On the Uptake of Flexible Working Arrangements and the Association with Human Resource and Organizational Performance Outcomes

• Date: 01 June 2017
• Author: Michael J. Morley,Elaine Berkery,Helen Purtill,Siobhan Tiernan,Emma Parry
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12103

On the Uptake of Flexible Working

Arrangements and the Association with

Human Resource and Organizational

Performance Outcomes

ELAINE BERKERY,

1

MICHAEL J. MORLEY,

1

SIOBHAN TIERNAN,

1

HELEN PURTILL

2

and EMMA PARRY

3

1

Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

2

Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

3

Cranfield School of Management, Bedford, UK

The aim of this study wasto identify bundles of flexible workingarrangements (FWAs)from data provided by 1,064

organizations in seven EU countries, and to relatebundle membership to demographic variablesand human resource

(HR) and organizational performance outcomes. Using Ward’s hierarchical clustering algorithm we identified four

distinct bundles of FWAs based on the uptake of twelve individual FWAs across the sample of organizations. Bundle

1 represents organizations engaging in a highlevel of annual hours contracts; bundle 2 represents more traditional

work practices; bundle 3 represents organizations mainly offering shift-work and bundle 4 represents organizations

with a high uptake of flexi-time. The demographic profile of organizations recorded across each of the four bundles

was significantlydifferent. Finally, significant associationswere found between thebundle membership and employee

turnover (p <0.001), absenteeism (p <0.001) and productivity (p <0.015). The implications of these results are

discussed and directions for future research are proposed.

Keywords: performance; HRM; employment contract; productivity; flexible work arrangements; absenteeism;

employee turnover; CRANET

Introduction

Growing interestin the use of flexible work arrangements

(FWAs) among scholars over the past 20 years

(Kalleberg, 2000; Haar and Spell, 2004; Stavrou, 2005;

Beltrán-Martín and Roca-Puig, 2013; Stavrou et al.,

2015) reflects the increasing use and importance of

flexibility in the workplace. Studies to date have focused

on employee and employer related reasons for using

different formsof FWAs, as well as the effects of different

FWAs on various outcome measures such as attrition, job

satisfaction,burnout, employee retention and absenteeism

in addition to a range of organizational performance

measures (Dalton and Mesch, 1990; Konrad and Mangel,

2000; Perry-Smithand Blum, 2000; Valverde et al., 2000;

Stavrou, 2005). Up until 2005 empirical studies

examining FWAs focused on individual FWAs, however,

since then therehas been increasing efforts to examinethe

use of multipleFWAs at once (Stavrou, 2005;Stavrou and

Kilaniotis, 2010; Stavrou et al., 2010; Kassinis and

Stavrou, 2013). Despite these research efforts, the

relationship between FWA bundles and organizational

outcomes remains under explored, with further research

merited in a number of areas.Firstly, little is known about

the exact formation and make-up of FWA bundles. By

exploring the formation of FWA bundles we can build a

deeper understanding of how best to bundle FWAs to

ensure maximum returns for the organization. Second, a

number of researchers in this area have highlighted the

importance of context when investigating the use of

FWAs, noting that the extent to which FWAs may be

universally applied or remain context specific remains

underexplored (Resnick, 1997; Solomon, 1999; Stavrou

and Kilaniotis, 2010; Stavrou et al., 2010). As a result

Correspondence: Elaine Berkery, Department of Management and

Marketing, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick,

Ireland, Tel:+353 61 202 314. E-mail: elaine.berkery@ul.ie

European Management Review, Vol. 14, 165–183, (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12103

©2017 European Academy of Management

we do not know whether or not there are patterns and

variations of organizations following similar or different

FWA strategies,or if indeed FWA bundles are universally

applied. Furthermore, Stavrou et al. (2010) highlight the

importance of contextual factors when explaining the

relationshipbetween FWAs and organizational outcomes,

noting the relationships deciphered may be misleading if

contextual factors are not taken into consideration.

