|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001921023
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080116s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002138
Shockley, Kristen M.
Uncovering the missing link in flexible work arrangement utilization :
b an individual difference perspective
h [electronic resource] /
by Kristen M. Shockley.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: Changes in the workforce have led to in an increase in work-family conflict for many employed individuals. Fortunately, many organizations have recognized and responded to employees' work-family issues through the implementation of family-friendly benefits, such as flexible work arrangements (FWA). While offering family-friendly benefits is an important step in easing work-family conflicts, the mere availability of such initiatives may not be enough, as research shows that availability of benefits and utilization are only moderately correlated. These statistics highlight the presence of intermediating factors in the relationship between availability and utilization of family-friendly benefits. With this in mind, some researchers have examined the role of organizational factors in inhibiting benefit use.Although these organizational variables are essential in understanding the relationship between availability and use of flexible benefits, they neglect an important factor -- the role that the individual may play in deciding whether to take advantage of these policies. With the exception of general demographic information, only one known study (Butler et al., 2004) has investigated the influence of an individual difference psychological factor in predicting benefit use. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by testing the influence of individual differences on FWA utilization. The study focuses on individual differences in four need-based motivational factors, need for affiliation at work, need for structure in the workplace, need for segmentation of work from other life roles, and need for occupational achievement, on flextime and flexplace usage. Furthermore, because FWA policies involve altering physical presence at work, a situational variable that involves the same dynamics, value of "face-time" within an organization, was examined as a moderator in each these relationships.Participants were 238 faculty members at a large research university. Results showed that the need for segmentation and the need for structure were negatively related to flextime and flexplace use, and the need for achievement and need for affiliation were not significantly related to either FWA. Face-time orientation did not significantly moderate any of these relationships. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as future directions, are discussed.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 92 pages.
Advisor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D.
Need for achievement.
Need for affiliation.
Need for structure.
Need for segmentation.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Uncovering the Missing Link in Flexible Work Arrangement Utilization: An Individual Difference Perspective by Kristen M. Shockley A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Date of Approval: May 29, 2007 Keywords: work-family benefits, flextime, flexplace, need for achievement, need for affiliation, need for structure, need for segmentation Copyright 2007, Kristen M. Shockley
To all of my friends and family who have provided support and encouragement throughout this entire project. I would like to give a special dedication to Andy for putting up with my relentless perfectionism, providing words of wisdom, and acting as a constant source of comfort.
Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the members of my thesis committee, for their time, guidance, and encouragement. I would like to specially acknowledge my major professor and advisor, Dr. Tammy Allen, for without her guidance, feedb ack, and support this project would not have been possible.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One Introduction 1 Flexible Work Arrangements 4 Factors Influencing FWA Utilization 6 Motivation 8 Motivational Needs 10 Need for Affiliation at Work 12 Need for Structure in the Workplace 14 Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles 17 Need for Occupational Achievement 21 Face-Time Orientation 24 Chapter Two Method 31 Participants 31 Measures 32 Need for Affiliation at Work 32 Need for Structure in the Workplace 32 Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles 33 Need for Occupational Achievement 33 Preferred Work Environment 33 Face-Time Orientation 33 Utilization of FWA 34 Control Variables 34 Chapter Three Results 36 Preliminary Analyses 36 Assumptions 36 Control Variables 37 Hypothesis Testing 41 Moderator Hypotheses 43 Exploratory Analyses 49 Chapter Four Discussion 52 Theoretical Underpinnings and Implications 53
ii Need for Affiliation at Work 53 Need for Structure in the Workplace 54 Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles 56 Need for Occupational Achievement 58 Face-Time Orientation 59 Exploratory Analyses 60 Practical Implications 61 Limitations 62 Future Directions 64 Conclusion 66 References 67 Appendices 82 Appendix A: Need for Affiliation at Work Scale Items 83 Appendix B: Need for Structure in the Workplace Scale Items 84 Appendix C: Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles Scale Items 85 Appendix D: Need for Occupati onal Achievement Scale Items 86 Appendix E: Face-time Orientation Scale Items 87 Appendix F: Flextime Utilization Scale Items 88 Appendix G: Flexplace U tilization Scale Items 89 Appendix H: Perceived Flexibil ity Available Scale Items 90 Appendix I: Family Responsibility Scale Items 91 Appendix J: Work-family Conflict Scale Items 92
iii List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables 38 Table 2 Intercorrelations among Study Variables 39 Table 3 Regression of Need Variables on Flextime Utilization 42 Table 4 Regression of Need Va riables on Flexplace Utilization 42 Table 5 Moderated Regression Resu lts of Need for Occupational Achievement and Preferred Wo rk Environment on Flexplace Utilization 45 Table 6 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Affiliation at Work and Face-time Orientation on Flexplace Utilization 45 Table 7 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Structure in the Workplace and Face-time Orienta tion on Flexplace Utilization 46 Table 8 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Structure in the Workplace and Face-time Orientation on Flextime Utilization 46 Table 9 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles and Face-time Orientation on Flexplace Utilization 47 Table 10 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles and Face-time Orientation on Flextime Utilization 47 Table 11 Moderated Regression Resu lts of Need for Occupational Achievement and Face-tim e Orientation on Flexplace Utilization 48 Table 12 Moderated Regression Resu lts of Need for Occupational Achievement and Face-time Orient ation on Flextime Utilization 48 Table 13 Moderated Regression Results of Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles and Face-time Orientation on Nontraditional Hours Worked 50
iv Table 14 Need for Segmentation of Wo rk from Other Life Roles as a Mediator Between the Need for Structure in the Workplace and Flexplace Utilization 56
v List of Figures Figure 1 Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement on Use of Flexplace as a Function of Preferred Work Environment 23 Figure 2 Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement, Need for Structure in the Workplace, and Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles on Flexplace Use as a Function of Face-time Orientation 28 Figure 3 Predicted Impact of Need for Structure in the Workplace on Flextime Use as a Function of Face-time Orientation 29 Figure 4 Predicted Impact of Need fo r Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles and Need for Occupational Achievement on Flextime Use as a Function of Face-time Orientation 29 Figure 5 Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement on Flexplace Use as a Function of Face-time Orientation 30 Figure 6 Interaction of Need for Se gmentation of Work from Other Life Roles on Nontraditional Hours Worked as a Function of Face-time Orientation 51
vi Uncovering the Missing Link in Flexible Work Arrangement Utilization: An Individual Difference Perspective Kristen M. Shockley ABSTRACT Changes in the workforce have led to in an increase in work-family conflict for many employed individuals. Fortunately, many organizations have recognized and responded to employees work-family issues through the implementation of familyfriendly benefits, such as flexible work arrangements (FWA). While offering family-friendly benefits is an important step in easing work-family conflicts, the mere availability of such initiatives may not be enough, as research shows that availability of benefits and utilization are only moderately correlated. These statistics highlight the presence of intermediating factors in the relationship between availability and utilization of family-friendly benefits. With this in mind, some researchers have examined the role of organizational factor s in inhibiting benefit use. Although these organizational variables are essential in understanding the relationship between availability and use of flexible benefits, they neglect an important factor the role that the individual may play in deciding whether to take advantage of these policies. With the exception of general demographic informa tion, only one known study (Butler et al., 2004) has investigated the influe nce of an individual differe nce psychological factor in predicting benefit use. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by testin g the influence of
vii individual differences on FWA utilization. The study focuses on individual differences in four need-based motivational factors, need for affiliation at work, need for structure in the workplace, need for segmentation of wo rk from other life roles, and need for occupational achievement, on flextime and fle xplace usage. Furthermore, because FWA policies involve altering physical presence at wo rk, a situational variab le that involves the same dynamics, value of face-time within an organization, was examined as a moderator in each these relationships. Partic ipants were 238 faculty members at a large research university. Results showed that the need for segmentation and the need for structure were negatively related to flex time and flexplace use, and the need for achievement and need for affiliation were not si gnificantly related to either FWA. Facetime orientation did not signifi cantly moderate any of these relationships. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as future directions, are discussed.
1 Chapter One Introduction Workforce changes in demographic co mposition, work attitudes, and employer expectations have lead to an increase in th e conflicting demands of work and family life for many employed individuals (Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). Such conflict, aptly named work-family conflict, has numerous negative repercussi ons for both the individual and the organization. For example, well-docum ented are the relationships between workfamily conflict and physical health symptoms, depression, substance abuse, lower job satisfaction, greater tu rnover intentions, and less career satisfacti on (e.g., Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002; Frone, 2000; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins, 2001; Martins, Eddleston, & Viega, 2002; Schmidt, Colligan, & Fitzgerald, 1980). Fortunately, many organizations have recognized and responded to employees work-family issues through the implementation of family-friendly bene fits. Examples of common family-friendly benefits include flextim e, flexplace, family relevant resource and referral programs, on-site daycares, and eldercare as sistance (Lobel & Kossek, 1996). While offering family-friendly benefits is an important step in easing work-family conflicts, the mere availabil ity of such initiatives may not be enough (Christensen & Staines, 1990; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). In fact, researchers measuring both availability and actu al utilization of fam ily-friendly benefits report modest correlations between the two. For example, Allen (2001) cites a significant correlation of .54 between flexible benefits offered and those used. Breaugh and Frye
2 (2006) report a significant co rrelation of .31 between family -friendly benefits provided and those actually used, and Thompson et al. (1999) cite a similar statistic of .28. Interestingly, Butler, Gasser, and Smart ( 2004) failed to find a si gnificant correlation between family-friendly benefit access and use. These statistics highlight the presence of intermediating factors in the relationship between availability a nd utilization of family-friendly benefits. With this in mind, some researchers have examined the role of orga nizational factors in inhibiting benefit use (e.g., Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). A lthough these organiza tional variables are essential in understanding the relationship between availab ility and use of flexible benefits, they neglect an impor tant factor the role that the individual may play in deciding whether to take advantage of these policies. With the exception of general demographic information, only one known study (B utler et al., 2004) has investigated the influence of an individual difference psychologi cal factor in predicting benefit use. The authors found that work-family self-efficacy, or ones belief that he or she is capable of balancing work and family demands, negatively re lated to family-friendly benefit use. In fact, the authors conclude that the individual is an important area for future research, as individual psychological factors predicting be nefit use remain largely unknown (p. 58). Moreover, understanding the role of the individual in the decision to use benefits is important in a theoretical sense, as it a dds to a comprehensive model of work-family balance strategies. From a practical sta ndpoint, information about individuals can be employed to make work-family polices more us able and effective (Butler et al., 2004). The current study addresses this gap in the literature by testin g the influence of individual differences on the use of one partic ular family-friendly be nefit, flexible work
3 arrangements (FWA). The study focuses on individual differences in terms of needbased motivational factors. Utilization of benefits is an active process; therefore, examining personality factors that motivat e one to actually use policies seems highly relevant. Because FWA policies involve alteri ng physical presence at work, a situational variable that involves the same dynamics, value of face-time with in an organization, was also examined. Taken together, the overall aim of the pres ent study is to examine the influence of individual differences in four need-based motivational factors, need for affiliation, need for structure, need for segmentation, and need for achievement, on flextime and flexplace usage and to furthermore examine the extent that face-time orientation moderates these relationships. Given that the outcome variables of the present study are use of FWA, it is essential to investigate these variables in a context where FWA are readily available. Academia is one such context. Specificall y, the occupation of a uni versity professor is known for its flexibility, as professors genera lly have a great degree of discretion as to where and when work is completed. Importantly there is also considerable variability in the extent that academics use this flexibility. Some choose to operate under the traditional nine to five system, working at their university offices, while others choose to work off campus. Moreover, flexible polic ies in academia are generally not formal policies. That is, most academics use thei r own discretion in work habits and are not required to formally check in with a supervisor before using FWA. This reduces differences in supervisor effects on FWA use, allowing differences in use to be more easily attributed to individua l factors. Finally, while th e organizational variable of
4 interest, value of face-time, is likely to be less salient in academia than other occupations, variation is still likely acr oss academic departments. What follows is a more detailed discussion of FWA, with a particular focus on the two types that were used as dependent variables in the curre nt study. Next, a review of the existing literature that has attempted to link availability and utilization will be presented. Following this, the theory and hypot heses relevant to the current study will be introduced. Flexible Work Arrangements In an attempt to aid employees in the struggle of balancing work and life responsibilities, numerous companies have implemented flexible work arrangements. The two most commonly used FWA are flextime and flexplace (Society for Human Resource Management, 2001). Likewise, the current study specifically focuses on the use of these two benefits. Flextime is a wo rk schedule in which employees can use their own discretion as to the time on the job as l ong as they complete the specified number of hours within a work period, (Barker, 1999) while flexplace is broadly defined as flexibility regarding where work is co mpleted and includes options such as telecommuting or working from a virtual office (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001). Flexplace also implies the availability of work stations both at home and in the office with flexibility to m ove between the two at the employees convenience (Shamir & Solomon, 1985). FWA are assumed to facilitate the management of competing demands from work and non-work through increases in temporal flexibility (when work is done) and in spatial flexibility (where work is done) (Rau, 2003). Naturally, these initiatives have sparked the interest of many researchers in terms
