Research Article
Moderation Effect of Supervisor Support between Flexible Working Arrangement
andWork-Family Conflict in Malaysia
Eni Suriana Binti Aliasa, Ahmad Zainal Abidin Abd Razakb*, Norsamsinar Samsudinc,
Ahmad Amri Zainal Adnand, Harlida Abdul Wahabe
a,b,c,dFaculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia
eSchool of Law, College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
*Correspondence Author: ahmad.zainal@fpe.upsi.edu.myb
Article History:Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021;
Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: There have been major changes in current workforce competitiveness trends. The changes in workforce
demographics particularly in the increase of dual-earner families and single-parents have resulted in increased multiple role conflicts. Working couples must cope with the problem of combining work and family responsibilities in their daily life. Many industries adopted the current trend of the flexible working environment into their organizations. This study explores the moderation effect of supervisor support between flexible working arrangements (FWA), the effect on work interference with family conflict (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). The population for this study primarily focused on the organizations that adopt the flexible working arrangement such as flexible working time, working from home, and compressed work-week practices in Malaysia. The companies selected is based on the listing of global organizations practices FWA mentioned in Talent Corp Malaysia Flexible Working Arrangement collaboration with Malaysian Federation Employer report, 2015. The questionnaires were distributed through the Human Resource Department of each organization. The result demonstrated that there is relationship between FWA and WIF and there was moderation effect of supervisor support (SS) between FWA and WIF. However, the result showed no moderation effect of SS between FWA and FIW. This study supports the idea that supervisor support is a resource that helps employees to manage the occurrence of interference from work to family and to overcoming FIW, supports particularly from family members either siblings, parents and spouse is important. The implication of this study is that, work conflict issue requires the proactive effort and support not only from the organization in terms of supervisor support through FWA but also support within the family circle. Organizations approach in adopting FWA in their attempts to minimize WFC is recommendable but it should be applied across occupation and organizations as one of employee benefits policy.
Keywords: Flexible Working Arrangement, Supervisor Support, Work Family Conflict (WFC), Work Interference With
Family (WIF) and Family Interference With Work (FIW) 1. Introduction
There have been major changes in current workforce competitiveness trends (KPMG, 2019). This includes the ageing population, increasing eldercare demands, declining fertility rates, changes in labour market requirement, increasing number of women participating in the workforce, growth of single-parent family and the dual-income earner's shifts where women nearly equal men in participation, and growth in single-parent families (Kossek & Distelberg, 2009). The changes in workforce demographics particularly in the increase of dual-earner families and single-parents have resulted in increased multiple role conflicts (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Working couples must cope with the problem of combining work and family responsibilities in their daily life (Tammelin, Malinen, Rönkä, & Verhoef, 2016). This is one of the many reasons, over the past years, organizations are forced to redesign their workplace to meets the global employment market trends (Kossek & Thompson, 2015) to remain competitive. The advancement of information technology has made the accessibility become portable and enables employees working virtually (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016). Consecutively, with the demographic changes and roles changes, further insistent the need for job flexibility (SHRM, 2016). Since the labour workforce is becoming more diversified, job flexibility seems to suits their conditions (Mee Choo, Desa, & Abu Hassan Asaari, 2016).
Technology innovation that is present across various occupational work setting has changed how work is done across the globe (Lake, 2016). It also has enabled a flexible working arrangement to be introduced in the workplace as a new way of working (SHRM, 2016). Globalization and competitive technology environment affects labour workforce entirely and generates the need to adopt the utilization of flexibility at the workplace (Regus, 2017). The reason is that the technology revolution created the borderless working environment and workplace innovation (Lake, 2016; Schwab & Samans, 2016). As discovered, the majority of industries adopted the current trend of the flexible working environment into their organizations (Schwab & Samans, 2016). In Malaysia, according to TalentCorp (2016), flexibility in work has become more preferred among employees compared to regular work hours and stationed workplace (Subramaniam, Geetha& Maniam, 2015). Flexible
Work Interference with Family (WIF) Flexible Working Arrangement Family Interference with Work (FIW) Supervisor Support
working arrangement (FWA) is favourable among employees because they were able to choose on their working hours and location (Regus, 2017) thus enabling them to fulfil the home roles demands and expectation (Kossek & Thompson, 2015; Masuda et al., 2012).