Finally, following a systematic review of literature on

FWAs, de Menezes and Kelliher (2011) concluded that

there was a lackof clear evidence in support of a universal

business case for the implementation of FWAs. The

majority of studies investigating the use of FWAs are

carried out at the employee level, (Hammer and Barbera,

1997; Kossek et al., 2001; Tietze et al., 2003), in single

countries (Bentolila and Dolada, 1994; Comfort et al.,

2003; Mihail, 2003; Battisti and Vallanti, 2013) and

within specific industries (MacDuffie, 1995; Leonard,

1998; Cohen and Single, 2001) and as a result there is a

lack of systematicexploration of the relationship between

bundles of FWAs and organizational outcomes across

countries (Youndt et al ., 1996; Stavrou, 2005; Wood,

1999; Lee and DeVoe, 2012). The lack of studies

examining multi ple FWAs across a ra nge of

organizations, in different industries at country level is

most likely due to the lack of appropriate data sources

comparable across different countries. A unique feature

of the CRANET dataset we use in this study is the use

of a single methodology across all countries, allowing us

to systematically analyze comparable data across a

number of countries.

Drawing on data from1,064 organizations in seven EU

countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

Sweden and the UK) we use a cluster analysis algorithm

to group organizations together based on the uptake of

12 individual FWAs (weekend work, shift-work,

overtime, annual hours contracts, part-time working, job

share, flexi-time, temporary/casual work, fixed term

contracts, home based working, teleworking and

compressed working week). This statistical technique

aims to group respondentsso that respondents in the same

group or bundle are more similar to each other, based on

the uptake of each individual FWA in each organization,

than they are to other bundles, generating a greater

understanding of the formation and make-up of FWA

bundles. The use of a cluster analysis algorithm also

allows us to identify the profile of organizations offering

these bundles of FWAs, meaning we can determine

whether or not these bundles of FWAs are universally

adopted or, if indeed they are only adopted in particular

organizational, industry and national contexts, providing

us with a greater insight into the profile of organizations

offering the various bundles of FWAs. The countries

included in this study represent varied labor market

structures, national provisions pertaining to maternity,

paternity and parental leave, legislative structures,

economic systems and industrial sectors. Finally, we test

the association between each FWA bundle and HR

(employee turnover and absenteeism) and organizational

performance (productivity and profitability) outcomes.

As this study uses such a large number of organizations,

with a large array of FWAs and contextual variables

simultaneously it adds significantly the on-going debate

related to the organizational benefits linked to the use of

FWA bundles. In doing so, it provides both scholars and

practitioners with a deeper understanding of the profile

of organizations offering FWA bundles, the formation of

FWA bundles and whether and how each of the FWAs

bundle are associated with organizational outcomes.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows; in

the next section we develop a series of research questions

based on the literature to date. Following on from this we

introduce the data collection method and our data

handling techniques. We then introduce the results and

discuss these in the context of the enfolding literature.

We outline the implications of our findings for practice,

the limitations and possible directions for future lines of

enquiry.

Literature background and development

of the research questions

Introduction to FWAs

To date numerous terms have been used interchangeably

within the liter ature to describe wor kplace flexibility, for

example, flexibility in the work environment (Hill et al.,

2008), flexible schedules (Kossek et al., 1999) flexible

employment (Abraham, 1990), atypical employment

(Mihail, 2003) non-standard work arrangements or

contingent employment (Polivka and Nardone, 1989)

and FWAs (Zeytinoglu, 1999; Cohen and Single, 2001).

FWAs differ from traditional office hours usually thought

of as a seven to eight-hour day, five days per week and

instead refer to patterns of work including weekend work,

shift-work, overtime, annual hours contracts, part-time

work, job sharing, flexi-time, temporary/casual work,

fixed-term contracts, homebased work, teleworking and

compressed workingweeks (Brewster et al., 1997; Meyer

and Allen, 1997; Ashford, George, and Blatt, 2007;

Stavrou, 2005; Stavrou et al., 2010, 2015; Stavrou et al.,

2010). The concept of FWAs emerged in the 1970s with

employers allowing employees with caring

responsibilities to come to work later in the mornings, in

order to facilitate school drop offs (Ashford et al., 2007).

In the interveningyears there have been profound changes

to the world of work and the workforce, in addition to

changes in the marketplace. Changes to the global

economy, such as sluggish economic growth which

166 E. Berkery et al.