5 of their effects on the organi zation and the individual. Co mbining the many studies that have addressed these issues, Baltes, Bri ggs, Huff, Wright, and Neuman (1999) used meta-analytic techniques to estimate the effects of flexible schedules on productivity/performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and satisfaction with work schedules. The meta-analysis only include d studies with an experimental design, comparing a group with a flextime interventi on and a control group with standard work arrangements to ensure that effects could be attributed to the fl extime implementation. Results indicate that flexible work schedules favorably influenced productivity, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and satisfaction wi th work schedule, with absenteeism being the most influenced. The effects were non si gnificant for self-rated performance. In regards to flexplace, the two most frequently studied outcomes are productivity and job satisfaction (Bailey & Kurland, 2002) Although there is some variation in results, most researchers investigating th e relationship of flexplace and productivity report a positive associati on between the two (Belange r, 1999; Frolick, Wilkes, & Urwiler, 1993; Geisler, 1985; Hill, Mill er, Weiner, & Colihan, 1998; Hartman, Stoner, and Arora, 1992; Olson,1989; Phelps, 1985; Pratt, 1984). It is important to note that these results should be interpreted cau tiously since all of the studies used self-report measures of productivity, which may be prone to exaggeration as most telecommuters volunteer or request to work away from the office and may be biased to claim success (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Chapman, Sheehy, Heywood, Dooley, Collins, 1995). The findings regarding flexplace and j ob satisfaction are less clear. Several researchers report a positive relationshi p (Hammer, Neal, Newsom, Brockwood, & Colton, 2006; Igbaria & Guim araes, 1999; Kraut, 1989; Olso n, 1989). However, others
6 have suggested that increases in job satisfa ction granted by greater flexibility may be offset by the negative repercussions of soci al isolation (Chapman et al., 1995; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Dooley, 1996; Gainey, Kelley, & Hill, 1999). In an attempt to reconcile inconsistent findings, Golden and Veiga ( 2005) found support for their model contending that the extent of telecommuting is related to job satisfaction in an inverted U-shaped manner. Specifically, those who work from alternate locations a moderate amount of time are more satisfied than those who rarely or often telework. The authors explain that moderate amounts of telecommuting maximi ze satisfaction by allowing management of face-to-face interactions and mimizing feelings of isolation, while still satisfying individual and organizational needs that enhance job satisfaction. Factors Influencing FWA Utilization Noting the discrepancy between FWA av ailability and utilization, several researchers have attempted to understand this relationship by examining organizational variables that inhibit or foster use. One of the most consistent fi ndings is that having a supportive supervisor, one that empathizes with employees desires to balance work and family and attempts to accommodate this desire (Thomas & Ganster, 1995), is essential in employees decisions to use available be nefits (e.g., Batt & Valc our, 2003; Breaugh & Frye, 2006; Christensen & St aines, 1990; Rodgers, 1992; Shellenbarger, 1992). In addition to supervisors, the presence of s upportive co-workers also facilitates FWA use (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2004; Dikkers, Geurts, den Dulk, Peper, & Kompier, 2004; Kirby & Krone, 2002). Others have extended th is research, contending that an overall supportive culture, not only a supportive supervis or and co-workers, is crucial to success of FWA policies (e.g., Clark, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Friedman & Johnson, 1997; Thomas &
7 Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999; Veiga, Baldridge, Eddleston, 2004). Allen (2001) adds that examining employees global pe rceptions about the extent that their organization is supportive of family-friendly programs is additionally predictive in explaining FWA utilization, accounting for unique variance in the relationship over and above supervisor support or the availability of policies. Additional research examining speci fic reasons why employees do not use available FWA policies cite fear of negativ e career consequences (Allen & Russell, 1999; Almer & Kaplan, 2002; Eaton, 2003; Fletcher & Bailyn, 1996; Thompson et al., 1999; Veiga et al., 2004) and organizational norms a nd reward systems that are incompatible with use (Hill & Weiner, 2003; Lobel & Kossek, 1996; Perlow, 1995; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson, Beauvais, & Allen, 2006). In rega rds to organizational norms, a topic of considerable mention is the need for organi zations to shift from a face-time oriented culture to one that values results (Bai lyn, 1993; Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998; Hill & Weiner, 2003; Hill, Hawkins, & Martinson, 2003; Perlow, 1995; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson et al., 1999). In summation, the formal existence of flexible policies is not enough. Organizations must adapt their overall culture, norms, values, and reward systems to be consistent with the goals of FWA policies in order to maximize their actual utilization. The few studies that have examined individual factors tend to focus on general demographic details. For instance, Belange r (1999) found that telecommuters and nontelecommuters differed significantly on j ob category and gender. Specifically, telecommuters were more likely to be in non-management positions and female. Thompson et al. (1999) concluded that empl oyees who are female, married, or have
8 children living with them are more likely to use work-family benefits than those who are male, unmarried, and childless. In contrast, Blair-Loy and Wharton (2002) found that use of flexibility policies was unrel ated to having young children, being a single parent, being female, or having a spouse as a full time homemaker. In their sample of married workers, Sharpe, Hermsen, and Billings (2002) found that flextime use was significantly greater for both men and women who were Caucasian, had relatively high levels of education and income, and smaller household sizes. Also, women who had young children and work in managerial, technical, sales, and administrative support positions were most likely to use FWA. As previously mentioned, with the exception of Butler et al.s (2004) study, research in volving individual predictors of FWA is rather limited in scope, focusing on demographics rather than personality differences. The following section discusses the theory and variables relevant to the present study. To start, a discussion of motivati on with a particular focus on need-based motivational theories is presented. Next, the need-based motivational factors of interest are introduced, and relevant hypotheses about their association with FWA use are presented. Lastly, the topic of face-time orie ntation is discussed and hypotheses about its moderating effects on the relationship betw een motivational needs and FWA use are proposed. Motivation Motivation has been a topic of consid erable emphasis in psychology since the 1930s and has been examined in a work context since the 1950s (Kanfer, 1991). Aptly, motivation has been conceptualized via numerous theoretical frameworks. Early work in
9 the area identified individuals needs as an explanation for their motivation (e.g., Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943; Atkinson, 1964; McClelland, 1965; Alderfer, 1972). Murray (1938) refers to a need as an organic potential ity or readiness to re spond in a certain way under given conditions (p.61) that gives rise to a certain co urse of overt behaviour (or fantasy), which (if the organism is competent and external opposition not insurmountable) changes the initi ating circumstance in such a way as to bring about an end situation which stills (appeases or satisf ies) the organism (p. 124). Using the idea of needs, Maslow (1943) developed his need hier archy theory, which placed needs into five distinct hierarchical categories that relied on the fulfillment of lower needs before the consideration of higher needs. Building on Maslows theory, Alderfer (1972) proposed existence-relatednessgrowth theory, an improvement on the predeces sor as it posited that different level needs could be fulfilled simultaneously. Empl oying similar logic, Atkinson (1964) and McClelland (1965) focused on a sole need, the need for achievement. In summary, need fulfillment theories argue that needs influen ce the interceding cognitive processes that result in behavior variability (Kanfer, 1991). However, one criticism of need fulfillment theories is their lack of specification of the mediating processes by which motivational needs translate to certain behaviors (Kanfer, 1991; Latham & Pinder, 2005) Another group of motivati on theories, labeled process theories, do provide insight into interceding cognitiv e processes. The most prominent process theory is expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). Expectan cy theory assumes that indi viduals actions are dictated by their expectations of outcomes associat ed with these actions and by the relative valence (attractiveness) of those outcomes. Although the original model provides no
10 mention of the process by which valence is assumed, others have suggested (e.g., Lawler, 1971; Staw, 1977; Ronen, 1994) the importance of combining needs theories with expectancy theory to fill this gap. Ronen (1994) views the theories as complementary. He notes that valence serves as a link betw een these two types of theories, with needs contributing to the type and strength of the valence asso ciated with a behavior and expectancy theory explaining the importance of perceived probability of outcomes. By combining these frameworks, I be lieve the process by which individuals choose to use flexible work arrangements can be better understood. First, based on needfulfillment theories, specific needs may infl uence ones desire to engage in use of flextime and/or flexplace. Building on this relationship, it is important to examine the impact of organizational factor s in relation to individual diffe rences in needs. As Kristof (1996) notes, the characteristics of the job and/ or organization are quite influential in the relationship between individual differences (s uch as needs and values) and individual outcomes. Similarly, motivation is a result of the individual but also his or her interaction with the environment (Latha m & Pinder, 2005). Combining needs and expectancy theoretical frameworks, it is con ceivable that while indi vidual differences in needs alone may contribute to FWA utiliza tion, organizational variables can alter the valence of use as a means to satisfy n eeds, consequently resulting in behavior modification. Motivational Needs In the discussion of human needs an d need based motivational theories, researchers have proposed various needs as we ll as diverse methods of classifying these needs. Originally, Murray (1938) noted 20 differe nt manifest needs. He quantifies these
11 needs as social reaction systems that are used to raise or conserve acquired status, to form affiliations and interact with allied objects, or to resist or attack negative hostile objects. Maslow (1943) uses a more systematic appro ach to needs research with the proposal of a hierarchy of needs. The hier archy contains five distinct classes, physiological, safety, love/belonging, status, and self-a ctualization, and the fulfillment of each is dependent of the satiation of the class below it. Alderfer (1972) collapsed Maslows n eeds into three categories, existence, relatedness, and growth. McClel land (1965) theory of needs posits that an individual's specific needs can be generally grouped as either achievement, affiliation, or power needs. Atkinson (1964) also focused on the need for achievement as an integral part of human motivation. Although the majority of needs based research is dated, there has been a resurgence of emphasis on needs in recent times (Latham & Pinder, 2005). One recent study contends that innate human need s fall into three categories: needs for acceptance and approval, needs for status, power and control of resources, and needs for predictability and order (H ogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). In his fundamental proposition of human needs, Murray (1938) explains that different needs contribute to the enactment of different behaviors. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume for the present study that only a selection of needs pertaining to the work environment will contribute to beha vior concerning FWA utilization. The four needs that I believe will be most influentia l in predicting FWA use fall into the broad categories proposed by Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003). First, concerning the need for acceptance and approval, I will focus on the spec ific need for affiliation at work. Under the need for status, power, and control of re sources, I will present implications involving
12 the need for occupational achievement. Finall y, for needs for predictability and order, I will target the need for structure in the workplace and the need for integration/segmentation of wo rk from other life roles. Need for Affiliation at Work Murray (1938) classified the need for aff iliation as a desire to be near, cooperate, and engage in reciprocal relationships with others. The need for affiliation also includes the desire to feel a sense of belonging with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Individuals vary on the personal importance of this need, as a function of personality and cultural background (McClella nd, 1961), and a substantial amount of human behavior, emotion, and thought is a result of the a ffiliation motive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Affiliation is accomplished through acts of esta blishing or maintaining positive affective relationships with people who are in a si milar position as oneself (Verroff & Verroff, 1980, p.192). When this need for affiliation is not met, negative consequences, such as maladjustment, stress, and other health pr oblems may arise (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Moreover, need for affiliation has been ex amined in the context of the workplace. Individuals with a high need for affiliati on tend to engage in more communicative activities at work and gain a greater psychol ogical sense of community at the workplace (Burroughs & Eby, 1998; Lansing & Heyns, 1959). By definition, those with a high need for affiliation have a strong desire to associate and converse with others and to establish numerous strong affiliations. Affiliations with others can be formed in a variety of contexts (i.e., community, leisure, and work), and individuals can differ in the strength of their needs for affiliation within contexts (Murray, 1938). As most worker s spend at least eight hours per day in
13 employment settings, the need to find m eaning, identity, and s upport through work is particularly salient, actions that may be achieved via greater affiliation at work (Burroughs & Eby, 1998; Chadsey & Beyer, 20 01; Shamir & Salomon, 1985). In fact, Stewart (1985) found that individuals frequently cited work as the second most important social unit in their lives, behind immediate family. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that individuals with a high need for affiliation at work will prefer to be present in a traditiona l work setting where opportunity for social interaction is high. Likewise, th ey will be less inclined to work from an alternate location, or to use flexplace arrang ements, where opportunity to meet social needs may remain unsatisfied (Shamir & Salomon, 1985). Research shows that workers frequently cite fear of soci al isolation as a main motive for not telecommuting (Belanger, 1999; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Gainey et al., 1999; Olson, 1989). In addition, being physically away from the workplace may make it more difficult for individuals to feel a sense of identity or belonging to the organization or work group (Sharim & Salomon, 1985), another important facet of the need for affiliation. Due to the detrimental effects remote work may have on an individuals affiliative concerns, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 1: Need for affiliation at work will be negatively related to flexplace use. Specifically, individuals with a high n eed for affiliation at work will be less likely to use flexplace than will individuals lower in need for affiliation at work. On the other hand, I do not believe that need for affiliation at work will impact individuals use of flextime. Flextime allows employees to al ter the timing of their work, but does not change the physical space where work is conducted. Therefore, those using flextime will still have frequent contact with co-workers, minimizing the risks of social
14 isolation. In other words, the few hours when not every employee is present will not be substantial enough to hinder those with a high need for affiliation at work from use of flextime. Need for Structure in the Workplace Neuberg and Newsom (1993) argue that people meaningfully differ in the extent to which they are dispositionally motivated to cognitively structure their worlds in simple, unambiguous ways (p. 114). These variations have been conceptualized as an individual difference variable labeled pers onal need for structure (Thompson, Naccarato, & Parker, 1989; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). I ndividuals with a high need for structure carry an intense desire for clarity and certain ty with an affiliated aversion to ambiguity (Elovainio & Kivimaki, 2001). Likewise, situ ations that lack perceived clarity and structure will create discomfort and annoyan ce for such individuals, thus motivating them to seek out situations that allow for increased structure, such as established routines and familiar conditions (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, & Moskowitz, 2001). In their conceptualization of personal need for structure, Thompson et al. (1989) developed a measure to assess the construc t. Neuberg and Newsome (1993) provided discriminant validity information regarding the scale, concluding that need for structure is conceptually related but diffe rent from authoritarianism dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, rigidity, and uncertainty orientation. Additionally, they contend that it is much better suited for operationalizing the cons truct of interest in a direct and reliable manner. Moreover, the construct of need for structure incorpor ates two dimensions: desire for structure, character ized by a strong affinity for a clear and structured mode of
