibility and work-family conflict seem unclear, while gender patterns remain salient. In particular, it is not obvious that schedule flexibility could replace female part-time work as a strategy for work-family reconciliation. To better understand the links between flexibility, gender and work-family tensions, researchers should recognize that flexibility is also an organizational feature and that employees’ schedule control may be conditioned by high demands for availability and commitment. Below, we explore these propositions, using a study of Swedish parents.

In Europe, flexible scheduling defined as schedule control, that is, employees’ possibilities to influence the timing of their work [cf. 1], has become more prevalent and is particularly widespread in Sweden and other Nordic countries [2]. Clearly, however, trends towards flexible working are not driven only by demands from overburdened parents, but more fundamentally by new ways of organizing work. The concept of labour market flexibilization can be defined as a de-regulation and de-standardisation of work, resulting from mega-trends such as globalisation, digitalization, service sector growth and demographic developments [3, cf. 4]. Here, just-in-time productions systems based on worldwide supply chains and an increase in operating hours of service establishments has prompted employers to adapt work hours to deal with fluctuations in demand. These flexibilization trends are broadly discussed as a ’win-win’ concept for both parties, yet it is not obvious that employers’ needs to engage labour more flexibly will facilitate employees’ work-family reconciliation [3]. To explore these issues, a gender perspective is crucial. The de-standardisation of working time is often regarded as an opportunity to increase female labour force participation, but in practice this has been achieved largely through part-time employment [3]. An interesting question, then, is whether more schedule control could provide an alternative to part-time and pave the way for a more gender-equal sharing of paid and unpaid work.

Since time is contested terrain in employer-employee relations, the balancing of interests is crucial for understanding working time flexibilization. In studies developing typologies of flexible working time arrangements a main distinction is made between employer-oriented flexibility serving the needs of the organization and employee-oriented flexibility catering to the needs of workers [for an overview, see 5]. Some studies discuss the employee- versus employer-orientation at opposite ends of a linear continuum, whereas others regard them as separate dimensions [5], implying that employer- and employee-oriented forms of flexibility can be combined. Presumably, however, combinations can vary between countries and groups of workers. Connecting working time flexibilization with national labour market institutions, Berg, Bosch and Charest [6] identify three ideal types. In the mandated configuration, exemplified by France in the study, the strong role of the state has ensured that working time practices remain standardised across the economy, with little flexibility for firms and employees. In the unilateral configuration, typified by the US, flexibilization has been driven by employers and resulted in fragmented and volatile working time patterns, with individual options only for groups with high bargaining power. Finally, Sweden is a prime example of the negotiated configuration, where collective agreements between social partners have supported the creation of a new, more flexible working time, with considerable room for firm-level negotiations. These agreements are described as “compromises that balance employee and employer interest” [6:832]; however, the content of such compromises will vary across industries, workplaces and jobs, with different implications for different groups.

Several scholars have argued that schedule control may be introduced as a company strategy to increase employees’ motivation, loyalty and performance, rather than to cater to their family concerns [1, 7–9]. The argument is supported by studies showing positive correlations between employees’ schedule control and their employers’ demands for working time flexibility in terms of unpaid overtime, work hours varying with fluctuations in work load, frequent business travels and requirements for constant availability [7, 11]. Notably, women report less schedule control than men [11, 12] but also lower demands for employer-oriented flexibility [11, 14]. Further, studies indicate that both types of flexibility are more frequent in high-skilled jobs, but also the gender composition of occupations and workplaces appears to matter [1, 11]. In sum, employee- and employer-oriented flexibility may be closely intertwined, yet we do not know how different arrangements relate to work-family tensions and strategies in dual-earner families.

Individuals’ possibilities to balance demands from work and family can be assessed with the construct of work-family conflict, which has a dominating standing in work-family research. Work-family conflict, or more precisely work-to-family conflict, 1 captures subjective experiences of work spilling over on family life, creating a tangible stress with negative consequences, such as depression and anxiety, burnout, absenteeism, less job and life satisfaction and worse parent-child relationships [15]. Typically, the number of work hours – a main indicator of demands from the work sphere – is a strong predictor of conflict, while the importance of flexibility – measured as employee influence over the timing of work – is less clear. In meta-analyses [16–19], flexible schedules tend to be negatively correlated with work-family conflict; however, as Allen et al. [17] point out, effects are small and in some studies, flexibility is associated with higher work-family conflict [20].

