Research Article
2771
Flexible Work Arrangements and Work-Family Conflict: A Systematic
Literature Review
Farah Shazlin Johari*1, Siti Nurul Akma Ahmad2,Siti Norashikin Bashirun3, Nurhafizah Mohd Zolkapli4,Nor Maslia Rasli Samudin5
1,2,3,4,5
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia farahshazlin@uitm.edu.my*1
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27January 2021;
Published online: 05April 2021
Abstract: The spread of the Covid-19 pandemic has essentially led to the closure of many businesses worldwide. With the
increasing number of viruses in every part of the world, there is a need for flexible work arrangements to maintain the operations. Somehow, managing workloads using these arrangements have also affected work-family conflict during a pandemic situation. Plus, there is a dearth in the literature of flexible work arrangements in the context of work-family conflict. Thus, the purposes of this review are to investigate how these factors are related to work interference with family (WIF), and family-interference with work (FIW), and its outcomes, such as work-life balance, well-being, mental health, turnover intentions, satisfaction, and others. The reviewed articles were obtained from three main databases; Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct from the year 2000 until 2020. Keywords including "flexibility work arrangement," "flexible," "work arrangement," “schedule flexibility,” “work hours,” “schedule,” "work-family conflict,” “family-work conflict,” “work interference with family” and “family interference with work” were managed to identify 31 articles. Also, this systematic review was conducted to collect the findings on the relationship of the above domains, which can be used by businesses to adapt to the new normal. Several recommendations were proposed to conduct further study, especially in research design, method, and measurements.
Keywords:Flexibility work arrangement, work-family conflict, work conflict, work-interference with family,
family-interference with work, covid-19 pandemic
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global health crisis that not only affects the general well-being of the population but also induces the implementation of new norms at workplaces around the world. In light of the pandemic, the demands for flexible work arrangements are high in order to manage workloads more effectively. Flexibility arrangements are referred to as a “family-friendly policy” established by the management in handling workloads in a formal organisational setting. These arrangements are often regarded as an ideal way to strike a balance between work and family commitments (Carlson, Grzywacz & Kacmar, 2010; Kossek & Ozeki, 1999; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman, 2001). Furthermore, numerous studies have proven that the implication of flexible work arrangements benefits both workers and organisations where increased productivity, higher work performance, improved well-being and organisational commitment, as well as a lower turnover rate, was observed (Allen, 2001; Lee& Ling, 2001; Eaton, 2003; Jones et al., 2008; Kossek et al., 2006; Roehling et al., 2001; Van Dyneet al., 2007; Blomme et al., 2010). Flexible work arrangements are also well-researched in the work-family conflicts literature (Kim & Gong, 2017; Brown & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2016; Higgins et al., 2014).
The study of the work-family conflict stemmed from the concept of role conflict where it is widely defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the demands of work and family roles are incompatible in some respect, such that participation in one role makes it difficult to participate in the other” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). In addition, most studies on the work-family conflict reported bi-directional relationships between work and family domains. These studies also typically involve measuring the relationship between work-interference with family and vice versa (Frone et al., 1992; Brough et al., 2005; Hassan et al., 2010; Kim & Gong, 2017). Empirical evidence suggests that some of the repercussions of work-family conflict involving feelings of dissatisfaction, lack of work commitment and intention to quit are related to work-related outcomes (Scandura & Lankau, 1997; Porter & Ayman, 2010; Asfar & Rehman, 2017). Besides, work-family conflict is also closely-associated to health-related outcomes including life dissatisfaction, psychological distress, job burnout, prolonged fatigue and increased sickness absence (Jansen et al., 2003; Eby et al., 2005; Allen et al., 2000).
In terms of flexible work arrangements, several studies confirmed that the availability of these type of work arrangements is significantly demonstrated between work-interference and family and vice versa (Shockley & Allen, 2007; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Moreover, the implementation of flexible work arrangements within an organisation also saw workers being assigned equal workload, can work longer hours when required to and an improved work-life balance (Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman, 2001) and well-being (Schieman & Glavin,
2017). Despite the numerous studies on flexible work arrangements, the concurrent relationship between these arrangements and work-family conflict remains understudied. Existing measurement of flexible work arrangements in relation to work-family conflict was also found to be inconsistent. Therefore, this study attempts to investigate and delineate the emerging concepts of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict through a systematic review. This review also seeks to identify issues regarding the roles, types, study measurements and consequences of flexible work arrangement and work-family conflict studies.