15 life and fixed place for everything, and reaction to lack of structure, or individuals responses to unstructured a nd unpredictable situations. Need for structure has rarely been exam ined in organizational behavior research (Elovainio & Kivimaki, 1999). The few excepti ons have mainly investigated need for structure in relation to occupational strai n. Kivimaki, Elovaino, and Nord (1996) found reaction to lack of structure was positively related to occ upational strain symptoms but desire for structure was negatively related to symptoms. In an attempt to explain the mixed results, Elovaino and Kivimaki (1999) ex amined need for structure, occupational strain, and job complexity. Consistent with previous findings, they concluded that desire for structure acts as a psychological resource th at decreases strain wh ile reactions to lack of structure increase sensitivity to stressors. Job complexity moderated the relationship between reaction to lack of structure and occupational strai n, such that the association was significantly stronger under high comple xity conditions. Furthermore, need for structure was positively correlated with role ambiguity, which in turn, was associated with higher levels of occ upational strain (Elovaino & Kivimaki, 2001), leading the authors to conclude that indi viduals high in need for stru cture require some type of structure in their work environments to aid in interpretation of the outer world and anticipation of upcoming events. If this structure is not available, lack of knowledge about individual expectations at work (role ambiguity) will occur and will lead to increased occupational strain. Jahoda (1979) notes that the imposition of structure is a latent function of work, contributing to the positive relationship be tween an individual and his/her work. Workplace structure can be provided in a va riety of contexts. Organizations with
16 traditional work arrangements offer struct ure through consistency in scheduling, as employees generally work the same hours each day and through strict boundaries, as entering and leaving the physical workspace signal the start and stop of work. Additionally, monitoring and feedback from co-workers a nd supervisors serve to increase structure by keeping employees on task and aw are of their expectations and progress. Inherent in the idea of high desire for struct ure is increased affinity for regularity and perceived control of situation, actions that are more easily achieved when work is conducted on a regular schedule in a designa ted location. Flexplace arrangements allow employees to engage in work without re gular organizationally imposed schedule or placement constraints (Rau & Hyland, 2002). While this is beneficial in the sense that it allows for increased flexibility, it comes at th e cost of decreased structure, a cost that would seemingly be too high for individuals wi th a chronic need for externally imposed structure. Therefore, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 2: Need for structure in th e workplace will be negatively related to flexplace use. Specifically, individuals higher in need for structure will be less likely to use flexplace than will indivi duals lower in need for structure. Although not as flexible or unstructured as flexplace, flextime offers employees discretion in the starting and stopping times for their work day (Christensen & Staines, 1990). In most flextime arrangement s, individuals can vary their schedules from day to day as long as they complete the re quired number of hours within a given work period (Barker, 1999). Because flextime permits individuals to work inconsistent hours, individuals with a high need for structure will likely s hy away from such options, preferring a more uniform sche dule. It is hypothesized:
17 Hypothesis 3: Need for structure in th e workplace will be negatively related to flextime use. Specifically, individuals higher in need for structure will be less likely to use flextime than will indi viduals lower in need for structure. Need for Segmentation of Wo rk from Other Life Roles Most individuals simultaneously occupy a number of roles in their everyday lives. The most common roles include those related to work, home, family, leisure, and community (Super & Sverko, 1995). As common ly noted in the work-family literature, when demands in one role become incompatible with those in another, interrole conflict may arise (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Indi viduals attempt to decrease interrole conflict and manage competing roles through the cr eation of meaningful boundaries (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Ni ppert-Eng, 1996; Zeruvabel, 1991). This notion, known as boundary theory, assumes that individuals cr eate boundaries around diffe rent life roles in an attempt to simplify and order their environment. Individuals differ regarding the extent that they prefer boundaries to be permeable and flexible, which in turn influences the re lative segmentation or integration of roles (Ashforth et al., 2000; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Specifically, boundari es that are highly impermeable and inflexible will lead to greate r segmentation of roles, while those that are highly permeable and flexible will contribute to increased integration of roles. Flexibility involves spatial and temporal boundaries, and permeability deals with the ability to enact one role while physically being present in the domain of another. Preference for segmentation and integration ex ist along a continuum, with the most extreme preference for each serving as poles on opposite ends. T hus, most individuals are not qualified as pure segmentors or integrators but rather fall along a continuum between the two
18 extremes (Ashforth et al, 2000; Kossek, La utsch, & Eaton, 2006; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Ashforth et al. (2000) ex plain that segmentation and integration of roles come with differing costs and benefits. Greater segmentation of roles involves creating less permeable boundaries around roles, which cont ributes to easy crea tion and maintenance of these boundaries and further minimizes role blurring. Role blurring occurs when role identities overlap, lead ing to confusion about which role should be enacted at a given time. Role blurring can result in negative consequences, such as anxiety, embarrassment, and interrole conflict. However, with increased segmentation, tr ansitions between roles are made more difficult, often requiring rites of passage betw een role enactments. Examples of common rites of passage are drinking a cup of co ffee before leaving home in the morning, attending the gym after the work days ends and before coming home for the evening, or even the commute to and from work (A shforth et al, 2000; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Additionally, greater segmentation of roles causes out-of-role interruptions to be increasingly intolerable. Because roles are so highly segmented such interruptions are unlikely to occur, but if interruptions do occur the segmenting individual will be caught off guard and will likely experience great distress, as interruptions disturb the ongoing identity maintenance process (Burke, 1991). On the other hand, greater integration of roles allows for lower transition costs and greater tolerance of out-of-role interruptio ns at the cost of possible role blurring (Hill et al., 1998). Because different boundary mana gement strategies result in different outcomes, individuals are expected to differ on their preferences for each (Ashforth et al, 2000; Rau & Hyland, 2002). Furthermore, need for segmentation vs. need for integration
19 is considered to be a determinant of both i ndividual differences a nd situational factors, such as job structure, and is an integral part of ones preferred appr oach to work-life role synthesis (Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999; Kossek, 2005). Flexplace arrangements normally allow spatial and temporal flexibility, as workers can decide both where and when they want to work. Permeability of boundaries is also increased through flexplace because individuals can easily enact other life roles while in the work domain (Rau & Hyland, 2002). With these increases of boundary flexibility and permeability, workers gain the advantage of minimizing costs associated with transitions among roles, and rites of pa ssage between roles may become simple and quick, even occurring without conscious awarene ss. However, roles are likely to become blurred and open to frequent out of role interruptions (Ashfort h et al., 2000). In essence, flexplace arrangements facilitate the integr ation of roles and create difficulty in maintenance of role segmentation, making it an integrating policy (Desrochers, Hilton, & Larwood, 2005; Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996; Kossek et al., 2006; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Rau & Hyland, 2002). The benefits incurr ed from flexplace are offset by the costs, costs that would be largely unattractive for an individual with a high need for segmentation. As desire for segmentation and integration are c onceptualized along a continuum, hypotheses will use the need for segm entation as the label to represent this continuum, with underlying assumptions that a low need for segmentation represents a high need for integration and vice versa. It is hypothesized: Hypothesis 4: Need for segmentation of work roles from other life roles will be negatively related to flexplace use. Sp ecifically, individuals higher in need for segmentation will be less likely to us e flexplace than will in dividuals lower in
20 need for segmentation. Flextime allows workers to alter the timing of their work to better accommodate other life roles. In doing so, flextime in creases the temporal flexibility of work boundaries, while maintaining the impermeability and spatial inflexibility provided by traditional work arrangements (Rau & Hyland, 2002). For instance, workers who would normally engage in family-related activities at work, such as calling their children when they arrive home from school, can use flextime to adjust their schedule so that they can end the work day before the children arrive home. Thus, flextime affords employees the benefit of minimizing out of role interrupt ions and reinforces boundaries between roles (Rothbard, Phillips, & Dumas, 2005). Additionally, costs that i ndividuals high in need for segmentation normally incur under traditional work arrangements are minimized with flextime use. It may be easier to engage in the rites of passage that are norma lly used as transition tools. Rau and Hyland (2002) explain that common rites of passage, such as going to the gym after work, are facilitated by schedule flexibility, as one coul d engage in the rituals more efficiently by attending the facility during hours where it is not congested with the normal post five oclock crowd. In summation, flextime allows individuals with a high need for segmentation to engage in activities that wi ll feed this need, such as reducing overlap between work and life roles through temporal flexibility (Rothbard et al., 2005). Also, flextime allows segmentors to participate in activities that will lessen costs that are normally associated with segmentation, such as less risk of out of ro le interruptions and easier transitions between roles. As such, c onsistent with prior re search (Kossek et al., 1999; Nippert-Eng, 1995; Rothbard et al., 2005 ), flextime is considered a more
21 segmenting policy than is a traditional work arrangement. Thus, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 5: Need for segmentation of work roles from other life roles will be positively related to fl extime use. Specifically, in dividuals higher in need for segmentation will be more likely to use flextime than will in dividuals lower in need for segmentation. Need for Occupational Achievement Murray (1938) defines need for achievement as a chronic need to accomplish something difficult, overcome obstacles, attain a high standard, rival and surpass others, and to increase self-regard by the successful ex ercise of talent in a rapid and independent manner. Individuals vary in the extent that they desire personal achievement and in the focalization of achievement motivations in to specific life domains (Murray, 1938; McClelland, 1961). Achievement may be focu sed on athletic, social, or intellectual domains; however, the professional and occupa tional domains seem to be an especially important channel for achievement (Murray, 1938). Several studies have linked high need for achievement to actual occupational achievement, in terms of promotion and fi nancial success, across various occupations (e.g., Amyx & Alford, 2005; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Singh, 1978; Wainer & Rubin, 1969). In addition, research has generally supported the noti on that individuals with a high need for achievement tend to s eek out and perform better at moderately challenging tasks, take responsibility for their own performance, actively request feedback on their performance, and search for innovative and more efficient ways of doing things (McClelland, 1987). In looking at the specific need for occupational achievement, it seems that two outcomes are mo st relevant to the utilization of flextime
22 and flexplace, the search for innovative and more efficient ways of doing things and the general striving for success. Combining these notions, it is reasonable to assume that an individual with a high need for achievement will likely prefer a work environment that would allow the most work to be accomplished in the minimal amount of time. Presumably, this environment will have nominal susceptibility to distractions. Distractions are interrupti ons triggered by external stim uli or internal processes and that disrupt focused concentration on a pr imary task (Jett & Ge orge, 2003; Carlson & Frone, 2003) and can occur in both the work and home environments. Possible disruptions at work are social encounters with other employees, background noise, coworkers nearby conversations, and electroni c media (Oldham, Kulik, & Stepina, 1991; Perlow, 1999; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1999 ). Examples of home distracters are the presence of children or other family member s, interruptions by neighbors or door-to-door salesmen, personal phone calls, and domes tic tasks (Ammons & Markham, 2004). Moreover, because individuals differ on personal work preferences, certain environmental factors may be distracting to some individuals but not to others (Oldham et al., 1991). Thus, it is likely that individual di fferences in employees personalities will influence which work environment (e.g., home, remote location, or main office) is most preferable to completing job-related tasks for him or her. In this sense, preferable environment refers to the location which is mo st efficient in terms of output, presumably that which is least distractive and most conduc ive to completing work tasks. Those with a high need for occupational achievement will likely strive to work in this preferred environment in order to maximize productivit y. Combining the concept of high need for
occupational achievement and the means by which it is likely obtained, the following is hypothesized: Hypothesis 6: Need for occupational achievement will interact with preferred work environment to predict use of flexplace. Specifically, individuals with a high need for occupational achievement will be more likely to use flexplace when the home or remote environment is preferred and will be less likely to use flexplace when the work office environment is preferred. (See Figure 1 for graphic representation). Figure 1 Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement on Use of Flexplace as a Function of Preferred Work Environment. 0246810lohiNeed for AchievementUse of Flexplace Work Office Home/RemoteLocation 23
24 As previously mentioned, flextime s hould contribute to an increase in productivity, as temporal flexibility allows empl oyees to work at personal peak efficiency times where distraction are minimal and decreases commute time (Belanger, Collins, & Cheney, 2001; Frolick et al. 1993). Additiona lly, Baltes et al.s (1999) meta-analysis concluded that flextime is positively associ ated with productivity. By definition, those with a high need for occupati onal achievement should be attr acted to flextime because it is conducive to greater efficiency and producti vity, precursors to overall job achievement. Therefore, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 7: Need for occupational achi evement will be positively related to flextime use. Specifically, individual s higher in need for occupational achievement will be more likely to use flextime than will individuals lower in need for occupational achievement. Using needs theory as a framework, th e previous hypotheses have proposed the relationship of need-based motivational factor s to FWA use, independent of situational variables. However, in organizational setti ngs, situational factors are ever-present and likely play a role in decisions to use FWA. As outlined by expectancy theory, situational variables may alter the perceived attractiveness of FWA as a method of satiating needs, leading to a change in use. Thus, the in fluence of a situational variable, face-time orientation, is considered as a moderating vari able in the relationships between the four motivational needs and FWA use. Face-Time Orientation Within organizations there is variation in the extent that supervisors expect employees to work long hours at the office and in the extent that employees perceive that
25 they will garner rewards for time spent at the work (Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002). Workplaces that have high expectations for em ployees to be physically present at work and seem to reward based on the fulfillment of these expectations can be referred to as having a face-time orientation. On the opposite extreme, organizations that do not highly value physical presence are labe led results-oriented organizati ons (Hill & Weiner, 2003). Organizations that highly valu e face-time are likely to inhibit employees from using FWA. Because the use of flexible policies a llow for flexibility in physical presence at work, organizations that offe r FWA but still place an emphasis on face-time are sending employees mixed messages. Employees may wa nt to use FWA but do not, for fear of negative career repercussions, such as misse d promotions or wage increases (Bailyn, 1993; Glass & Fujimoto, 1995). Likewise, Perlow (1995) explains that face-time oriented cultures view physical presence at work as a form of organizationa l commitment. Thus, those who are not in the office will be viewed as lacking commitme nt and may receive negative performance evaluations as a result. Even when FWA us ers are equally productive, there is often an underlying assumption that work is more valued to the extent it can be readily observed by a supervisor (Rodgers, 1992). In an empi rical investigation, Major et al. (2002) highlight the impact of a face-time culture, finding that organizational norms about time spent at work are positively related to wo rk time. Additionally, researchers have explained that a shift away from face-time nor ms and relevant adaptations in performance evaluations systems are essentia l for the effectiveness of flexible work policies (Perlow, 1995; Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998; Hill et al., 2003).