2. Problem Statement
Over the past years, the demographic composition has changed rapidly, where more dual-career families emerge (Fiksenbaum, 2014) that contributed to marital conflicts (Noor, Mahdzir, Nor, & Abdullah, 2019). It ranges from financial matters, communication, misunderstanding, lack of intimacy, care, love, affection and others (Noor, et al, 2019). Since it is not resolved, it creates complication in employees' career (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014) and home matters (Erdamar & Demirel, 2014). The topic of work-family conflict has become leading and critical debates by the past researcher (Allen, Cho & Meier, 2014; Powell, Greenhaus, Allen& Johnson, 2019; Williams, Berdahl& Vandello, 2015). The critical debates highlighted that gender role, families’roles, work and employmentissues has an enormous impact on work-family conflict (Powell et al., 2019). Employees encountered difficulties in managing time and responsibilities in both homes and work domain, disabling them to accomplish their role demands as employee and family roles successfully leading to higher WFC (Oshio, Inoue& Tsutsumi, 2017). Many complications arise and linked to work-family conflict such as employees who experienced work-family conflict (WFC) becoming less committed to work (Clarke & Holdsworth, 2017) and reduced individuals’ productivity, performance (Fiksenbaum, 2014) and organization experienced decrease organizational productivity cycle, employee turnover and mental health distress (Erdamar & Demirel, 2014; Kelly, Moen, Oakes, Fan, Okechukwu, Davis & Casper, 2014).
Past studies have shown that, focusing on one role domain creates imbalances with the other domain, for instance, spending more hours at work, reduces time or limiting quality time spend with the family (Powell, Greenhaus, Allen& Johnson, 2018) are contributing to work-family conflict (WFC) (Erdamar & Demirel, 2014). According to Kossek et al., (2011) there was the disconnection between the organization and employee roles on what they could compromise to allow employees balancing responsibilities between work and home domain. Due to this, many countries worldwide are adopting FWA as a mean to gain more flexibility (Klindzic & Marić, 2019; Kottey & Sharma, 2016) for both organization and employee in UK, Italy Netherlands, Greece, Romania, Portugal (Gialis & Taylor, 2015), Japan, Australia, USA and Canada (International Labour Organization, 2011; OECD, 2012; Spreitzer, Cameron & Garrett, 2017).Since FWA anticipated the borderless boundaries environment in the situation which employees who are working remotely at home would find it hard to disassociate themselves from work while they are at home, hence this could jeopardize the family relationship (Kossek, 2016b). It was discovered that many employees that work remotely, having difficulties switching to the family role and residual in the family role (Eddleston & Mulki, 2017). FWA has been suggested to be used as a resolution tool to reduce the effect of work-family conflict (Masuda et al., 2012; Warokka & Febrilia, 2015).
In Malaysia however, employers are reluctant to adopt FWA because they feel insure about the protection of company data and employees have the perception and feelings that taking FWA may harm their career growth (TalentCorp, 2016). The present study explores the moderation effect of Supervisor Support between flexible working arrangements (FWA) the effect of work-family conflict. Specifically, this study investigates the relationshipbetween flexible working arrangement (FWA) and work interference with family conflict (WIF), the relationship between flexible working arrangement (FWA) and family interference with work conflict (FIW) and examine the moderation effect of Supervisor Support between flexible working arrangements (FWA) and the effect on work interference with family conflict (WIF) and family interference with work conflict (FIW).Figure 1, indicates the conceptual framework for this study.
3. Literature Review
Role Theory by Pleck (1977)as the Underlying Theory
Pleck (1977) has defined the combination of roles between men and women is the key component in understanding the concept of work and family domain. The typical perception norms have tagged the responsibilities between work and home by gender (Cerrato & Cifre, 2018). The debate uses to focus on women's participation in the labour market (Gornick &Meyers 2008), neglecting the fact that gender equality not only concerns women, and that gender inequalities affect far more dimensions than just labour-market participation(Aboim, 2010). The concepts are broader, trans bound in the public and private spheres (Grunow et al. 2018). The consequences from this is that, both gender play multiple roles that caused the imbalance and stress in work or family domain (Allen, 2001; Kecklund et. al, 2017). For example, an employee that fulfilling the home responsibilities after exhausted working at the office for the whole day may be facing the challenges when entertaining the children's needs. Due to the revolutionary of fast-paced technology, the boundary of work and family domain seems to be affected (Russo, Ollier-Malaterre, Kossek & Ohana, 2018). With the use of technology such as the internet, it allows employees to assess work without borders and limitless of a working environment, better controlling over the boundary between both work and family domain, thus solving work and family conflict (Chung & van der Lippe, 2018).