2. Methods DESIGN
Since the present study is a systematic literature review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was employed as a baseline for relevant criteria. These criteria involve five sub-categories namely, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligibility, data abstraction and analysis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Three prominent electronic databases, namely Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct were utilised in the systematic search strategy conducted for the present study. Keywords were formulated from the titles and abstracts to be used in the search process. These keywords include “work demands,” “family demands,” “work stress,” “work-related stress,” “family-related stress,” “flexibility work arrangement,” “flexible work hours,” “schedule flexibility,” “work-family conflict,” family-work conflict,” “work interference with family,” “family interference with work,” “work-life balance,” and “well-being.” The search process yielded a total of 1551 results, consisting of 861 documents from Scopus, 353 from Web of Science (WOS) and 337 documents from Science Direct databases.
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA
The first criterion for inclusion included a timeline spanning over two decades with a period between the years of 2000 to 2020. The main type of document shortlisted from the retrieved results was specifically comprised of journal articles with empirical data were selected and were published in the English language. Finally, the last inclusion criterion involves the selection of documents where the sample of the study must include workers or employees. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria comprise of documents which are systematic review, meta-analysis, chapter in book, review papers, non-research papers, non-English papers and samples other than employees as presented in Table 1. A total of 433 articles were disregarded based on the exclusion criteria. After the screening and shortlisting process, only 1118 out of 1551 documents were retained for the next stage as presented in Figure 1.
ELIGIBILITY
A total of 336 articles were selected and prepared for the third stage of screening based on eligibility. The eligibility screening processesthat shortlists the articles manually according to the authors‟ specific criteria. At this stage, the titles, abstracts and the main contents of all the articles were thoroughly examined to ascertain the fulfilment of the set and criteria and the suitability of these studies in achieving the objective of the current study. Before the eligibility process was conducted, documents with duplicate were removed first where 81 similar articles were traced and excluded in both databases for the next phase. The remaining articles of 255 articles were finalised for analysis.
DATA ABSTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
The remaining articles were then evaluated, reviewed and analysed. An in-depth reading process of the abstracts and the full-text was done to ensure relevant data were extracted to identify relevant themes and sub-themes. During the review process, the following features were considered: (a) the research design; (b) the roles and types of flexible work arrangements; (c) outcomes of the study; (d) the study measurements of flexible work arrangement; (e) the study measurements of work-family conflict. After the first phase of reading the abstracts, 224 out of 255 articles were omitted as the content were irrelevant to the research questions. These omitted articles did not expound on the testing of flexible work arrangement and work-family conflict concurrently besides having differenttarget samples such as parents, dual-earners instead of employees. The summary of each of the 31 remaining articles is as presented in Table 1 – 6.
2773
Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Criteria Inclusion Exclusion
Timeline Between 2000 to 2020 < 2000
Document types Journal (research articles) Systematic review, meta-analysis, chapter in book, review papers, non-research papers
Language English Non-English
Sample Worker, employees Other than employees or workers
Figure 1. Flow Diagram for Systematic Literature Process 3. Results
The results provided a comprehensive analysis of the flexible work arrangement, work-family conflict, and major findings of those studies.
Country Setting Table 2. Country Setting
Country Total Pakistan 2 Turkey 1 USA 13 Netherland 3 Switzerland 1 United Kingdom 1 Australia 1 Canada 3 Singapore 1 Sweden 1 South Korea 1 China 1 Germany 1
Costa Rica 1
31
Thirty-five studies were included in the review. As shown in Table 2, most of the studies reviewed were conducted in the USA (13), followed by three studies from the Netherland and Canada, respectively, and two papers were from Pakistan. Finally, one study was found in each of these countries, which are Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, Sweden, South Korea, China, Germany, Turkey, and Costa Rica.