26 Despite the agreement about the possible negative repercussions of a face-time oriented organization in relati on to FWA use, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Some researchers have imbedded the idea within the broader context of organizational barriers to use (i.e., Alle n, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999), but none have looked specifically at face-time orientation and FWA use. It seems to be a particularly relevant situational variable in the relati onship between FWA availability and use, as norms about physical presence should directly relate to ones decision to use an arrangement that will alter physical presence. With this in consider ation, the effects of extent of face-time orientation will be examined as a moderator of the previously hypothesized relationships between needs and FWA use. Specifically, because past research suggests that organizational fo cus on face-time has such strong negative impacts, it is hypothesized that perceived wo rkplace face-time orie ntation will lead to decrease in the use of both flextime and fle xplace, regardless of individual differences in needs. Hypothesis 8: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for affiliation at work and use of flexpla ce, such that those with a low need for affiliation will be less likely to use flexplace when face-time orientation is perceived as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 2 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 9: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for structure at work and use of flexplace, such that those with a low need for structure will be less likely to use fl explace when face-time orientation is
27 perceived as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 2 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 10: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for structure at work and use of flextim e, such that those with a low need for structure will be less likely to use flextim e when face-time orientation is perceived as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 3 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 11: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for segmentation of work from other life roles and use of flexplace, such that those with a low need for segmentation will be less likely to use flexplace when face-time orientation is percei ved as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 2 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 12: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for segmentation of work from other life roles and use of flextime, such that those with a high need for segmentation will be less likely to use flextime when face-time orientation is per ceived as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 4 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 13: Face-time orientation w ill moderate the relationship between need for occupational achievement and fl explace use. Specifically, when the workplace is perceived as having a low face-time orientation there will be no relationship between need for achiev ement and flextime use but when the workplace is perceived as having a high face-time orientation there will be a negative relationship between need for achievement and flexplace use. (See
Figure 5 for graphic representation). Hypothesis 14: Face-time orientation will moderate the relationship between need for occupational achievement and use of flextime, such that those with a high need for occupational achievement will be less likely to use flextime when face-time orientation is perceived as high than when it is perceived as low. (See Figure 4 for graphic representation). Figure 2. Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement, Need for Structure at Work, and Need for Segmentation of Work From Other Life Roles on Flexplace Use as a Function of Face-Time Orientation. lohiUse of Affiliation/Structure/SegmentationUse of Flexplace High Face-timeOrientation Low Face-timeOrientation 28
Figure 3 Predicted Impact of Need for Structure at Work on Flextime Use as a Function of Face-Time Orientation. lohiNeed for StructureUse of Flextim e High Face-timeOrientation Low Face-timeOrientation Figure 4 Predicted Impact of Need for Segmentation of Work From Other Life Roles and Need for Occupational Achievement on Flextime Use as a Function of Face-Time Orientation. lohiNeed for Segmentation/AchievementUse of Flextim e High Face-timeOrientation Low Face-timeOrientation 29
Figure 5 Predicted Impact of Need for Occupational Achievement on Flexplace Use as a Function of Face-Time Orientation. lohiNeed for AchievementUse of Flexplac e High Face TimeOrientation Low Face TimeOrientation 30
31 Chapter Two Method Participants The sample consisted of 238 faculty members from a large southeastern university. Participation for the study was solicited through an email message describing the research as an examination of personality and work behaviors in an academic context. According to the universitys policies, online solicitation of faculty members for research purposes must be sent through the Provost s office. Thus, upon approving the study, the Provosts office sent the email message to an online Listserve containing the majority of the faculty within the university. The ema il included a link to the online survey and was sent to 1,602 faculty members. Two hundred and thirty eight respondents completed the survey, resulting in a response ra te of approximately 15%. The faculty members represented a wide variety of departments within the university. Of the 217 participants reporti ng their gender, 43.3% were male and 56.7% were female. In regards to rank, 18.9% of the participants iden tified themselves as assistant professors, 22.3% were associate professors, 21.4% were full professors. Approximately 27% of the participants pla ced themselves into the other category, which included job titles such as adjunct facu lty, emeritus professor, instructor, university librarian, research associate, visiting professor, practicum coordinator, and associate dean. The remaining 10.1% of the participants did not provide their job rank or title. Thirty-nine (16.4%) participan ts described themselves as pre-tenure, 96 (40.3%) were
32 post-tenure, and 80 (33.6%) were on a non-tenu re track. The remaining 9.7% did not report their tenure status. Measures All measures are included in the Appe ndix. Unless otherwise noted, scores on each scale were obtained by averaging the score on each item, with higher scores indicating a greater preval ence of the construct. Need for affiliation at work. In reviewing the existing measures for need for achievement, the Manifest Needs Questionnai re (MNQ) (Steers & Braunstein, 1976) and an adaptation of the MNQ, the Needs A ssessment Questionnaire (NAQ) (Heckert, Cuneio, Hannah, Adams, Droste, Mueller, Wallis, Griffin, & Roberts, 1999) were found. However, due to low internal consistency of the MNQ and the lack of consistent focus of the NAQ on the specific domain of achieve ment at work, a new measure was adapted from these scales. In the new measure, some items from the MNW and NAQ were adapted, and other original items were adde d. In creating the ne w items, Murray (1938) and McClellands (1961) conceptualizations of the need for affiliation were reviewed. The new scale consisted of seven items that targeted social relati onships, belongingness, and acceptance in the workplace. Response op tions were on a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The current measure showed higher internal consistency reliability than that of previous measures ( = .75). Need for structure in the workplace Neuberg and Newsoms (1993) Personal Need for Structure Scale was adapted to a wo rkplace context. The scale is composed of 12 items, which were answered on a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree with no neutral point. The coefficient alpha for the present
33 study was .85 Need for segmentation of work from other life roles. Kreiners (2006) four item scale assessing segmentation preferences was used. Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly ag ree. Higher scores indicated greater needs for segmentation of work from other life roles, and lower scores indicated greater need for integration of work with other life roles. The coefficient alpha for the current study was .96. Need for occupational achievement. The nine item scale developed by Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, a nd Randall (2005) was used. Eisenberger et al. created the scale from the Manifest Need s Questionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976), as well as their own items, all aligning with McClellands (1961, 1987) definition of need for achievement. Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agre e. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable, as coefficient alpha was .82. Preference for work environment Using a forced choice format, participants were asked to choose whether they prefer to complete job-related tasks at their work offices or home/remote location. Responses were dummy coded for analysis (work office = 0, home/remote location = 1). Face-time orientation. As no known measure of face-time orientation exists, a seven item scale was created for this study. After reviewing several descriptions of an organization highly reliant on face time (i.e ., Bailyn, 1993; Major et al., 2002; Perlow, 1995; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson et al., 1999), seven items targeting relevant characteristics of face-time orientation were constructed. Items targeted both overall
34 organizational values and rewards in relation to face-time. Participants were asked to consider spring and fall semesters only in th eir responses, as face-time norms may differ during summer semesters due to the nature of the academic calendar. Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagr ee to strongly agree. This original measure showed good inte rnal consistency reliability ( = .76). Utilization of FWA. In line with Eatons (2003) recommendations, the degree of flexibility actually practiced was measured, rather than just a general measure of use. Amount of flexplace practiced was assessed using Kossek et al.s (2006) measure of telecommuting volume. Participants were asked to indicate the percen t of their jobs that are currently performed away from their work office. Use of flextime was measured with a four item scale that asked about participants modificati on of work hours on campus. In developing the scale, experts in the field of work-family conflict we re asked to provide input about the content of the items to verify construct validity. Additionally, professors from another university were asked to assess the scale from a participants viewpoint. Items were adjusted to reflect these comm ents. Response options were based on a 5point Likert scale format from strongly disa gree to strongly agree. The measure showed acceptable internal consistenc y reliability, as coefficient alpha was .83. For both measures, participants were asked to consid er spring and fall se mesters only in their responses, as the use of FWA may differ in su mmer semesters due to the nature of the academic calendar. Control variables. Due to their potential relati onships with the dependent variables, flexibility available, gender, marital status, job level, family responsibility, and work-family conflict were considered as pot ential control variable s. Although it is
35 assumed that faculty have a great deal of flexib ility available to them, there is variation in the amount of flexibility available acro ss academic departments. Therefore, perceived flexibility available was included as a control, using Hylands (2000) four item scale. Response options were set on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from entirely not true to entirely true, and the coefficien t alpha in the present study was .92. Gender was dummy coded (male = 0, female = 1). Marital status was dummy coded (not married = 0, married or not married but living with a partner = 1). Job level was assessed in two ways: tenure status (pre-, pos t-, and non-tenure) and rank (full professor, associate professor assistant pr ofessor, and other). Family responsibility was measured using Rothausens (1999) responsibility for dependent s scale. Rothausen used subject matter expert ratings to create diffe rential responsibility weights a ccording to childrens living arrangements and age. The scale al so asks about dependent adults. Work-family conflict was measured with Netemeyer, Boles, a nd McMurrians (1996) ten item work-family conflict scale. The scale includes five items assessing work interference with family (WIF) and five items assessing family interf erence with work (FIW). Responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 5-point Likert scale. The coefficient alpha was .95 for WIF and .92 for FIW.