Flexible Working Arrangement (FWA)
FWA has been seen as an alternative in work practices that could be a potential tool to overcome the occurrence of WFC (Kossek & Thompson, 2015).In Malaysia, the implementation by organizations is still at an infant stage (Choo, Desa & Abu Hassan Asaari, 2016). The prior study discovered that the FWA contributed to a positive outcome on work-life balance (Clarke & Holdsworth, 2017). FWA in Malaysia is not a prevalence working practice and many organization still utilizing the conventional way of working practices, shying away from FWA (Ahmad, Shaw, Bown, Leach, Gardiner & Omar, 2015). Furthermore, FWA is not popular among Malaysian employees since only about 32 per cent of professional employees were considering FWA availability as the top three preferences and reason for accepting the job according to a survey conducted by Micheal Page Malaysia, a recruitment agency (Micheal Page Malaysia, 2015). Unlike in the United States, young American professional looking forward to having the expansion use of FWA (Matos & Galinsky, 2011). Flynn, Coccia, Ryan, Lewis, Chen and Feinstein (2017) discovered that many employers in the US have provided flexible working arrangement perquisites on top of other perquisites to employees because this is what employees look for when it comes in employment seeking. A study by Shagvaliyeva and Yazdanifard (2014) found that flexibility at work could give control to employees over their job, stimulating the creation of improvement towards achieving the balance between work and home responsibilities and workplace flexibility and triggers the employee's willingness to stay longer in the organization (Byrne & Canato, 2017; Kossek & Thompson, 2015).
Work Family Conflict (WFC) and Flexible Working Arrangement (FWA)
Many studies have been done addressing work and family since 1960s and many studies suggested that the combination of these two domains caused a conflict (Williams et. al, 2016). Work-family conflict arises from the combination of role pressure of work and family that are incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The work-family conflict comprises incompatible roles due to work-family duties that obstruct the job duties and vice versa (Beutell, 2010; Kinnunen et. al, 2010). The term of work-family conflict broadly defined as a conflict occurred which work is interfering with family responsibilities (Huang, Wu, Wang & Tang, 2015) and employees experience the interference at home due to work demands (Abu Bakar & Salleh, 2015; Rogelberg, 2016). In general, most employees regardless of age, gender or marital status were involved in some sort of WFC (Kossek et. al, 2015) which can be categorized as work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Gutek, Searle & Klepa, 1991; Kim, Lee, Park & Yun, 2015; Panatik, Badri, Rajab, Abdul & Shaha, 2011). This two conflict were linked but the effect is different (Kecklund et. al, 2017). For this reason, bi-directionality should be considered and reviewed as to capture the understanding of the details on its antecedents (Ferri et. al, 2018). Emphasizing on time, role demand to accomplish the required task within a role and the emergence of strain. It has been perceived that the role demand, the dedicated time was to accomplish the required task within a role and the role strain emerges from the dedicated role in the domain were the elements in WIF and FIW (Netemayer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996). These role overload experience in both domain, either work or home often caused the strain (Liao, Lau, Hui, & Kong, 2019).
It is said that the flexible working arrangement (FWA) significantly connected to work interference with family (WIF) that buffer the negative consequences of work demand (Halinski & Duxbury, 2019) rather than
family interference with work (FIW) (Hammer et. al, 2015). Beigi, Shirmohammadi and Stewart (2018) revealed there were inconsistent findings on the relationship between flexible working arrangements (FWA) towards work-family conflict (WFC), particularly if the empirical studies used a term such as work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Shockley & Allen, 2012). Studies on supervisor support in the organization having the significant effect of WIF and FIW is abundance (Bryan & Sevilla, 2017; Ferri, Pedrini & Riva, 2018; Higgins, Duxbury & Julien, 2014; Kundu, Phogat, Datta & Gahlawat, 2016; Solis,2017). For working couples with children, FWA at the workplace was favoured because it can help them aligning and balancing work and family needs (Bryan & Sevilla, 2017). Galea, Houkes, and De Rijk (2014) added that it can help solve work-family conflict and help employees to gain work-life balance. Recent studies by Solis (2016), WIF and FIW can reduce significantly depending on the number of days the employees working remotely. The more days were taken by the employees, the better they can reduce WIF and FIW because they get control and used to arrange time efficiently. However, the same study found that the employees appear more exhausted because they are taking up two roles simultaneously.