Sample Selection
Table 3. Sample Selection
Sample Total
White-collar managers and professionals 7 Organizationally-employed 10 Hospitality Industry 1 Alumni 1 Caregivers 1 Entrepreneurs 1 Accounting 2 Public Sector 1
High Tech Firm 2
Healthcare Organization 5
31
Meanwhile, studies on flexible work arrangement and work-family conflict have selected samples across various sectors such as white-collar workers, hospitality industry, alumni (College of Business of a public university), caregiver, entrepreneurs, accounting firm, public sector, high tech firm, and healthcare organization. The top three samples were based on the organizationally employed in general (10), followed by White-collar managers and professionals, and five were from healthcare organizations, as stated in Table 3.
Research Design Table 4. Research Design
Research Design Total
Cross-sectional design 28
Longitudinal design 3
31
Concerning the research design in table 4, most of the studies used a cross-sectional design (28 articles). The remaining studies (3) used a longitudinal research design.
Roles and Types of Flexible WorkArrangements
Referring to Table 5, the roles of flexible work arrangements in most studies are as independent variables and followed by moderating variables. Meanwhile, the roles of flexible work arrangements as a mediator and dependent variables are only reported in 2 and 1 studies, respectively. Also, the types of flexible work arrangements included in this review were mainly flexible work arrangements, workplace flexibility, work/workplace/schedule flexibility.
2775
Table 5. Roles and Types of Flexible Work Arrangements
Roles Types Total
Independent variable work schedule, workplace flexibility, work schedule flexibility, compressed workweek schedule, job schedule demands, flexible work arrangement, family-friendly practice used, work schedule inflexibility, schedule control, telecommuting, work-time arrangement
21
Dependent variable flexible work arrangement 1
Mediating variable Schedule control, work flexibility 2 Moderating variable workplace flexibility, work schedules, work-time control, flexibility,
flexible work arrangement, schedule flexibility
6
31
Study Outcomes
The review resulted in ten main themes related to family work arrangement and work-family conflict. The main themes were seen in 13 of the 31 studies, which is work-family conflict. Meanwhile, six papers discussed turnover intention, and three papers discussed satisfaction. Two papers touched on the flexible work arrangement. The remaining theme was emotional exhaustion, stress, well-being, burnout, and mental health, found in one paper each.
STUDY MEASURES
Of thirty-one studies included in the review, only three of the WFC scale and two dominant FWA scale were presented in the table. In relations to the measurement of WFC, the finding reveals that the adapted scale from Netemeyer et al. (1996) were the most widely used (8), followed by the six scale from Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000) and Gutek, Searle and Klepa (1991) respectively. In Netemeyer et.al (1996) scale, it includes the negative spill-overs in both directions, from work-to-family (WFC) and family-to-work (FWC); (i) Time-based WFC - weekly working hours, pressured to work overtime, and type of work schedule and secondly(ii) Strain-based WFC. Other sources of measurement scale consist of Grzywacz and Marks (2000), Beutell and Wittig-Berman (2008), Yik et al, 1999, Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999 and few others.
