|
Article Excerpt
Research suggests that women who adopt alternative work arrangements may be viewed less favorably than women who work a regular schedule. This study examined whether those negative perceptions persist even after the woman returns to a regular schedule. One hundred twenty-five employed MBA students participated in an experimental study in which work schedule was manipulated. Participants reviewed a personnel file for a female employee who was either on a regular schedule or who had previously been on a reduced-workload schedule. They then completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the target employee. Contrary to the authors' expectations, results revealed that the female employee who had previously been on an reduced workload schedule was actually viewed as having significantly greater advancement motivation and advancement capability than a female employee who had always used a regular schedule. She was also somewhat more likely to be recommended for a promotion.
Keywords: alternative work arrangements; work-family conflict; career issues
**********
Over the past several decades, the demographics of the workforce have changed. The number of women in the workforce has risen from 43% in 1970 to nearly 60% in 2007, a level that has remained relatively constant since 1999 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). There has also been a substantial increase in the number of women with young children employed outside the home. In 1975, 47% of women with children were employed, whereas 71% of mothers were employed in 2007. This percentage is somewhat lower for married women with children (69%) than for single women with children (76%) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). Finally, the number of employees who are part of dual-career couples has risen. In 2006, 57% of married couples had income from both people, up from 44% in 1967. Among married couples with children, the percentage of couples in which both parents work is slightly higher, at 62% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). These changes in the structure of families have had numerous consequences for both employees and organizations. It is not surprising that these changes have made it increasingly difficult for working parents to juggle both the demands of work and the demands of their families. Research looking at these changes from the employee's perspective has addressed the interaction between work and family (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Mennino, Rubin, & Brayfield, 2005), focusing primarily on understanding the conflicts between work and family (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999, 2002).
These changes in the structure of families have also affected organizations. Organizations have faced increasing pressure to become more "family friendly" and to find ways to make it easier for employees to handle the demands of both work and family. Although employees may have originally been the source of these pressures, the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 has created legislative pressure as well. As a result, organizations have implemented a variety of programs to help employees manage conflicting work and family demands. Family-supportive workplace programs include child care and elder care assistance, as well as alternative work arrangements (AWAs). In general, AWAs provide employees with greater flexibility in the scheduling of work (e.g., flextime, compressed work week), the number of hours worked (e.g., job sharing, reduced workload/part-time work), or in the location of work (e.g., telecommuting). The focus of this study is on AWAs because they have been found to be both widely available and frequently adopted by employees. For example, research by Galinsky and Bond (1998) found that 68% of organizations with more than 100 employees offered some type of flexible work scheduling. Pitt-Catsouphes (2000) found that 80% of businesses with fewer than 50 employees reported that at least some of their employees had schedule flexibility. And the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) reported that 58% of organizations responding to their survey offered flexible work schedules, whereas 37% offered telecommuting (SHRM Foundation, 2001). These studies indicate that AWAs are fairly widely available to employees. Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), nearly 28% of the workforce had some form of schedule flexibility in 2004, demonstrating wide-scale adoption by employees. AWAs have been especially popular among Big Four and other large public accounting firms because demanding work schedules, especially during the busy season, make it difficult for these firms to attract and retain qualified women (Almer, Cohen, & Single, 2003; Almer & Kaplan, 2002; Cohen & Single, 2001).
The purpose of this research is to examine the career consequences of adopting an AWA. However, rather than focusing on women currently using an AWA, we examined the consequences for a woman who has returned to a regular work schedule after having previously been on an AWA. As noted by Kossek, Barber, and Winters (1999), it is not uncommon for people to adopt an AWA on a relatively temporary basis (several months to several years) to deal with an important life transition or experience (e.g., birth of a child or long-term illness of a family member). Once the transition has been made or the experience has been resolved, the employee may choose to return to a regular schedule. Prior research (e.g., Cohen & Single, 2001; Frank & Lowe, 2003; Morris & Padgett, 2004; Rogier & Padgett, 2004) suggests that a woman who adopts an AWA may be viewed less favorably than a woman working a regular schedule. The aim of this study was to determine if negative perceptions of these women remain even after they return to a regular schedule.
Organizational Perspective on Alternative Work Arrangements
AWAs have been the subject of extensive research (cf. Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Glass & Finley, 2002, for reviews of this literature). Much of this research has focused on evaluating the effectiveness of AWAs. These studies have tended to assess effectiveness from the perspective of the organization using "hard" criteria such as employee performance/productivity, absenteeism, and retention and "soft" criteria such as employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Baltes et al. (1999) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of 31 experimental studies that assessed the effectiveness of two flexible work schedules (flextime and compressed work week). The effectiveness criteria examined included productivity, supervisor-rated performance, self-rated performance, absenteeism, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with the work schedule. Their results indicated that flextime schedules positively influenced employee productivity, absenteeism, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with the work schedule. Compressed workweek schedules had a positive effect on self-rated performance and both satisfaction measures but did not affect either productivity or absenteeism.
A more recent review by Glass and Finley (2002) reached similar conclusions about the effectiveness of flexible work schedules. They further concluded that flexible work arrangements enhanced organizational commitment (see also Grover & Crooker, 1995; Scandura & Lankau, 1997) and employee retention (see also Almer & Kaplan, 2002; Hannah, 1994; Hyland, 2000; Rodgers, 1992). Finally, organizations offering AWAs may also be more effective in attracting job applicants. As found by Rau and Hyland (2002), the availability of AWAs increased attraction to the organization for applicants with a high level of role conflict, although they had no effect on attraction for applicants with low role conflict. Taken together, these studies suggest that there may be a number of benefits for organizations choosing to implement AWAs for their employees.
Employee Perspective on Alternative Work Arrangements
Although research from an organizational perspective is important and helps to provide a relatively tangible justification for implementing AWAs, they were originally developed as a mechanism to help employees achieve a better balance between their work and family lives. The extent to which they have been successful in achieving this goal is less clear. Furthermore, research suggests that there may be barriers that keep employees from adopting AWAs even when they are available. The relatively limited research from the employee perspective suggests that AWAs may not be as positive for employees as they are for organizations because there may be some unintended negative consequences for employees who choose to adopt...
|