In our view, these incongruent findings and limited ‘net’ effects call for a more comprehensive view of flexibility. First, it should be recognized that flexibility is also an organizational demand. To date, however, employer requirements for schedule flexibility have been little explored in research on work-family conflict. Second, the strain dimension has not been sufficiently considered. 2 Arguably, schedule control may not prevent strain-based negative spillover from intensive work in downsized organizations, and empirical studies suggest that schedule control is connected to longer work hours and higher work intensity, at least for men [7, 21]. Meanwhile, research on work-family conflict has retained a strong focus on time and when measures of strain are included they tend to capture employer demands [for overviews, see 16, 18] but not employee control. This conception of strain deviates from that found in research on work and stress, where the job demand-control model [22, 23] argues that the consequences of job demands are crucially affected by employees’ level of control, defined as their possibilities to influence the pace of work and decide when and how to perform different tasks [for overviews of empirical findings, see 24]. To get a fuller picture, our analysis comprises employer demands and employee control in both time and strain dimensions. (Please note that we use the terms psychological demands and task control for the job demands/job control measures. This is to distinguish them from the time dimension, which is not considered in this model.)

To understand gender patterns in reported work-family conflict, we must also consider the strategies employed to keep such conflicts down. Part-time work has been as a main tool for women and mothers 3 to combine paid work and care, yet this strategy is far from unproblematic. Generally, part-time work entails worse labour market outcomes and larger burdens in terms of housework and childcare [25, 26], and at a time when women invest heavily in higher education, such a strategy may be less viable and desirable. Potentially, more flexible scheduling could provide a new alternative that would allow women and men to engage in full-time work while taking turns doing housework and childcare [27]. To study the importance of flexibility from a gender perspective, we go beyond a strictly variable-oriented approach to also consider contexts. Clearly, both the work-family tensions and the strategies available to offset them will differ for women (and men) in countries with different norms and institutions and, as explained below, Sweden provides a good case for our study. However, also jobs will be regarded as contexts characterized by different working conditions, as we identify clusters of jobs differing in employer- and employee-oriented flexibility. Apart from the theoretical deliberations described above, this is a methodologically relevant approach which has been little used in the study of flexibility and work-family tensions. As argued by Härenstam [28], contextual and comprehensive analyses, such as cluster analyses, “are particularly suitable for comparisons of women’s and men’s risk factors for health in working life as well as for guidance in preventive action” as they “help identify the gender-structured situations for women and men and facilitate the discovery of differences among all women and all men.” Finally, the family provides an important context where gendered roles and responsibilities are negotiated, within the framework of societal norms and institutions [29] as well as demands and opportunities stemming from mothers’ and fathers’ jobs.

The Swedish context provides a strong test for assessing the gender-equalizing potential of flexibility. Sweden boasts high rates of female and maternal labour force participation [30] and these achievements are commonly attributed to the extensive family policies. The policy package comprises generous parental leaves and a right to low-cost public day-care, but also specific tools intended to alleviate the daily frictions between work and family, specifically statutory rights for parents to reduce work hours and to take paid leave to care for sick children (hereafter: CSC-leave). 4 Despite these provisions, however, work-family conflict is comparatively high from a European perspective [31, but see 32], particularly for mothers. Even in Sweden, women take more responsibility for housework and care than men and fare worse in terms of wages and careers, and parenthood tends to widen these gaps [14, 34]. These tensions suggest that traditional family policies may not be sufficient in the transition from a 1.5-earner society to a gender equal dual-earner society. Arguably, flexibility could provide a new tool and in Sweden, schedule control is widely available to employees [2, cf. 6] 5 As discussed, however, schedule control may come with organizational demands that could hamper its ‘family-friendliness.’ Also, high levels of flexibility could be a source of conflict because individuals are required to define and structure their work and draw the line between work and non-work [4]. In this situation, statutory rights to work hour reductions and CSC-leave could also be difficult to use [10, 35].