Table 6. Study Outcomes
Outcome Total
Turnover intention 6
Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA) 2 Work-family conflict 13 Stress 1 Satisfaction 3 Emotional exhaustion 1 Well-being 1 Burnout 1 Mental health 1 Work-home interference 2 31
Table 7. Study Measures
Sources of Scale and Measures
Family- Work Conflict Flexible Work Schedule
Authors FWC-WFC (Netem eyer et al. 1996) WIF – FIW (Carlso n, Kacma r &Willi WFC-FWC Gutek, Searle, &Klepa (1991) Other Source s Not ment ione d N A Schedule control (Thomas &Ganster, 1995) WFS (Meye r, 1997) Other Sourc es Not menti oned N A
ams, 2000)
Afsar & Rehman (2017) √ √
Bayazit & Bayazit (2017) √ √
Beutell (2010) √ √
Ryan, et.al. (2015) √ √
Blomme, Van Rheede, & Tromp (2010)
√ √
Breaugh & Frye (2008) √ √
Brown & Pitt-Catsouphes (2015)
√ √
Carlson, Grzywacz &
Kacmar (2010)
√ √
Dhaini, et.al. (2018) √ √
Hughes & Parkes (2007) √ √
Facer & Wadsworth
(2008)
√ √
Lingard & Francis (2005) √ √
Higgins, Duxbury, Julien (2014)
√ √
Jean Lee Siew Kim and Choo Seow Ling (2001)
√ √
John & Guthrie (2016) √ √
Jostell & Hemlin (2018) √ √
Kelly, Moen & Tranby, (2011)
√ √
Kim & Gong (2017) √ √
Shockley & Allen (2007) √ √
Kun Yu (2017) √ √
De Raeve, Kant,
Vasse & van den Brandt (2009)
√ √
Jansen, et.al. (2004) √ √
Azar, Khan & Van Eerde (2018)
√ √
Sarbu (2018) √ √
Schieman & Glavin
(2017)
√ √
Schieman & Young
(2010)
√ √
Solis (2016) √ √
Porter & Ayman (2010) √ √
Golden, Veiga & Simsek (2006)
√ √
Pasewark & Viator (2006) √ √
Yucel (2019) √ √
Note: FWC-WFC = Family Work Conflict – Work Family Conflict
WIF –FIW = work interference with family and family interference with work
WFS = Workplace Flexibility scale
While the most widely used of Flexible Work Schedule (FWS) scale was adapted from Thomas and Ganster (1995), which measures the Schedule control. Likewise, FWS is also measured by using the Workplace Flexibility scale (WFS) (Meyer, 1997). FWS scale was adapted from Thomas and Ganster (1995), and it covers six items controlled scale. (e.g., control over hours worked each day or week; choice over taking holidays; control over taking a few hours off).
2777 Other sources of FWA depicts various scales were applied in various measures such as in Allen (2001) which focuses on (i) self-rostering and/or staggered start and finish times; (ii) telecommuting; (iii) opportunity to negotiate part-time work for full-time employees; and (iv) time off in lieu, rostered days off. While Kossek et al. (2006) emphasize on four practices: (i) telecommuting; (ii) ability to take work home; (iii) flextime; and (iv)alternative work scheduling; (v) compressed workweek; (vi) core working hours; and (vii) part-time work. Other measured by Hyland (2000) highlights flexibility in terms of (i) time and (ii) access to flexplace. Golden (2001) has only single items conceptualize the schedule control in terms of the degree to which workers have control of the start and/or finish times of work. Besides, few other sources are derived from Pierce and Newstrom (1983), Crwley and Kolenikov (2014), and Hall, A. (2009).
4. Discussions
The current systematic review focuses on investigating (i) the roles and categories of flexible work arrangements, (ii) the outcome of the study and (iii) the measurement of flexible work arrangement and work-family conflict in the study. Based on these three key aspects of previous literature, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Despite being a long-standing concept, the link between flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict remains underexplored. Most studies related to both concepts were generally conducted from a Western perspective where very little research has been done concerning the Eastern tradition. This condition is perhaps due to a majority of Eastern countries are considered as developing countries, hence, the idea of flexible work arrangements is rare in the Eastern workforce context. Most workers are bound to experience severe work pressure due to the practice of long and rigid working hours and lack of family-friendly work policies, causing work-life imbalance(Fujimura et al., 2014; Lee & Lin, 2013; Chou & Cheung, 2013). Interestingly, most studies were reported to frequently use flexible work arrangements as an antecedent as compared to other variables. Although flexible work arrangements were designed as potential moderators (Beutell, 2000; John & Guthrie, 2016), these arrangements were also potential significant predictors for work-family conflict (Higgins et al., 2014; Kim & Gong, 2017; Shockley & Allen, 2007). Flexible work arrangements are often associated with higher levels of work-family conflict in comparison with traditional work arrangements where these arrangements are said to foster a stronger relationship with work-interference and family (WIF) rather than with family-interference with work (FIW). Studies have reported that flextime was described as having a better connection to WIF than flexplace (Higgins et al., 2014; Shockley & Allen, 2007). In this sense, it can be concluded that flexible work arrangements hold significant roles in predicting work-family conflict which in turn, improves the work-interference with family.