36 Chapter Three Results Preliminary Analysis Assumptions. Before conducting analyses, data were inspected for outliers and violations of assumptions of correlation and regression analyses. Outliers were determined by examining data points that were more than three standard deviations above or below the mean. According to these crit eria, one outlier was found regarding need for affiliation at work, need for occupational ach ievement, and flexplace utilization, and two outliers were found in regards to the FIW m easure. However, all outliers were still plausible values for each scale and were theref ore not removed. In order to test for the Pearsons product moment correlation assumption of normality, graphical plots and skewness and kurtosis values we re examined. Several of the variables exhibited some degree of kurtosis and skewness. Need for affiliation at work, need for occupational achievement, and flextime utilization we re negatively skewed, whereas flexplace utilization, FIW, and family responsibili ty were positively skewed. Need for segmentation of work from other life roles, need for occupational achievement, WIF, and FIW were kurtotic. Given the product mome nt correlations robustn ess to violation of this assumption (Cohen, 1969), analyses were conducted without transforming the data. Assumptions of regression analysis include independence, normality of residuals, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals. Due to the natu re of the data collection and study design, independence of data is assumed. Normality of residuals was tested using
37 q-q plots; inspection of the plots generall y indicates normality of residuals for all variables. Linearity was examined by pl otting the residuals against each measured independent variable and agains t the predicted values. The scatterplots mostly appeared linear, providing evidence for this assumption. Finally, hom oscedasticity of residuals was assessed using a modified Levene test co mparing each independent variable to both flextime and flexplace utilization. If the Levene statistic is significant at the .05 level or better, the null hypothesis that the groups have equal variances should be rejected. The statistic was significant for several of the rela tionships: face-time or ientation and flextime utilization, and need for segmen tation of work from other life roles, need for structure in the workplace, flexibility available, WIF, and FIW and flexplace utilization. Again, given the robustness of regression analysis to this violation, analyses were conducted without transforming the data. Descriptive statistics for all study vari ables (number of responses, means, standard deviations, minimu m and maximum values, number of items, and coefficient alphas) are listed in Table 1. Intercorrelations among study variables are listed in Table 2. It is important to note that due the setup of the surv ey question regarding family responsibility, it was impossible to decipher between those w ith no family responsibility and those who chose not to answer the quest ion. Thus, no definitive conclusions could be drawn from this variable and it was not included in analyses. Control Variables. The use of control variables was determined according to their association with the dependent variable s. For continuous or dichotomous control variables (flexibility available, gender, and work-family conflict), correlations were
38 Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables Variable N # of Items M SD Obs. Min. Obs. Max. Variables Need for Affiliation 238 7 .75 4.32 .79 1.00 6.00 Need for Structure 236 12 .85 3.57 .80 1.36 5.50 Need for Segmentation 227 4 .96 3.45 1.51 1.00 6.00 Need for Achievement 228 9 .82 4.79 .64 1.00 6.00 Face-Time Orientation 227 7 .76 2.90 .93 1.00 5.29 Environment Pref.* 204 1 -.36 .36 0.00 1.00 Flextime Utilization 220 4 .83 4.05 1.33 1.00 6.00 Flexplace Utilization** 217 1 -30.45 22.73 0.00 100.00 WIF 219 5 .95 3.33 1.42 1.00 6.00 FIW 219 5 .92 2.13 1.13 1.00 6.00 Flexibility Available*** 221 4 .92 3.74 .82 1.50 5.00 Demographics Gender 217 1 -.57 .50 0.00 1.00 Marital Status 218 1 -.81 .40 0.00 1.00 Tenure Status 215 1 -1.07 .90 0.00 2.00 Job Rank 214 1 -1.42 1.16 0.00 3.00 All non-demographic variables are measured on a 6-point scale unl ess otherwise noted Preference for work environment was code d work office =0, home/remote location = 1 ** Flexplace utilization was meas ured on a scale from 0 to 100 *** Perceived Flexibility Available was measured on a 5-point scale Male = 0, Female = 1 Non-tenure = 0, Pre tenure = 1, Post-tenure = 2 Not married = 0, Married or Not ma rried but living with partner = 1 Other = 0, Assistant professor = 1, Associate professor = 2, Full professor = 3
39 Table 2 Intercorrelations among study variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Flextime Use -2. Flexplace Use .43** -3. Need Affiliation -.02 -.09 -4. Need Structure -.21** -.15* .03 -5. Need Segment. -.36** -.46** -.06 .30** -6. Need Achieve. .00 -.10 .24** -.01 -.02 -7. Face-time Orient -.31** -.28** .09 .08 .23** .07 -8. Envir. Pref. .34** .53** -.05 -.14 -.33** -.06 -.12 -9. Gender -.09 .00 .04 .16* .14* -.08 .09 .16* -10. Marital Status -.07 .02 .00 -.08 -.01 .02 .01 -.17* -.22** -11. Tenure Status .30** .18** -.05 .00 -.34** -.03 -.30** .07 -.33** .07 -12. WIF .22** .10 .08 .09 .02 .02 .05 .15* .03 .04 .12 -13. FIW .01 .00 -.10 .06 .13 -.06 .07 -.12 -.05 .13 .06 .59** -14. Flex Available .33** .30** .02 -.04 -.31** .07 -.55** .01 -.25** -.01 .39** -.07 -.03 Preferred Work Environment (Evir. Pref.): Work office =0, home/remote location = 1; Gender: Male = 0, Female = 1; Tenure Status: Non-tenure track= 0, Tenure-track = 1; Marital Status: Not married = 0, Married or Not married but living with partner = 1
40 examined. For categorical variables with more than two levels (job rank, tenure status), ANOVAs and Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons were conducted to determine whether groups within each category had differential a ssociations with the dependent variables. Flexibility available significantly correlated with both flextime and flexplace utilization ( r = .33, p < .01; r = .30, p < .01, respectively) and WIF wa s significantly correlated with flextime use ( r = .22, p < .01 ). An ANOVA revealed that significant di fferences did exist between job rank categories (assistant professors, associate prof essor, full professor, other) in regards to both flextime ( F = 5.01, p < .01) and flexplace (F = 2.71, p < .05) use. A Tukey HSD post-hoc comparison was used to pinpoint the source of these differences. The other category used flextime significantly less than associate and full professors and flexplace significantly less than associate professors (p <.05). An ANOVA revealed that significant differences also existed between tenure categories (nontenure, pre-tenure, post-tenure) in regards to both flextime ( F = 10.49, p < .01) and flexplace ( F = 3.82, p = .02) use. A Tukey HSD post-hoc comparison sh owed that participan ts on a non-tenure track used flextime significantly less than thos e on preand posttenure tracks professors ( p <.05). Non-tenure track respondents also used flexplace significantly less than posttenure participants professors (p <.05). Given the nature of the differences identified, tenure status was collapsed into two categ ories, tenure-track and non-tenure track (dummy coded 0 and 1, respectively), for control purposes. Job rank was not included as a control variable due to its conceptual overlap with tenure. The majority of participants classified as other were also on a non-te nure track; therefore, in order to preserve power only the measure of tenure status was included as a control.
41 In sum, based on the aforementioned associations, flexibility available, WIF, and tenure status, were included as controls for regression analyses involving flextime use. Flexibility available and tenure status were included as cont rols for regression analyses involving flexplace use. Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were tested by examining the zero-order correlations between the relevant motivationa l need variable and the proper dependent variable, flextime or flexplace use. Hypothese s were further examined using hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) in or der to test whether or not relationships remained significant after controlling for the e ffects of the relevant control variables and the other independent variables. As there are two dependent vari ables, two separate regression equations (use of flexplace and us e of flextime) were calculated. For each equation, control variables were entered in step one and independent variables (need for affiliation at work, need for structure at work, need for segmentation of work from other life roles, need for occupationa l achievement) were entered in step two. Variables with standardized beta weights si gnificant at the .05 level we re considered significant predictors. Regression results are displayed in Table 3 and Table 4. Hypothesis 1 predicted that n eed for affiliation at work would be negatively related to flexplace use. This prediction was not supported ( r = -.09, p = .19; = -.09, p = .14). Hypothesis 2 proposed that need for struct ure in the workplace would be negatively related to flexplace use. Th is proposition was supported us ing correlation coefficients ( r = -.15, p = .03); however, once the e ffects of tenure status and flexibility available were controlled for, the relations hip was no longer significant ( = .01, p = .91). Hypothesis 3,
42 Table 3 Regression of need variabl es on flextime utilization Dependent Variable: Flextime Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Control Variables WIF .21** .24** Tenure .17* .10 Flexibility Available .26** .22** Independent Variables Need for affiliation -.04 Need for structure -.14* Need for segmentation -.22** Need for achievement -.01 F 14.74** 9.97** df 3, 209 4, 205 Overall R .18 .25 in R .08** p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 4 Regression of need variables on flexplace utilization Dependent Variable: Flexplace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .08 -.04 Flexibility available .26** .19** Independent Variable Need for affiliation -.09 Need for structure .01 Need for segmentation -.43** Need for achievement -.10 F 10.26** 12.13** Df 2, 207 4, 203 Overall R .09 .26 in R .17** p < .05, ** p < .01
43 that need for structure in the workplace and flextime utilization would be negatively related, was also supported ( r = -.21, p < .01; = -.14, p = .03). Hypothesis 4 predicted that need for segmentation of work roles from other life roles would be negatively related to flexplace use. This hypothe ses was supported (r = -.46, p < .01; = -.43, p < .01). Hypothesis 5 was not supported; need for se gmentation of work roles from other life roles was not positively related to flextime utilization. However, a significant association was found in the opposite direction of prediction ( r = -.36, p < .01; = -.22, p < .01 ) Hypothesis 7, that need for achievement at wo rk would be positively related to flextime use, was not supported ( r = .00, p = .98; = -.09, p = .14). Moderator Hypotheses Moderated hierarchical re gression was used (James & Brett, 1984) to test Hypotheses 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 For th ese regression equations, control variables were added in step one, follow ed by the independent variables (need for affiliation at work, need for structure at work, need for segmentation of work from other life roles, need for occupational achievement) and the moderating variables (preferred work environment and face-time orientation) in step two. As preferred work environment is a categorical variable, it was dummy c oded (work office = 0, home/remote location = 1). The interaction terms (need for o ccupational achievement x preferred work environment, need for affiliation at work x face-time orientation, need for structure at work x face-time orientation, need for segmentation of work from other life roles x facetime orientation, need for occupational achieveme nt x face-time orientation) were entered in step three. All independent and continuous moderating variables were centered and interaction terms were created based on the cente red variables. In order to determine the
presence of a moderating effect, or the incremental variance that is accounted for by the moderation, the significance of the 2 R were examined. Results are presented in Tables 5 12. Hypothesis 6 predicted that need for occupational achievement would interact with preferred work environment to predict use of flexplace. No support was found ( 2 R = .01, p = .21). Hypothesis 8 was not supported ( 2 R = .00, p =.93), as face-time orientation did not significantly moderate the relationship between need for affiliation at work and use of flexplace. Hypothesis 9 and 10 predicted that face-time orientation would moderate the relationship between need for structure at work and use of flexplace and flextime, respectively. No support for moderation was found for either hypothesis (Hypothesis 9, 2 R = .00, p =.54; Hypothesis 10, 2 R = .00, p =.61). Hypothesis 11 and 12 suggested that face-time orientation would moderate the relationship between need for segmentation of work from other life roles and use of flexplace and flextime, respectively. No support was found (Hypothesis 11, 2 R = .00, p =.47; Hypothesis 12, 2 R = .01, p =.13). Finally, no support was found for Hypotheses 13 and 14, which predicted that face-time orientation would moderate the relationship between need for occupational achievement and flexplace use ( 2 R = .00, p =.60) and flextime use ( 2 R =.01, p =.24), respectively. 44
45 Table 5 Moderated regression results of need for occupational achievement and preferred work environment on flexplace u tilization (Hypothesis 6) Dependent Variable: Fl explace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .06 .01 .01 Flexibility available .25** .28** .27** Independent Variables Need for achievement -.11 -.04 Environment preference .51** .51** Interaction Term Need for achievement x Env. pref -.10 F 8.35** 26.26** 21.39** Df 2, 192 4, 190 5, 189 Overall R .08 .36 .36 in R .28** .01 p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 6 Moderated regression results of need for affiliation at work and face-time orientation on flexplace utilization (Hypothesis 8) Dependent Variable: Fl explace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .09 .06 .06 Flexibility available .26** .19* .19* Independent Variables Need for affiliation -.07 -.08 Face-time orientation (FTO) -.14 -.14 Interaction Term Need for affiliation x FTO -.01 F 10.43** 6.45** 5.14** Df 2, 208 4, 206 5, 205 Overall R .09 .11 .11 in R .02 .00 p < .05, ** p < .01
46 Table 7 Moderated regression results of need for structure in the workplace and face-time orientation on flexplace u tilization (Hypothesis 9) Dependent Variable: Fl explace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .09 .07 .07 Flexibility available .26** .19* .19** Independent Variables Need for structure -.11 -.10 Face-time orientation (FTO) -.14 -.14 Interaction Term Need for structure x FTO .04 F 10.43** 6.88** 5.57** Df 5, 208 4, 206 5, 205 Overall R .09 .12 .12 in R .03* .00 p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 8 Moderated regression results of need for structure in the workplace and face-time orientation on flextime util ization (Hypothesis 10) Dependent Variable: Flextime Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables WIF .22** .24** .24** Tenure .17* .15* .15* Flexibility available .26** .19* .19* Independent Variables Need for structure -.19** -.19* Face-time orientation (FTO) -.15* -.15* Interaction Term Need for structure x FTO .03 F 15.13** 12.80** 10.67** Df 3, 210 5, 208 6, 207 Overall R .18 .24 .24 in R .06** .00 p < .05, ** p < .01