Below, we examine these issues using a recent survey of Swedish parents supplemented by interviews with survey respondents. We identify different structures of flexible work arrangements and how they differ for mothers and fathers. Next, we analyze the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-family tensions, both overall levels of work-family conflict and conflicts arising when children are sick. Here, we can assess the usefulness of flexible work arrangement in relation to other family policy tools, notably CSC-leave, but also part-time work. Finally, the qualitative data are used to explore how flexibility - or lack of flexibility - enter into mothers and fathers work-family tensions and negotiations.

2 Aim and research questions

The aim of the study is to examine the links between flexible scheduling and gendered patterns of work-family reconciliation by considering how work arrangements balance employer demands and employee control and how they relate to parents’ work-family tensions.

First (RQ 1), we ask how flexible work arrangements are structured in terms of employer demands and employee control, and how patterns of flexibility vary between mothers and fathers.

Next (RQ 2), we analyze how patterns of flexibility are related to parents’ daily work-family tensions. We measure both work-to-family conflict and specific conflicts arising when children are sick, namely problems in taking formal leave to care for sick children [CSC-problems] and parents’ propensity to work while caring for a sick child [WSC-practices]. Also, we ask whether full-time work implies less work-family tensions for employees with flexible work arrangements and if flexibility provides an equal alternative to part-time work.

Finally (RQ 3), we use the qualitative data to explore how flexibility is perceived and handled in parents’ work-family negotiations and tensions.

3 Data and methods

The study presented here is based on a mixed methods approach, specifically a sequential explanatory QUANT-qual study [36]. This means that the data collection started with the quantitative data, which later was complemented by qualitative data. In the analysis, priority was given to the quantitative data while the qualitative data are used to further interpret the findings. A major strength of such a design is the possibility to “simultaneously confirm a quantitatively derived hypothesis and explore in greater depth the processes by which the relationship occurred” [16, 37]. Below, we will describe the two datasets and how each of them was analysed.

Below, we first present the results from the quantitative analysis (RQ 1-2), and then the qualitative findings (RQ 3).

We found, in response to RQ 1, that employee- and employer-oriented flexibility tend to go hand-in-hand. The main contrasts are the boundaryless jobs – dominated by fathers – with high demands and high control both in time and strain dimensions, and the confined jobs – dominated by mothers – with high job demands but low job control and flexibility (both employee- and employer-oriented). For RQ2, we conclude that in both confined and boundaryless jobs the right to use CSC-leave is compromised: either parents worry that their leave causes problems or they bring work home to do while caring for the child. High flexibility also does not alleviate work-family conflict; instead, mothers with full-time work perceive more conflict in boundaryless jobs. Meanwhile, part-time work remains an important strategy for mothers to limit negative spillover. Parents in malleable jobs, with low demands and relatively high control in time and strain dimensions, report less problems in every aspect.

The typology emerging from the qualitative data analysis (RQ 3) further illustrates that flexibility is relational and the actual room to manoeuvre can be compromised both by employer demands and the partner’s job situation. Clearly, a lack of flexibility is problematic and in confined jobs female part-time work remains a main way of addressing work-family tensions. However, in boundaryless jobs, schedule control is offered in exchange for performance, commitment and availability and for this reason, fathers’ flexibility can require that their partners reduce work hours and take on more housework. At the same time, boundaryless jobs can allow for a household-level contract of equal sharing. For mothers, such agreements seem crucial, but in the Swedish context, demands for employer flexibility also clash with fathers’ ideals of involved parenthood.

6 Discussion

Flexible scheduling has emerged as a central theme both in policy debates and work-family research. The main thrust of our study was to go beyond the variable-oriented view to take a more contextual, holistic approach. Using a mixed-methods study of Swedish parents, we explored how work arrangements were constructed in terms of employee- and employer-oriented flexibility and how they related to work-family tensions, as reflected in quantitative correlations and parents’ own narratives.