Moreover, there was a wide range of flexible work arrangement identified in previous studies including workplace flexibility; schedule flexibility, compressed workweek, telecommuting, flexible working hours, flexible work schedule, work location and workload reduction (Kim & Gong, 2017; Carlson et al., 2010; Porter & Ayman, 2010). Some of these findings on flexible work arrangements are in line with the systematic review conducted by de Menezes and Kelliher (2011). The COVID-19 pandemic has forced most workers to work from home and handle their workloads at home while managing their family at the same time. Thus, some study measurements in these findings can be suitably applicable to a pandemic situation. One of these measurements is the four practices proposed by Kossek et al. (2006) namely, telecommuting, flextime, ability to take work home and family leave. Some authors also suggested similar flexible work arrangements such as time-based flexibility and access to flexplace (Hyland, 2000). In more recent research, study measurements on flexible work arrangement were extended from Kossek‟s et al. (2006) and Hyland‟s (2000) study to include alternative work scheduling, compressed workweek, core working hours as well as part-time work (Kim & Gong, 2017; Crowley & Kolenicov, 2014). The variation of work-family conflict are also reported to be more standardized in most studies which consisted of two components: work-interference with family/work-to-family conflict and family interference with work/family-to-work conflict (Higgins et al., 2014; Azar et al., 2018; Jansen et al., 2004; Kim & Gong, 2017; Porter & Ayman 2010; Yu, 2017).
The study measurement in these studies was reported to differ where they adopted the measurement of work-family conflict proposed by Netemeyer et al. (1996), Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000) and Gutek, Searles and Klepa (1991). The study measurement proposed by Netemeyer et al. (1996) consisted of five items on both work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Meanwhile, Carlson‟s study focuses on the measurement for work-interferences with family and family-interference with work that can be categorised into six dimensions including time-based, strain-based and behavioural-based where each of these dimensions consists of three items respectively. Finally, the measurement suggested by Gutek, Searle and Klepa (1991) comprises of three items for both work-interference with family and family-interference with work respectively.
5. Limitations and Recommendations
Several limitations were not taken into account in this review. First, this review did not clearly define the operational concept of flexible work arrangements. It is because most studies evaluated in this review did not provide the standard definition of each type of flexible work arrangement. Besides, the review made by de Menezes and Kelliher (2011) simply presented the general definition of respective flexible work arrangements. Second, the researchers did not explicitly discuss the analysis and research methodology in this review. Only research designs, namely cross-sectional and longitudinal research, were identified in this review.
For future recommendations, researchers can focus on examining other possible variables that have a connection or association with the FWA and WFC specifically designed during the pandemic outbreak. It is because, during the pandemic outbreak, most businesses have shut down the operations and require FWA in managing demands. Apart from that, future researchers also need to formulate study measurements for flexible work arrangements that are more standardized for future research. Furthermore, the length of time to conducting the study should also be extended to allow researchers sufficient time for research. Moreover, the methodological frameworks of the studies such as qualitative, experimental research designs and longitudinal study can also be focused upon in future systematic reviews.
6. Conclusion
This systematic review offers a methodological technique to investigate the relationship between flexible working arrangement and work-family conflict, using various data sources and different research designs as well as analysis. This review expectantly may aid future researchers in delivering better insights on flexible work arrangement as well as offering suitable approaches to employees in curbing work-family conflict and other consequences of flexible work arrangement in organisations. Certainly, the findings on the above domain relationships in the review can be used by various businesses to adapt to the new normal. In addition, it can assist policy makers with new insights in better policy planning involving flexible work arrangements for both public and private sectors in improving overall performance and productivity.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Universiti Teknologi MARA, Melaka for funding this research through TEJA Grant 2020 (GDT2020-8) which has funded this research project.
References
1. Afsar, B., & Rehman, Z.U. (2017). Relationship between work-family conflict, job embeddedness, workplace flexibility, and turnover intentions. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 21(2), 92-104. 2. Allen, T. (2001). Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational Perceptions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior.