47 Table 9 Moderated regression results of need for segm entation of work from other life roles and face-time orientation on flexpla ce utilization (Hypothesis 11) Dependent Variable: Fl explace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .08 -.03 -.03 Flexibility available .26** .14 .14 Independent Variables Need for segmentation -.41** -.40** Face-time orientation (FTO) -.08 -.08 Interaction Term Need for segmentation x FTO .05 F 10.26** 16.65** 13.40** Df 2, 207 4, 205 5, 204 Overall R .09 .25 .25 in R .16** .00 p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 10 Moderated regression results of need for segm entation of work from other life roles and face-time orientation on flextim e utilization (Hypothesis 12) Dependent Variable: Flextime Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables WIF .21** .23** .23** Tenure .17* .09 .08 Flexibility available .26** .15 .14 Independent Variables Need for segmentation -.25** -.27** Face-time orientation (FTO) -.13 -.13 Interaction Term Need for segmentation x FTO -.09 F 14.74** 13.45** 11.66** Df 3, 209 5, 207 6, 206 Overall R .18 .25 .25 in R .07** .01 p < .05, ** p < .01
48 Table 11 Moderated regression results of need fo r occupational achiev ement and face-time orientation on flexplace util ization (Hypothesis 13) Dependent Variable: Fl explace Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables Tenure .08 .06 .06 Flexibility available .26** .20* .21* Independent Variables Need for achievement -.11 -.11 Face-time orientation (FTO) -.13 -.13 Interaction Term Need for achievement x FTO .04 F 10.32** 6.85** 5.52** Df 2, 207 4, 205 5, 204 Overall R .09 .12 .12 in R .03* .00 p < .05, ** p < .01 Table 12 Moderated regression results of need fo r occupational achievement and face-time orientation on flextime util ization (Hypothesis 14) Dependent Variable: Flextime Utilization Variable Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Control Variables WIF .21** .22** .21** Tenure .17* .15* .15* Flexibility available .26** .18* .18* Independent Variables Need for achievement -.01 .00 Face-time orientation (FTO) -.17* -.17* Interaction Term Need for achievement x FTO .08 F 14.81** 10.01** 8.58** Df 3, 209 5, 207 6, 206 Overall R .18 .20 .20 in R .02 .01 p < .05, ** p < .01
49 Exploratory Analyses Several variables were included in the su rvey for exploratory purposes. First, participants were asked whethe r they were part of a dual-ea rner couple and if their spouse worked in the same field. While having a working spouse had no significant effects on flextime or flexplace use (r = .07 p = .34; r = .01, p = .91, respectively), having a spouse that worked in the same field significantly related to greater use of flexplace ( r = .25, p <.01). Additionally, as a supplement to the m easure of flextime uti lization participants were asked the following question, If you work consistent hours, what are your general start and stop times (i.e., 9 to 5)? Fr om responses to this question, a measure of nontraditional work hours was created by summ ing the number of hours worked outside of the traditional 8.am. to 5 p.m. work day. For instance, a participant indicating 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. as their consistent work hours was considered to work 2 nontraditional hours. This variable was positively correlated w ith the overall measure of flextime use ( r = .22, p = .03), providing evidence for convergent validity of the flextime measure. For exploratory purposes nontraditional hours works was substituted as a measure of flextime and tested with each hypothesis involving flextime use as the dependent variable (Hypotheses 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14). WIF and tenure were the only variables to significantly correlate with nontraditional wo rk hours; thus, both were included as controls for results involving regression analysis It is important to note that the sample sizes used in these analyses are substantially smaller, as not everyone reported working consistent hours and therefore the question was not applicable to all respondents. The results were identical to the original findings i nvolving the full measure of flextime with two exceptions, Hypotheses 5 and 12. Hypothesis 5 was not supported;
need for segmentation of work roles from other life roles was not positively related to nontraditional hours worked. However, similar to previous results, a significant correlation was found in the opposite direction of prediction (r = -.25, p = .01), but once WIF and tenure were controlled for this relationship was no longer significant ( = -.16, p = .12). Hypothesis 12 suggested that face-time orientation would moderate the relationship between need for segmentation of work from other life roles and flextime. Support was found for the interaction using nontraditional work hours as the dependent variable ( 2 R = .03, p =.04). Specifically, when face-time orientation is perceived as low, there is a negative relationship between nontraditional hours worked and need for segmentation. When face-time orientation is perceived as high, there is no relationship between the need for segmentation and nontraditional hours worked. Moderated regression results are presented in Table 13, and the interaction is plotted in Figure 6. Table 13 Moderated regression results of need for segmentation of work from other life roles and face-time orientation on nontraditional hours worked (exploratory analysis) Dependent Variable: Nontraditional Hours Worked Variable Step 1 () Step 2 () Step 3 () Control Variables WIF .29** .29** .30** Tenure .32** .28** .29** Independent Variables Need for segmentation -.16 -.12 Face-time orientation (FTO) .01 -.02 Interaction Term Need for segmentation x FTO .19* F 13.69** 7.65** 7.19** Df 2, 102 4, 100 5, 99 Overall R .18 .25 .25 in R .02 .03* p < .05, ** p < .01 50
Figure 6 Interaction of Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles on Nontraditional Hours Worked as a Function of Face-Time Orientation. 00.20.40.60.811.21.4lohiNeed for SegmentationNontraditional Hours Worked High Face-timeOrientation Low Face-timeOrientation 51
52 Chapter Four Discussion The purpose of this study was to gain greater insight into employees FWA utilization. Although previous studies have investigated organizational factors that contribute to family-friendly benefit utilization, this is one of the first studies to address the role of the individual. Specifically, th e relationships between individual differences in four work-related needs, need for affiliation at work, need for structure in the workplace, need for segmentation of work from other life roles, and need for occupational achievement, and fl extime and flexplace use were considered. Furthermore, the moderating influence of an empirically under-studied organizational variable, facetime orientation, was also examined. The results indicate that two motivationa l needs, the need for structure in the workplace and the need for segmentation of work from other life roles, are particularly important in relation to FWA u tilization. As hypothesized, the zero-order correlations indicated that need for structure in the workpl ace negatively related to both flexplace and flextime use. However, the beta weight associated with need for structure in the workplace was nonsignificant in the regressi on equation involving flextime when the influence of all predictors was controlled. The need for segmentation of work from other life roles was negatively related to fle xplace and flextime according to zero-order correlations and regression analyses. A lthough the relationship with flextime was significant, it was in the opposition direction of original prediction. On the other hand,
53 the influence of the need for occupational achievement and the need for affiliation at work are not significant predictors of flexible policy use. None of the hypotheses predic ting the moderating role of face-time orientation in the relationships between each need-based fact or and FWA use were supported. That is, face-time orientation does not seem to suppr ess utilization differe ntly for those with differing levels of needs. Interestingly, e xploratory analyses revealed that face-time orientation does moderate the relationship be tween need for segmentation of work from other life roles and the amount of nontraditio nal hours worked. Further explanation of each of these findings is discussed below. Theoretical Underpinnings and Implications Need for affiliation at work. The need for affiliation at work was hypothesized to negatively relate to flexplace use. Rationale for this prediction was grounded in the idea that those with high affiliative needs would prefer being physi cally present at work as a means to enhance affiliation with coworkers. There are several speculative reasons to explain the null results. Individuals may satiate their work affiliation needs through colleagues in their field that do not necessarily belong to the same organization. For instance, those who study the same subjects often collaborate and may consider each other coworkers, even if they are prox imally distant or working for different organizations. Employees may still fulfill their need for affiliation at work through such collaboration even if it is not accomplished in their office workspace. It is likely that individuals have different types of needs for affiliation at work, and some may be specific to colleagues in their current organization. The current study did not measure need for affiliation in a way that allows for examination of the need at different levels, but
54 researchers should consider this when conductin g future investigations on this topic. Another consideration is th e strength of the need for affiliation at work. Although research has documented the strength and pe rsistence of humans overall need for affiliation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), less is known about the strength of the specific need for affiliation at work. Perhaps the need fo r affiliation at work is a weak need that is not robust enough to influence work behaviors. Working individuals may have a desire to feel a sense of belonging at work, but aff iliation in other areas of life may compensate for it. Future research is needed to gain a fuller understanding of the need for affiliation at work. Notwithstanding the aforementioned ideas, the results of the present study indicate that the need for affiliation at work does not seem to drive employees decisions whether or not to use flexplace. Need for structure in the workplace. It was hypothesized th at individuals with high need for structure in the workpla ce would use flexplace less because the home environment has inherently less structure th an the work environment. It was also hypothesized that they would use flextime less because inconsistency in schedule provides less structure than fi xed hours. Zero-order correlations supported both of these claims; however, using regression analyses a nd controlling for tenur e status, flexibility available, and the other indepe ndent variables, need for stru cture in the workplace was no longer significantly associated with flexplace use. This may be due to the substantial correlation between the need for segmentation of work from other life roles and the need for structure in the workplace ( r = .30). Conceptually, it is logical that these two variables are correlated. Segmentation is e ssentially a way of im posing structure and boundaries on life roles. Indivi duals desiring structure in th eir workplace are likely to
55 also desire the management of multiple life roles in a structured way, which aligns more with segmentation than integration practices. Because need for structure in the workplace and flexplace use are correlated, the nonsignificant beta weight associated with the need for structure sugge sts that the part of need for structure that is driving this rela tionship is almost tota lly captured by another variable(s). Given the large significant beta weight associated with the need for segmentation of work from other life roles ( = -.43), it is reas onable that it is the influential force. In fact, exploratory anal yses reveal that the relationship between the need for structure in the workplace and flexplace utilization is fully mediated by the need for segmentation of work from other life roles ( z = -3.87, p < .001). Mediation results are presented in Table 14. Thus, the nonsigni ficant relationship between the need for structure in the workplace does not mean that this variable is not an important predictor of flexplace use. Rather, it appears to be related to flexplace use through the need for segmentation, indicating that that the aspects of need for structure that are conceptually similar to the need for segmentation are most influential. This overlap may be evidence for the influence of another motivational-based need, namely the need for order. Future researchers should consider using a need for structure scale that assesses multiple dimensions of the construct (e.g., needs for or der, organization, consistency) that allows for a more fine-grained analysis. The relationship between the need for stru cture in the workplace and flextime use was significant with both zer o-order correlations and regre ssion analysis. This suggests that there are unique aspects about po ssessing a high need fo r structure in
56 Table 14 Need for segmentation of work from other life roles as a mediator between the need for structure in the workplace and flexpla ce utilization (exploratory analysis) Dependent Variable Need for segmentation Flexplace Utilization Step 1 ( ) Step 2 ( ) Step 3 ( ) Need for structure .30** -.15* .00 Need for segmentation -.45** p < .05, **p < .01 the workplace that make flextime use le ss appealing. As hypothesized, the act of physically coming and going to work at the same time each day, having a consistent schedule, and clear rules about when work should be done seem to hold appeal to individuals desiring structure. Flextime takes away these aspects of work and does not serve as a means to satisfy workplace structure needs, creating a negative relationship. Need for segmentation of work from other life roles As hypothesized, the need for segmentation of work from other life ro les was significantly negatively related to flexplace use. A negative relationship was anticipated because of the blurring of boundaries that is invoked by flexplace use. Flexplace normally involves working from home, and it is extremely difficult to keep work and life roles separate when they occur in the same physical space. For those preferring to manage multiple roles through segmentation, physically and temporal boundaries are often crucial in allowing transfer between roles. Working from home ma kes these boundaries much more permeable, making segmentation almost impossible. Thus, by not using flexplace practices, high segmenters will not risk the undesira ble integration of life roles.