Supervisor Support
Supervisor support is of the most prominent role that can help employees maintain the positive impact of employee's wellbeing at the workplace (Hemmig, 2017) besides other sources of supports (Abd Razak, Yeop Yunus Samsudin, Wahid and Wahid, 2019). Supervisor support referring to the willingness of managers to provide psychological and instrumental support to his or her subordinates so that the employees can manage work and home responsibilities (Meguella, Abdul Khalil, Ahmad & Mohd Nor, 2017). Originally, Frone, Russell and Cooper (1997) identified two forms of supervisor support that can be given to employees. Since then, researchers have further elaborated on the supports given by supervisor more comprehensively. Researchers have identified that four dimensions or types of supervisor support can aid work and family demands facing by employees. Which comprises of emotional support, instrumental support, dual agenda support and role supportive behaviours support (Hammer, Kossek, Zimmerman & Daniels, 2006; Kossek, Hammer, Kelly & Moen, 2014). Organizational leaders could establish instrumental support by underpinning FWA practices at the workplace as a standard model of working (Kossek, 2016b). Furthermore, Hammig (2017) stress that supervisor plays a significant role towards employee's health and wellbeing at work where a good supervisor at the workplace is responsible to ensure in maintaining the structural resources, rewards, and providing the opportunities to co-workers that could enhance job satisfaction and employee's needs at the workplace (Rathi & Lee, 2017). In implementing FWA at the workplace, organizations, specifically, supervisors are an important element for it to be implemented successful (Baird, 2015). It believes that the supervisor could influence employees' attitude and response in the implementation of FWA practice in an organization (Rice & Koivisto, 2016). It allows the employee to cope up with the repercussion of job loads and difficulties which will give positive impact towards work (Goh, Ilies & Wilson, 2015).
4. Methodology
This paper aims to examine the influence of flexible working arrangement and supervisor support towards work-family conflict and employee performance in Organizations that Implement FWA in Kuala Lumpur. The population for this study primarily focused on the organizations that adopt the flexible working arrangement such as flexible working time, working from home, and compressed work-week practices in Malaysia.The companies selected in the study is based on the listing of global organizations practices FWA mentioned in TalentCorp Malaysia Flexible Working Arrangement collaboration with Malaysian Federation Employer (MEF) report, 2015). Based on the report, only three (3) out of four (4) companies is present in Malaysia. The companies were contacted and the questionnaires were distributed to these companies. The survey questionnaire of the study was designed with a cover letter defining the purposes of the research background and objective. For this study, non-probability sampling design was selected because the element of the study population does not own any probabilities that devoted as the reason for being selected as a sample subject (Sekaran, 2010). The sampling design is dedicated to employees that possibly able to feedback on required information.Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect the data. Since it is impossible to identify the respondent; the assistance from each organization Human Resource Department was sought to help distribute the questionnaire using Google Form distribution link via corporate office email. The questionnaires were developed using items were replicated and adopted from previous researchers. The questionnaires items consist of five (5) major sections which are Demographic Information, Flexible Working Arrangement questions which consist of 8 questions adapted from Hyland (2000); Work-Family Conflict adopted from Netemeyer et. al (1996) that categorized in two sub-sections since the study was intended to study on both directions. First sub-section is Work Interference with Family (WIF) contains five (5) question items, and second sub-section is Family Interference with Work (FIW) contains five (5) question items. The established scale from (1) strongly disagrees,
(2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree. Finally, Supervisor Support questions which consist of 6 questions adapted from Anderson, Coffey and Byerly (2002). Revilla, Saris, and Krosnick (2014) stated that five (5)-point and fewer scale would contribute to better result of validity and quality. The dichotomous scale should be considered the middle category to avoid the higher non-response rate therefore, the Likert scale-5-point were used for the study. Descriptive analysis, factor analysis, reliability measures, The Chi-Square test, The Mann-Whitney U Test and Binary Logistic Regression Analysis were conducted to analyze the data.