3. Allen, E.A., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.
4. Azar, S., Khan, A., &Van Eerde, W. (2018). Modeling linkages between flexible work arrangements‟ use and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 91,134-143.
5. Bayazit, Z. E., & Bayazit, M. (2017). How do flexible work arrangements alleviate work-family-conflict? The roles of flexibility i-deals and family-supportive cultures. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–31.
6. Beutell, N. J. (2010).Work schedule, work schedule control and satisfaction in relation to work‐family conflict, work‐family synergy, and domain satisfaction. Career Development International, 15(5), 501– 518.
7. Beutell, N.,& Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for Generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology,23, 507-523.
8. Blomme, R. J., Van Rheede, A., & Tromp, D. M. (2010). Work-family conflict as a cause for turnover intentions in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(4), 269–285.
9. Breaugh, J.A., &Frye, N.K. (2008). Work–family conflict: the importance of family-friendly employment practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal Business Psychology, 22, 345–353.
2779 10. Brough, P., O‟Driscoll, M. P., &Kalliath, T.J. (2005). The ability of family friendly organizational resources to predict work family conflict and job and family satisfaction. Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 21(4), 223-224.
11. Brown, M., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2015). A mediational model of workplace flexibility, work–family conflict, and perceived stress among caregivers of older adults. Community, Work & Family, 19(4), 379–395.
12. Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Michele Kacmar, K. (2010). The relationship of schedule flexibility and outcomes via the work‐family interface. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 330–355. 13. Chou, K. L., & Cheung, K. C. K. (2013). Family-friendly policies in the workplace and their effect on
work–life conflicts in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(20), 3872–3885.
14. Crowley, J. E.,& Kolenikov, S. (2014). Flexible work options and mother‟s perceptions of career harm: Mother‟s perceptions of career harm. The Sociological Quarterly, 55(1), 168-195.
15. De Raeve, L., Kant, I. A, Jansen, N.W.H., Vasse, R.M., & Van den Brandt, P.A. (2009). Changes in mental health as a predictor of changes in working time arrangements and occupational mobility: Results from a prospective cohort study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,66(2), 137-145.
16. De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: a systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 452–474 17. Dhaini, S. R., Denhaerynck, K., Bachnick, S., Schwendimann, R., Schubert, M.,De Geest, S.,& Simon,
M. (2018). Work schedule flexibility is associated with emotional exhaustion among registered nurses in Swiss hospitals: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82, 99-105. 18. Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived
performance. industrial relations. Journal of Economy and Society, 42(2), 145-167.
19. Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C.,& Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in I/O/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.
20. Facer, R. L., & Wadsworth, L. (2008). Alternative work schedules and work–family balance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(2), 166–177.
21. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-75.
22. Fujimura, Y., Sekine, M., & Tatsuse, T. (2014). Sex differences in factors contributing to family-to-work and family-to-work-to-family conflict in Japanese civil servants. Journal of Occupational Health, 56(6), 485–497.
23. Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting‟s differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340–1350.
24. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
25. Grzywacz, J.& Marks, N. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,. 5. 111-126.
26. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560–568.
27. Hassan, Z., Dollard, M. F., & Winefield, A. H. (2010). Work-family conflict in East vs Western countries. Cross Cultural Management, 17(1), 30–49.
28. Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667-683.
29. Hill, E., Hawkins, A., 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(1), 49-58.
30. Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., Julien, M. (2014). The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict. Work. 60(3), 475-483.
31. Hughes, E. L., & Parkes, K. (2007). Work hours and well-being: The roles of work-time control and work-family interference. Work and Stress, 21(3), 264-278.
32. Hyland, M. M. (2000).Flexibility in work arrangements: How availability, preferences anduse affect business outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University,New Jersey.
33. Jansen, N. W., Kant, I., Nijhuis, F. J., Swaen, G. M., &Kristensen, T. S. (2004). Impact of worktime arrangements on work-home interference among Dutch employees. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 30(2),139-148.