57 Conversely, it was predicted that need for segmentation of work from other life roles would positively relate to flextime use. Some researchers (Kossek et al, 1999; Nippert-Eng, 1995; Rothbard et al., 2005) consider flextime to be a segmenting policy, as it helps minimize out of role in terruptions. Employees can al ter their schedules so that family roles are enacted at one time and work roles at another, versus a standard schedule when there might be inevitable overlap betw een the two (e.g., childrens 4:00 return from school). Also, rights of passage used to tr ansition between roles may be facilitated by flextime use, making it an attractive option fo r segmenters. However, the results do not support these claims, as the relationship was act ually negative. Those with high needs for segmentation use flextime less, meaning that flextime is actually an integrating policy. Rau and Hyland (2002) created a model of flexible work arrangements, placing flextime, flexplace, and standard work arrangements on a continuum based upon the amount of integration or segmentation they allow. The authors consider flextime to be more integrating than standard work arrang ements because of the control over temporal boundaries granted by flextime. Although the imp ermeability and inflexibility of spatial boundaries remains intact, the greater flexibil ity in temporal boundaries alone facilitates integration through easing role transitions and rites of passage between roles. While other researchers argue that this is more conducive to segmentation of roles, Rau and Hyland believe that when role transitions and rights of passage are easier individuals will be more drawn to readily switching between ro les, and thus practice greater integration. In hypothesizing for the present study, Rothbards et al. (2005) theoretical reasoning was followed; however, the results provide gr eater support for Rau and Hylands proposition. The current findings help resolve these oppos ite viewpoints and suggest that future
58 researchers should adapt the theoretical lens of viewing flextime as a more integrating policy. Previous researchers have called for more research on the effects of boundary management strategies (Olson-Buchanan & Bo swell, 2006), particular ly in relation to FWA (Kossek et al., 2006). The present study answers this call, a nd contends that the need for segmentation is quite influential on ones decision to use FWA. Furthermore, the present findings provide additional evidence that work-family researchers are moving in the right direction by focusing on the need for segmentation. It appears to be a influential variable in individuals work-family balance strategies, a nd continued research on the topic will contribute to a more a fruitful picture of work-family conflict and surrounding issues. Need for occupational achievement. None of the hypotheses regarding the need for occupational achievement were supported. Preferred work environment (home/remote location vs. work office) did not interact with need for occupational achievement to predict flexplace use. Although it is theoretically sound to assume that individuals desiring achievement will work in an environment that is most conducive to gaining such achievement, this was simply not the case. One possible explanation for the lack of significant results surrounds the nega tively skewed distribution of need for occupational achievement scores. Given that the sample was entirely composed of professionals in an occupation where job stab ility and advancement are largely dependent upon high performance, this skewness is not surprising. The nons ignificant findings could therefore be attributable to range restriction of the independent variable. In order to clarify null results, subsequent investig ators should test the hypothesis using a sample
59 with greater variance in achievement needs. Similarly, no significant a ssociation was found between the need for occupational achievement and flextime use. The relationshi p was posited to be positive, as flextime allows employees to work at times of persona l peak efficiency. Again, range restriction in need for occupational achievement scor es could help explain the null result. Additionally, it is possible that the need fo r occupational achievement could manifest itself differently for various individuals. Although people with high needs may choose to use flextime for the aforementioned efficiency purposes, others may fulfill their needs by increasing work hours overall. For instance, they may work th e entire day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., leaving no room for use of flextim e. Research does support this idea, as workaholism positively correlates with need for achievement (Mudrack & Naughton, 2001). Both types of high achievers would be combined in the analyses, canceling each other out, and making it appear that there is no significant relationship. The total number of work hours was not measured in the pr esent study, but future researchers should incorporate this variable in order to be tter understand how the need for occupational achievement manifests itself. Face-time orientation. None of the hypotheses predic ting the moderating role of face-time orientation were suppor ted, meaning that individuals with various levels of needs are not impacted differentially by the f ace-time orientation of their department. However, this is not to say that face-time or ientation is not a mean ingful variable. In fact, face-time orientation significantly corre lated with both flextime and flexplace use ( r = -.31, p < .01, r =-.28 p < .01, respectively). Consistent with anecdotal research, the negative relationships indicate that when one perceives his/her organization to place
60 much value on physical presence at work, he/s he will be less likely to take advantage of flexible policies. As the first known study to empirically test the role of face-time orientation, this finding extends current theory explaining why the mere availability of family-friendly benefits is not enough. In addition to having supervisor support for policies (Batt & Valcour, 2003) and an ove rall family-supportive organization (Allen, 2001), employers should devalue face-time norms in order to enhance FWA use. Taken together, the results of this study provide some insight into the impact of individual differences and face-time orientat ion in employees decisions to use familyfriendly benefits. By incorporating the ne wfound knowledge that the need for structure in the workplace and the need for segmentation of work from other life roles relate to FWA utilization, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of work-family balance strategies. Exploratory analysis. An exploratory analysis revealed that face-time orientation significantly moderates the rela tionship between the need for segmentation of work from other life roles and the amount of nontraditio nal hours worked. Specifically, when facetime orientation is perceived as low, th ere is a negative relationship between nontraditional hours worked and need for segmentation. When face-time orientation is perceived as high, there is no relationship between the need for segmentation and nontraditional hours worked. Thus, when face-time orientation is low, the relationship between need for segmentation and nontraditiona l work hours is consistent with previous findings involving the need for segmentation and flextime. However, when employees feel that they are being judged based upon thei r physical presence at work, the need for segmentation is no longer infl uential. Essentially, high f ace-time orientation reduces
61 individuals attentiveness to FWA as a means to fulfill their need for segmentation or integration. This interact ion provides further evidence for negative repurcussions of organizational reliance on face-time norms. Practical Implications In addition to contributing to theory, the present findings also have applied implications. If an organizat ion is attempting to help employees balance work and family roles, FWA alone are not the answer. Those with a high need for segmentation of work from other life roles are less likely to flexpl ace, and those with high needs for structure in the workplace and segmentation of work from other life roles are less likely to use flextime. Therefore, FWA are not a very effective means of easi ng work-family conflict for these people. To circumvent this issue, a wide variety of family-friendly policies should be offered, such as dependent care s upports, family and personal leaves, options for maximizing time and money resources, work/life education and training, and conventional provisions for job quality a nd compensation/benefits (Lobel & Kossek, 1996). With future research pinpointing how need -based motivational factors relate to other benefits, we can gain a clearer understa nding of the cocktai l of benefits that should be offered to accommodate people of all needs. The results indicate that perceiving th e organization as having a face-time orientation negatively relates to the use of both flexplace and flextime. As with any organizational implementation, it is necessary to make changes to the organizational culture for programs to be most effective. Based on the result s of the current study, altering norms about physical presence at work is a necessary accommodation for organizations offering FWA. If face-tim e orientation remains high, FWA will likely be
62 underutilized and serve as a less effective m eans to balancing work and family roles. Limitations Although this study provides important c ontributions to the literature, some limitations must be noted. First, the study sa mple was chosen because of the naturally occurring flexibility associated with faculty jobs within a university context. Given the neglect of individual differences research, use of an occupation with such flexibility was a crucial starting point. However, academia is a unique profession with much autonomy; thus, its generalizability to other more tr aditional occupations is unknown. Everyone in the sample was highly educated, and over 40% of the participants were in a tenured position, giving them job security that is foreign to the vast majority of workers. Future research applying the present study to a wide array of occupations and organizational contexts is needed to assess the generalizabil ity of the findings. This type of research would also be particularly informative in understanding how need -based motivational factors relate to FWA use in companies wher e taking advantage of flexibility is a more formalized process. A second limitation of the study is the use of cross-sectiona l data. Although it is theoretically sound to assume that dispositional needs influence FWA use, the design precludes any inferences about causality. It is possible that one may use a flexible policy so much that it actually alters their needs. For instance, an individual with a high need for structure may be forced to work from home and eventually, adapting to the home environment, develop a weaker need for stru cture. Future researchers should employ a longitudinal approach with multiple measurem ent times in order to determine changes across time.
63 Third, because the data was all collect ed via self-report methods, common method bias is a concern. However, the independent variables required self-report, as it is unlikely that anyone else is as knowledgeab le about an individuals own needs. Similarly, use of flexplace and flextime are probably most accurately measured through self-report, although future re searchers may consider obtaining reports from family members to reduce bias. Additionally, facetime orientation could be measured using coworker reports, and an aggregate measure could be created to gain a more objective picture of the value of face time within an organization. However, an individuals perception of face-time orientation may be different than true face-time orientation. Arguably, ones perceptions of the organiza tion are more important in determining behavior than the objective reality. Thus future investigators should consider the questions they want to address when decidi ng how to measure face -time orientation. Finally, as no known measure of amount of flextime use existed, an original scale was created for the present study. Al though the measure showed good internal consistency reliability and was deemed c onstruct valid by a panel of subject matter experts, there is still cause for concern. Overall, the measure mainly focused on one aspect of flextime the ability to change ones schedule on a daily basis. However, individuals may use flextime in a different manner, working the same schedule everyday but doing so with nontraditional hours (e.g., consistently working from 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) Although the current measure of flex time did not capture this variable, an exploratory item, If you work a consistent set of hours, what ar e they? did. As mentioned in the exploratory analyses secti on, this item was correlated with the overall measure of flextime, providing further eviden ce for construct validity. Nonetheless, it
64 would be useful to create a measure that combines both aspects of flextime, allowing researchers to look at both dimensions together as one construct. Future theorists should certainly take the multidimensional aspect of fl extime into account to gain a more fruitful understanding of the construct and its individual difference correlates. Future Directions With the exception of general demogra phics and Butler et al. (2004)s study involving work-family self-efficacy, this was the first study to examine the role of individual differences in FWA utilization. Thus, this study serves as a starting point in this research area, paving the way for many possible future inquiries The present study only examined individual differences in four va riables. These four constructs are by no means an exhaustive set of variables that could relate to FWA utilization; future researchers should consider the potential in fluences of other motivational needs and personality variables, such as the Big 5, affectivity, and personality type (i.e., Type A). Similarly, the present stu dy only used two types of family-friendly benefits, flextime and flexplace, as the dependent variables. While these are commonly offered benefits, there are many others that warrant investigati on. Future researchers may examine how individual differences relate to th e use of on-site daycar e, maternal/paternal leave, and other dependent care assistance programs. Comparisons of how individual differences differentially relate to each t ype of family-friendly benefit will help us understand the profile of those who are most and least likely to use benefits in general. This information could further be employed to create or refine benef its that may be more usable for those that are less likel y to practice curr ent policies.
65 In order to look at a s ituational variable in conjunction with individual differences, the present study investigated facetime orientation. It was hypothesized that workplaces with a high face-time orientation would alter the vale nce of flextime and flexplace as a means to fulfill needs. F ace-time orientation was chosen as the organizational variable of interest in the pr esent study for two main reasons. First, it is often mentioned in the literature but has b een empirically neglecte d. Second, it involves norms about physical presence at work, which relate directly to FWA policies that too involve altering physical pres ence at work. Although ther e was strong rationale to include face-time orientation as a moderato r, future researchers should consider the effects of other organizational variables. For instance, FSOP, supervisor support, and reward systems inconsistent with use have been cited as barriers to FWA use. Thus, these variables could also alter the valen ce of FWA as a means to satisfy needs and should also be tested as moderators in the relationship between needs and FWA utilization. In providing theoretical backing fo r each hypothesis, several notions were proposed as to why the relati onships would be in the hypothe sized directio n. While the philosophy is sound, the nature of the current study did not allow for specific testing of why each need related the FWA use. For instance, the need for structure in the workplace was predicted to negatively relate to flextime use because inconsistency in a work schedule inherently introduces less structure. This relationship was negative as predicted, but we can not be sure that it was inconsistency in schedule that was driving the relationship. Essentially, more research involving process variables needs to be conducted to gain a clearer picture. Owing to its infancy, this line of research could
66 profit from qualitative methods that may give more insight into the actual mechanisms linking needs to FWA use. Conclusion The current study addressed an important ga p in the family-friendly benefit usage literature the role of the indi vidual. The impact of four individual difference variables, all based on motivational needs, were exam ined in relation to flextime and flexplace utilization. The results suggest that the need for segmenta tion of work from other life roles and the need for structure in the workplace are particularly relevant in understanding who some individuals use FWA more than others. The implications of norms surrounding physical presence at work were also examined. Although face-time orientation did not moderate the relationshi ps between needs and FWA use as proposed, the study adds an important contribution by esta blishing an empirical wa y to evaluate this theoretically meaningful variable.
67 References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions Newbury Park, CA.: Sage. Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: The Free Press. Allen, T.D. (2001). Family-supportive work e nvironments: The role of organizational perceptions Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414-435. Allen, T.D., & Russell, J.E.A. (1999). Parental leave of absence: Some not so familyfriendly implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (1), 166-191. Almer, E.D., & Kaplan, S.E. (2002). The Effects of Flexible Work Arrangements on Stressors, Burnout and Be havioral Job Outcomes. Behavioral Research in Accounting 14, 1-34. Ammons, S.K., & Markham, W.T. (2004). Working at Home: Experiences of Skilled White Collar Workers. Sociological Spectrum, 24 (2), 191-238. Amyx, D., & Alford, B.L. (2005). The effects of salesperson need for achievement and sales manager leader reward behavior. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(4), 345-359. Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review 25, 472-491. Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Bailey, D.E., & Kurland, N.B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new
68 directions and lessons fo r the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 383-400. Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world New York: The Free Press. Baltes B.B., Briggs, T.E., Huff, J.W., Wright, J.A., & Neuman G.A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-a nalysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 496-513. Barker, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). The social work dictionary (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Batt, R., & Valcour, P.M. (2003). Human res ources practices as pr edictors of workfamily outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations 42, 189-220. Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The ne ed to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 497-529. Belanger, F. (1999). Workers propensity to telecommute: An empirical study. Information & Management, 35, 139-159. Belanger, F., Collins, R.W., & Cheney, P.H. (2001). Technology requirements and work group communication for telecommuters. Information Systems Research 12(2), 155-176. Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A.S. (2002). Employees use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces 80, 813-845. Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A.S. (2004). Orga nizational commitment and constraints on work-family policy use: Corporate flexibility policies in a global firm.
69 Sociological Perspectives 47, 243-267. Breaugh, J.A., & Frye, N.K. (2006). Family-supportive superviso rs and the use of familyfriendly benefits Poster presented at the annua l meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists in Dallas, TX Bruck C.S., Allen T.D., & Spector, P.E. (2002). The relation between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 (3), 336-353. Burke, P.J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review 56, 836-849. Burroughs, S.M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 509-532. Butler, A., Gasser, M., & Smart, L. (2004). A social-cognitive pe rspective on using familyfriendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(1), 57-70. Carlson, D. S. & Frone, M. R. (2003). Relation of behavioral and psychological involvement to a new four-factor co nceptualization of the workfamily interference. Journal of Business and Psychology 17, 515-535. Chadsey, J., & Beyer, S. (2001). Social relationships in the workplace. Mental Retardation and Developmental Di sabilities Research Reviews, 7 128-133. Chapman, A.J., Sheehy, N.P., Heywood, S., Dooley, B., & Collins, S.C. (1995). The organizational implications of telewo rking. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizati onal psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 229-248). London: Wiley.
