Compressed lives: how “flexible” are employer-imposed compressed work schedules?
| Published date | 05 March 2018 |
| Pages | 278-293 |
| Date | 05 March 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0189 |
| Author | Edward Hyatt,Erica Coslor |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
Compressed lives: how “flexible”
are employer-imposed
compressed work schedules?
Edward Hyatt and Erica Coslor
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine employee satisfaction with an employer-imposed
compressed workweek (CWW) schedule within a US municipality (City).
Design/methodology/approach –The study utilizes an employee survey (n¼779) to test factors related to
employee satisfaction with the CWW, a four-day, ten-hours/day workweek (4/10 schedule).
Findings –Employee satisfaction with the schedule is influenced by previous 4/10 pilot experience, work
schedule preference, and happiness with the 4/10 schedule’s implementation. Additionally, sick leave figures
and survey results regarding informal substitute work schedules suggest that worker fatigue may limit the
overall organizational value of the 4/10 schedule.
Research limitations/implications –The study is opportunistic in nature and therefore constrained by
the City’s HR Department concerns for survey length and respondent anonymity. This meant an inability to
collect demographic data or to utilize validated scales.
Practical implications –Analysis suggests that the potential work-life benefits of flexible work schedules
may not apply equally to employer-imposed vs employee-chosen compressed work schedules. Further,
CWWs engender greater fatigue despite employee satisfaction, an issue managers should consider when
weighing schedule costs and benefits.
Originality/value –The study highlights the importance of employee choice in conceptualizing flexibility
and for capturing CWW benefits, namely: an initiative’s voluntary or involuntary nature should be
considered when determining whether it is likely to be beneficial for employees.
Keywords Quantitative, Fatigue, Work-life balance (WLB), Alternative work schedule (AWS),
Compressed workweek (CWW), Family-friendly policies, Work schedule satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A growing interest in workplace flexibility has been prompted by business trends including
technological advancements and the 24-7 society (Deery et al., 2016), as well as demographic
trends including higher female workforce participation, increased caregiver responsibilities,
and growth in single-parent and two-income households (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015).
The shift away from a fixed eight-hours per day, five-days a week schedule also reflects an
increased desirefor autonomy and job control by younger workers,who often value work-life
balance as a goal in itself (Kuron et al., 2015). Workplace flexibility refers to workplace
measuresthat allow greater employee choice in thetiming, location, continuity,and/or amount
of work to be performed (Kossek and Michel, 2011; Kossek and Thompson, 2016). Flexible
work schedules haveincreasingly been adopted in private and publicworkplaces as a means
of achieving business goals and enabling employees to manage competing pressures from
work, family, and other non-work realms (Matos and Galinsky, 2014).
One common form of flexible scheduling is the compressed workweek (CWW), where a
full-time schedule is condensed into fewer working days with longer working hours each
day; for example, a four-day, ten-hour workweek (Arbon et al., 2012; Baltes et al., 1999).
Although CWWs were first promulgated in the private sector, they are particularly common
in the public sector (Wheatley, 2012), and often cast as a family-friendly policy (Durst, 1999).
A 2010 study by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts showed that one in six
Personnel Review
Vol. 47 No. 2, 2018
pp. 278-293
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0189
Received 2 August 2016
Revised 7 May 2017
22 June 2017
Accepted 25 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
278
PR
47,2
US municipalgovernments had full-time staff on a 4/10 schedule(Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts, 2010), while a recent survey of state and local governments found 59 percent of
surveyed organizations offered some form of alternative work scheduling (Center for State
and Local GovernmentExcellence, 2016). Although it is generallyacknowledged that CWWs
offer little controlover the timing of work or non-work tasks (Golden,2012), existing research
tends to assume CWWsnonetheless satisfy employee needs and allow them the flexibility to
better handle family and life demands (Deery et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2008).
Despite generally positive perception of CWWs and widespread adoption (Baltes et al.,
1999; Julien et al., 2011), the research on public sector CWWs shows mixed effects. Facer and
Wadsworth (2008) found that employees working a 4/10 schedule were relatively more
productive, but lacked greater job satisfaction. A later study found sustained productivity
gains, while employers reaped other savings such as lower energy costs (Facer and
Wadsworth, 2010). A 4/10 schedule was found to improve the amount of sleep and quality of
life for police officers, although benefits did not extend to 12-hour shifts (Amendola et al.,
2011). Wadsworth et al. (2010) found improvements in work-life balance and employee
morale, along with tradeoffs including scheduling difficulty, decreased productivity, and
employee dissatisfaction with longer workdays. Compressed schedules were found to have
no effect on job satisfaction for groups using them most (men/women in dual-income
households with no children present) and least (older workers); the same schedules
registered negative effects on job satisfaction for single, young men, and men in traditional
(unemployed spouse and children in the home) households (Saltzstein et al., 2001).
The presence or absence of employee choice may explain the puzzle of why CWWs have
not consistently shown positive benefits. Employee choice is an important precondition
for workplace flexibility practices to realize gains in work satisfaction, productivity, and
work-life balance (Kossek and Thompson, 2016). Based on control theory (Gajendran and
Harrison, 2007; Kelly and Moen, 2007; Kossek et al., 2006; Kossek and Thompson, 2016;
Thompson and Prottas, 2006) stemming from Karasek’s (1979) job demands-job control
model, the positive benefits of flexibility are more likely to manifest if employees can
exercise scheduling choices. For example, research on another flexible workplace initiative,
telecommuting, shows perceived autonomy as a psychological mediator for positive effects
on job satisfaction, performance, turnover intent, and role stress (Gajendran and Harrison,
2007). Other research d emonstrates the usefu lness of considering t he individual
psychological experiences of flexibility rather than focusing solely on more formal
measures like usage and amount (Kossek et al., 2006). In this literature stream, flexibility
often equates to control (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007), and employee perceptions of
control seem critical for realizing benefits. This has direct implications for other forms
of flexible scheduling, including CWWs.
This study investigated whether the expected benefits of greater employee
schedule satisfaction also occur with an employer-mandated CWW. With data from a
US municipality that implemented an employer-mandated CWW, our study uses this
opportunistic setting to examine employee perceptions of a “flexible”schedule that, in
fact, resembles an alternative fixed schedule, devoid of employee choice. Based on control
theory, we examined whether an imposed CWW would result in lower work schedule
satisfaction, especially among employees previously working traditional schedules as
compared to those who were previously on a CWW by choice. We also considered
variables related to control, including approval of CWW implementation, whether the
CWW differs from an employee’s preferred schedule, and whether an employee has
worked out an informal substitute schedule with a supervisor. Finally, because employee
fatigue is often associated with longer CWW hours (Deery et al., 2016; Golden, 2012),
employee-reported energy levels and sick leave records were also investigated. The
findings suggest that an employer-imposed flexible work schedule implemented without
279
Compressed
lives
To continue reading
Request your trial