34. Jones, A., & Guthrie, C. P. (2016).The New Normal? Enhanced Psychological Well-Being from Public Accounting: Mitigating Conflict with Flexibility and Role Clarity. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 33–68.
35. Jones, B.L., Scoville, D.P., Hill, E.J., Childs, G., Leishman, J.M. and Nally, K.S. (2008), „„Perceived versus used workplace flexibility in Singapore: predicting work-family fit‟‟, Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 774-783.
36. Jostell, D., &Hemlin, S. (2018). After hours teleworking and boundary management: Effects on work-family conflict. Work. 60(3), 475-483.
37. Kelly, E.L., Moen, P., Tranby, E. (2011). Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: Schedule control in a white-collar organization. American Sociological Review. 76(2), 265-290. 38. Kim, H., &Gong, Y.P. (2017). Effects of work-family and family-work conflicts on flexible work
arrangements demand: a gender role perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(20), 2936-2956.
39. Kossek, E. & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap: A literature review. Community, Work & Family, 2, 7-32.
40. Kossek, E., Lautsch, B. A., &Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness.Journal of Vocational Behavior,68(2), 347–367.
41. Lee, D.-H., & Lin, Z. (2013). Antecedents of work-family conflict and the moderating effect of perceived organizational support in China. Asian Social Science, 9(13),28–39.
42. Lee, J.,& Ling, C. (2001). Work-family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16, 204-221.
43. Lingard, H.,& Francis, V. (2005). Does work-family conflict mediate the relationship between job schedule demands and burnout in male construction professionals and managers?. Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 23(7), 733-745.
44. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400−410.
45. Pasewark, W.,& Viator, R. (2006). Sources of work-family conflict in the accounting profession. behavioral research in accounting. BehaviouralResearch Accounting, 18, 147-165.
46. Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The design of flexible workschedules and employee responses: Relationships and process.Journalof Organizational Behavior, 4,247–262.
47. Poulose, S., & Sudarsan, N. (2017). Assessing the influence of work-life balance dimensions among nurses in the healthcare sector. Journal of Management Development, 36(3), 427–437.
48. Roehling, P.V., Roehling, M.V.,& Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between work-life policies and practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 141-170.
49. Ryan, B., Ma, E., Hsiao, A.,& Ku, M. (2015). The work-family conflict of university food service managers: An exploratory study of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10-15.
50. Sarbu, M. (2018). The role of telecommuting for work-family conflict among German employees. Research in Transportation Economics.
51. Scandura, T.,& Lankau, M. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377-391.
52. Schieman, S., & Glavin, P. (2016). Ironic flexibility: when normative role blurring undermines the benefits of schedule control. The Sociological Quarterly, 58(1), 51–71.
53. Schieman, S., & Young, M. (2010). Is there a downside to schedule control for the work-family interface? Journal of Family Issues, 31(10), 1391–1414.
54. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: another look at the availability offlexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 479-493.
55. Solís, M. S. (2016).Telework: conditions that have a positive and negative impact on the work-family conflict.Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 29(4), 435-449.
56. Stacey, P.,& Roya, A. (2010). Work flexibility as a mediator of the relationship between work family conflict and intention to quit. Journal of Management & Organization,16(3), 411-424.
57. Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15.
58. Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are notenough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizationalattachment, and work-family conflict.Journal of Vocational Behavior,54, 392–415
2781 59. Van Dyne L., Kossek E, &Lobel, S. (2007). Less need to be there: Cross-level effects of work practices that support work-life flexibility and enhance group processes and group-level OCB. Human Relations,60(8), 1123-1154.
60. Yik, M., Russell, J., & Suzuki (2003). Relating momentary affect to the five factor model of personality: a japanese case. Japanese Psychological Research, 45.
61. Yildirim, D., Aycan, Z. (2008). Nurses‟ work demands and work–family conflict:A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies,45(9), 1366-1378.
62. Yu, K. (2017). Schedule control, work interference with family, and emotional exhaustion: a reciprocal moderated mediation model. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 11, 23.
63. Yucel, D. (2014). Job autonomy and schedule flexibility as moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and work-related outcomes. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 14(5), 1393-1410.