70 Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal of Fam ily Issues, 11 (4), 455-476. Clark, S.C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58 348-365. Cohen, Jacob (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple egression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 rd Ed.). Mahwah, ew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, C.D., & Kurland, N.B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 511-532. Desrochers, S., Hilton, J.M., & Larwood, L. (2005). Preliminary validation of the workfamily integration-blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues 26(4), 442-466. Dikkers, J.S.E., Geurts, S.A.E., Den Dul k, L., Peper, B., & Kompier, M. (2004). Relations among work-home culture, the ut ilization of work-home arrangements, and work-home interference. International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 323-345. Dooley, B. (1996). At work away from work. The Psychologist 9, 155-158. Eaton, S.C. (2003). If you can use them: Flex ibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations 42, 145-167. Eisenberger, R., Jones, J.R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A.T. (2005). Flow experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), 755-775. Elovainio, M., & Kivimaki, M. (1999). Personal need for structure and occupational strain: An investigation of structural models and interaction with job complexity. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 209-222. Elovainio, M., & Kivimaki, M. (2001). The effects of personal need for structure and occupational identity in the role stress process. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 365-378. Fletcher, J., & Bailyn, L. (1996). Challenging the last boundary: Reconnecting work and family. In M.B. Arthur & D.M. Rosseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 256-267). New York: Oxford University Press. Friedman, S.D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: the end of the zero-sum game. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 119-29. Friedman, D.E., & Johnson, A.A. (1997). Moving from programs to culture change: The next stage for the corporate work-family agenda. In S. Parasuraman & J.H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 192-208). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Frolick, M.N., Wilkes, R.B., & Urwiler, R. (1993). Telecommuting as a workplace alternative: An identification of significant factors in American firms' determination of work-at-home policies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2, 206-222. Frone, M.R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 888-895. 71
72 Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. (1997). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(4), 325-335. Gainey, T.W., Kelley, D.E., & Hill, J. ( 1999). Telecommutings Impact on Corporate Culture and Individual Workers: Exam ining the Effect of Employee Isolation. SAM Advanced Management Journal 64, 4-11. Geisler, G. (1985). Blue Cro ss/Blue Shield of South Caro lina: Program for clerical workers. In M.H. Olson (Ed.), Office Workstations in the Home (p. 16-23). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22(4), 380-411. Golden, T.D., & Veiga, J.F. (2005). The Impact of Extent of Telecommuting on Job Satisfaction: Resolving Inconsistent Findings. Journal of Management 31(2), 301-318. Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10(1), 76-88. Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K.M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement as moderators of relationships between work-family conflict and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2), 91-100. Hammer, L.B., Neal, M.B., Newson, J.T ., Brockwood, K.J., & Colton, C.L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual earner couples uti lization of familyfriendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799-810.
73 Hartman, R.I., Stoner, C.R, & Arora, R. (1992). Developing successful organizational telecommuting arrangements: Worker perc eptions and managerial prescriptions. SAM Advanced Management Journal 57, 35-42. Heckert, T.M., Cuneio, G., Hannah, A.P., Adams, P.J., Droste, H.E., Mueller, M.A., Wallis, H.A., Griffin, C.M., & Roberts, L.L. (1999). Creation of a new needs assessment questionnaire. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15, 121136. 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, 49-58. Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., Mrtinson, V. (2003). Studying 'Working Fathers': Comparing Fathers' and Mothers' Work-Family Conflict, Fit, and Adaptive Strategies in a Global High-Tech Company. Fathering 1(3), 239-261. Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., & Miller, B.C. ( 1996). Work and family in the virtual office: perceived influences of mobile telework. Family Relations, 45 (3), 293-301. Hill, E. J., Miller, B.C., Weiner, S.P. & Co lihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51 667683. Hill, E.J., & Weiner, S.P. (2003). Work/lif e balance policies and programs. In J.E. Edwards, J.C. Scott, & N.S. Raju (Eds.), The human resources programevaluation handbook (pp. 447468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2 74-84.
74 Hyland, M. M. (2000). Flexibility in work arrangements: How availability, preferences and use affect business outcomes Paper presented at th e Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, ON. Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Expl oring differences in employee turnover intentions and its determinants among telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Journal of Management Information Systems 16 147-164. Jahoda, M. (1979). The impact of unemployment in the 1930s and the 1970s. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 309-314. James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Medi ators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 307-321. Jett, Q. R. & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management Review 28, 494507. Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75). Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press. Kirby, E.L., & Krone, K.J. (2002). The polic y exists but you cant really use it: Communication and the structura tion of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research 30, 50-77. Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., & Nord, J. (1996) Effects of components of personal need for structure on occupational strain. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136 (6), 769-777. Kossek, E.E. (2005). Workplace policies and practices to support work and families. In S.
75 Bianchi, L. Casper, & R. King (Eds.), Work, family hea lth, and well-being (pp. 97 ). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., & Eaton, S.C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of polic y use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68 347-367. Kossek, E.E., Noe, R., & DeMarr, B. (1999). Work-family role synthesis: Individual, family, and organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10, 102-129. Kraut, R.E. (1989). Telecommuting: The trade-offs of home work. Journal of Communication, 39, 19-47. Kristof, A.L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology 49(1), 1-49. Kurland, N.B., & Bailey, D.E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics 28(2), 5368. Lansing, J.B., & Heyns, R.W. (1959). Need for affiliation and four types of communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58, 365-372. Latham, G.P., & Pinder, C.C. (2005). Work mo tivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56 485-516 Lawler, E.E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiven ess: A psychological view New York: McGraw-Hill. Lobel, S.A., & Kossek, E.E. (1996). Human re source strategies to support diversity in
76 work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the family friendly organization. In E.E. Kossek & S.A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: human re source strategies for transforming the workplace (pp. 221-244). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Major, V.S., Klein, K.J., & Ehrhart, M.G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 427436. Martins, L.L., Eddleston, K.A., & Veiga, J.F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 45, 399-409. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370396. McClelland, D. C. (1961) The achieving society Princeton: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist 20, 321-333. McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human Motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D.C., & Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). Th e leadership motive pattern and long term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 737-743. Mudrack, P.E., & Naughton, T.J. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale de velopment and prelimin ary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress Management 8(2), 93-111. Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality New York: Oxford University Press. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
77 Psychology, 81 (4), 400-410. Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 113-131. Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Calendars and keys: The classification of home and work. Sociological Forum 11, 563-581. Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., & Stepina, L. P. (1991). Physical environments and employee reactions: Effects of stimulus-screening skills and job complexity. Academy of Management Journal 34 929-938. Olson, M.H. (1989). Organization barriers to pr ofessional telework. In E. Boris & C.R. Daniels (Eds.) Homework: Historic and contempor ary perspectives on paid labor at home (pp. 215-230). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Olson-Buchanan, J.B., & Boswell, W.R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 432-445. Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J.H. (1997). The changing world of work and family. In. S. Parasuraman & J.H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 3-14). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Perlow, L.A. (1995). Group & Organization Management 20(2), 227-239. Putting the work back into work/family. Perlow, L.A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 57-81.
78 Phelps, N. (1985). Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of South Caro lina: Program for clerical workers. In M.H. Olson (Ed.), Office Workstations in the Home (pp. 33-37). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pratt, J.H. (1984). Home telewo rking: A study of its pioneers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 25, 1-14. Rau, B.L. (2003). Flexible work arrangements. Sloan Online Work and Family Encyclopedia http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclop edia_entry.php?id=240&area=All Rau, B.L., & Hyland, M.M. (2002). Role confli ct and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55 111-136. Rodgers, C.S. (1992). The flexible wo rkplace: What have we learned? Human Resource Management 31, 183-199. Ronen, S. (1994). An underlying structure of motivation need taxonomies: A crosscultural confirmation. In H.C. Triandi s, M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol 4., pp. 241-269). Rothausen, T.J. (1999). Family in organizatio nal research: A review and comparison of definitions and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 817-836. Rothbard, N.P., Phillips, K.W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Workfamily policies and individu als desires for segmentation. Organization Science 16, 243-258. Schmidt, N., Colligan, M. J., & Fitzgerald, M. (1980). Unexplained physical symptoms in eight organizations: Individua l and organizational analyses. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53, 305. Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985). Work-at-home and the quality of working life.
79 Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 455-464. Sharpe, D.L., Hermsen, J.M., & Billings, J. (2002). Gender differences in use of alternative full-time work arra ngements by married workers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 31, 78-110. Shellenbarger, S. (1992). Lessons from th e workplace: How corporate policies and attitudes lag behind work ers changing needs. Human Resource Management, 31 157-169. Singh, S. (1978). Achievement motivation and entrep reneurial success: A follow-up study. J ournal of Research in Personality, 12(4), 500-503 Society for Human Research Ma nagement Foundation. (2001). SHRM 2001 benefits survey. Society for Human Resource Management. Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. ( 1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30 337-360. Staw, B.M. (1977). Motivation in organizations : Towards a synthesis and redirection. In B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press. Steers, R.M., & Braunstein, D.N. (1976). A behaviorally-based m easure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior 9, 251-266. Stewart, N. (1985). Winning friends at work. New York: Ballantine Books. Super, D.E., & Sverko, B. (1995). Life roles, values, and car eers: International findings of the Work Importance Study San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, L.T., & Ganster, D.C. (1995). Impact of family-suppor tive work variables on
80 work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6-15. Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work and family from an industrial/organizational psychology perspec tive. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.) Work-family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 283-307). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., & Lyness, K.S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-f amily culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54 (3), 392-415. Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E., Parker, K.E. (1989). Assessing cognitive need: The development of the personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity scales. Paper presented at the annual m eeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E., Parkter, K.E., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2001). The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applica tions, and future directions In G.B. Moskowitz (Ed.) Cognitive social psychology: The Princet on symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp.19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawr ence Erlbaum Associates. Veiga, J.F., Baldridge, D.C., & Eddlest on, K.A. (2004). Toward understanding employee reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource Management Review 14 337-351.
81 Veroff, J., & Veroff, J.B. (1980). Social incentives: A life span developmental approach New York: Academic Press. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation New York: Wiley. Wainer, H.A., & Rubin, I.M. (1969). Mo tivation of research and development entrepreneurs. Journal of Applied Psychology 53, 178-184. Zeruvabel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life New York: The Free Press.
83 Appendix A Need for Affiliation at Work Scale Items 1. I spend a lot of time talking to co-workers during work. 2. It is important for me to feel lik e I am part of a work community. 3. I am concerned with the wellbeing of my co-workers. 4. I like to feel that I have meaningful relationships with my co-workers. 5. At work, I am most content when surrounded by others. 6. I prefer to work alone than with others. 7. If dont feel the need to gain the acceptance and approval of my co-workers.
84 Appendix B Need for Structure in the Workplace Scale Items* 1. It upsets me to go into a situation at wo rk without knowing what I can expect from it. 2. I am not bothered by things that interrupt my daily work routine. 3. I enjoy having a clear and structured work routine. 4. I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place in my workspace. 5. When at work, I enjoy being spontaneous. 6. I find that a well-ordered work schedul e with regular hours makes my life tedious. 7. I dont like work situa tions that are uncertain. 8. I hate to change my work plans at the last minute. 9. I hate to be with cowo rkers who are unpredictable. 10. I find that a consistent routine at work leads to greater job satisfaction. 11. I enjoy the exhilaration of being in unpredictable work situations. 12. I become uncomfortable when the rules in a work-related situation are not clear. *adapted for Neuberg and Newsome (1993)
85 Appendix C Need for Segmentation of Work from Other Life Roles Scale Items* 1. I dont like to have to thi nk about work while Im at home. 2. I prefer to keep work life at work. 3. I dont like work issues creeping into my home life. 4. I like to be able to leave work behind when I go home.
86 Appendix D Need for Occupational Achievement* 1. I am pleased when I can take on added job responsibilities 2. I am always looking for opportunities to improve my skills on the job. 3. I like to set challenging goals for myself on the job. 4. I enjoy situations at work where I am pe rsonally responsible for finding solutions to problems. 5. I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work. 6. I get the most satisfaction when completing job assignments that are fairly difficult. 7. I want frequent feedback on how I am doing on the job. 8. I do my when work when my j ob assignments are fairly difficult. 9. I believe in taking moderate risks to get ahead at work. Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, and Randall (2005)
87 Appendix E Face-time Orientation Scale Items 1. My department values p hysical presence at work. 2. My co-workers are often in their offices. 3. Those who are usually physically present at work receive perks that others dont. 4. I am called out by my co-workers if I do not come to my office for a few days. 5. Everyone is judged on their output, rega rdless of where they conduct work. 6. I feel that I am free to choose when a nd where I work without fear of negative repercussions. 7. I think it would be better for my career if I was at the office most of the time.
Appendix F Use of Flextime Scale Items 1. I usually work outside of "traditional" work hours. 2. My campus schedule varies from day to day. 3. My start and stop times on campus frequently change. 4. I tend to keep a consistent set of hours on campus. 5. Exploratory item: If you work consistent hours, what are your general start and stop times? (i.e., 9 to 5) 88
89 Appendix G Use of Flexplace Item* 1. Please indicate the percent of your job th at you currently perform away from your main work office during the spring and fall semesters. Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton (2006).
90 Appendix H Perceived Flexibility Available Scale Items* 1. I have the freedom to vary my work schedule. 2. I have the freedom to work wherever is be st for me either at home or at work. 3. I can change the times that I begin an d end my workday to fit my personal preferences and needs. 4. I can change the location of where I conduct my work to fit my personal preferences and needs. *Hyland (2000)
91 Appendix I Family Responsibility Scale Items* Indicate the number of dependents for which you assume responsibil ity in each category and whether or not th ey reside with you. Child under age 1 ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child aged 1-2 years ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child aged 3-5 years ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child aged 6-9 years ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child aged 10-14 years ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child aged 15-18 years ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ Child over age 18 or any other adult ___ Living with you? Yes __ No ___ *Rothausen (1999)
92 Appendix J Work-family Conflict Scale Items* Work interfering with family: 1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. 2. The amount of time my job takes up ma kes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. 3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. 4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill my family duties. 5. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. Family interfering with work: 6. The demands of my family or spouse/part ner interfere with wo rk-related activities 7. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home. 8. Things I want to do at work dont get done because of the demands of my family or spouse/partner. 9. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime. 10. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties. Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996).