The analysis suggests that flexibility is not just a tool that can be applied across contexts with similar effects. Rather, flexible scheduling emerges as an organizational logic that will affect employee-employer relations as well as families. A main finding is that employer- and employee-oriented flexibility go hand in hand, but that work arrangements differ radically between groups. In our cluster analysis, the jobs classified as confined were as common as those labelled boundaryless. The boundaryless jobs combine high levels of employee schedule control with high requirements for organizational flexibility, while confined jobs have low levels of both. Both clusters have high psychological work demands, but differ crucially regarding employees’ level of task control. At first glance, these clusters resemble the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ jobs as conceptualised in research on work and stress [23] and in the idea of flexible scheduling as a ‘win-win’ concept for employers and employees.

Our findings tell a different story. Regarding work-family conflict, both clusters perform worse than the malleable jobs, where employee control is high and employer demands low, both in time and strain dimensions. Most notably, parents in boundaryless jobs do not report less problems than those in confined jobs. Instead, work arrangements provide different challenges to different groups. Taking formal leave to care for sick children is problematic both in boundaryless and confined jobs. Meanwhile, parents in boundaryless jobs are prone to bring work home while caring for a sick child. Presumably, this is a way of coping with the problems of taking a leave and, more generally, to balance high demands from work and family. Despite such strategies, however, parents in boundaryless jobs do not perceive less work-family conflict than parents in confined jobs.

Overall, the links between gender, flexibility and work-family reconciliation are complex. In line with previous studies, we find that mothers have less access to schedule flexibility and job control than fathers. Additionally, we find that even with the same type of work arrangement mothers experience more work-family conflict than fathers and are more prone to work while caring for a sick child. In confined and malleable jobs, mothers also find it more problematic to take formal leave to care for a sick child. Here, boundaryless jobs provide an exception – perhaps because mothers with flexible scheduling (and portable work tasks) can mitigate the problem by working while caring. At the same time, mothers in full-time work experience more work-family conflict in boundaryless jobs than in confined jobs. The qualitative analysis further illustrates the importance of how the implications of employees flexible scheduling concerns also extend to their partner. Interestingly, this could imply both gendered outcomes and a possibility for change. For some, fathers’ employer flexibility create an inflexibility that limits mothers’ options, while other parents use flexible schedules to negotiate a contract of equal sharing of unpaid work.

Generally, however, parents tend to talk about schedule flexibility as a helpful tool, while organizational demands for flexibility are rarely problematized. In these narratives, flexibility emerges as a new psychological contract in which employee-oriented flexibility is a bonus or a gift that is traded for high organizational commitment, including constant availability. Previously, psychological researchers have discussed how the flexibilization of modern working life increases the need for boundary management to prevent negative health implications [4, 45]. Our study is in line with these observations but further shows how problems of ‘boundaryless’ work are connected to organizational demands in a gender-segregated labour market and how family policy rights are challenged by this new logic. Arguably, then, the flexibilization of working life may foster a paradoxical notion of ’family-friendliness’ that reshapes rather than replaces ideal worker norms.

Several limitations should be mentioned. Cross-sectional survey data do not allow for inferences about causal relationship; the study is a description of the situation of individuals with different work arrangements and our ambition is not to stipulate the drivers behind these situations. Moreover, due to the varying response rates, the results may not reflect the situation of marginalized groups. While Sweden was considered a good case for studying flexibility in a dual-earner context, a single-country study may limit the generalizability of the findings. At the same time, our study seems timely considering the renewed interest in flexibility, gender and work-family reconciliation. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an explosion of research on these issues [46–48]. These studies suggest that flexible working may not be enough to challenge traditional gender roles and that flexibility must be considered in relation to broader employment and family policies. Ideally, then, future research should approach these issues with cross-country comparative designs that can explore the importance of norms and institutions.

In terms of practice and policy, the results from our study strongly suggest that employers, trade unions and occupational health care services should strive to create ‘boundaries’ to ensure that flexibilization does not undermine standards of decent work. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the confined jobs, where a lack of flexibility and control can make it difficult for women to work full-time.