5. Results
A total number of 600 questionnaires were distributed. It was targeted to have returned of 400 sets of questionnaires, but only 305 sets of questionnaires were returned with a response rate of 50.00%. The questionnaires data were screened and cleaned. 1 set of questionnaires were removed and declared unusable due to incomplete reason. Therefore, the remaining of 304 sets of questionnaires was deemed acceptable for further data analysis. Table 1 illustrates the demographic profile of respondent by gender, age, marital status, the status of a spouse working, number of children, children age, education background, household and personal income range, type of employment, level of position, time taken to travel from home to office and distance between home and office.
Table1.Demographic Data of Respondent
Demographic Variables Categories Frequency (N)
Percent (%)
Gender Male 134 44.1
Female 170 55.9
Age 18-24 years old 15 4.9
25-34 years old 114 37.5
35-44 years old 116 38.2
45-54 years old 54 17.8
55 years old and above 5 1.6
Marital status Single 79 26.0
Single Father/ Single
Mother
3 1.0
Married 222 73.0
Spouse working Yes 192 63.2
No 30 9.9
Not Applicable 82 27.0
No of children None 107 35.2
2 children and below 130 42.8
More than 2 children 67 22.0
Child age None 107 35.2
17 years old and below 164 53.9
18 years old and above 12 3.9
Both 2 & 3 21 6.9
Education Background PMR/SPM / STPM 55 18.1
Tertiary level ( e.g.;
Diploma, Bachelor Degree, Master, PHD)
249 81.9
Household income Below RM4500 60 19.7
RM4501-RM6000 64 21.1 RM6001 – RM8000 39 12.8 RM8001 – RM10000 76 25.0 RM10001- RM12000 27 8.9 RM12001 – RM14000 27 8.9 RM14001 – RM16000 8 2.6 RM16001-RM18000 1 .3 RM18001-RM20000 1 .3 RM20001 and above 1 .3
Personal Income Below RM4500 95 31.3
RM4501-RM6000 95 31.3 RM6001 – RM8000 50 16.4 RM8001 – RM10000 43 14.1 RM10001- RM12000 9 3.0 RM12001 – RM14000 9 3.0 RM14001 – RM16000 2 .7 RM16001-RM18000 1 .3
Demographic Variables Categories Frequency (N)
Percent (%)
Type of Employment Permanent 264 86.8
Contract 40 13.2
Level of Position Managerial 132 43.4
Non- Managerial 172 56.6
Time taken to travel from home to office
20 mins and less 104 34.2
21 mins-40mins 77 25.3
41 mins- 60 mins 97 31.9
more than 60 mins 26 8.6
Distance between home and office. Less than 10 kms 98 32.2 11-25kms 108 35.5 26-35kms 28 9.2 36-45kms 49 16.1 more than 45kms 21 6.9
From Table 1, Demographic Data of Respondent shows that the female respondents (55.9%) has represented the majority and the remaining is male respondents which accounted for 44.1%. The majority of the respondents aged between 35-44 years old (38.2%), with 37.5 % aged between 25-34 years old, followed by 17.8% aged between 45-54 years, aged 18-24 years old with a percentage of 4.9% and only 1.6% of the respondents that are
aged more than 55 years old and above. The marital status of respondent shows that 73(%) are married, single (26%) and single father or mother (1%). Meanwhile, for the status of a spouse working, it was accounted 63.2% for "Yes'', followed by 9.9(%) for "No". It summarizes that 42.8 % respondents have 2 children and below followed by 35.2% of respondents has no children (it combined whether married or single respondent) and the remaining of 22% represents respondents that have more than 2 children. Majority percentage of 53.9% of respondents have children of age 17 years old and below followed by 3.9% of respondents have children aged 18 years old and above. Meanwhile, 6.9% of respondents have both range age of children. It can be summarized that nearly the majority of the respondents have tertiary education that represents about 81.9% and the remaining of 18.1% respondents have an education level of PMR/SPM/STPM.
For personal income, majority of the respondents earned between RM4501-RM6000 and below RM4500 that represents the percentage of 31.3%, followed by the income range of RM6001-RM8000 represents 16.4%, RM8001-RM10000 with a percentage of 14.1%, RM10001-RM12000 and RM12001-RM14000 with the percentage of 3. The highest income ranges of RM16001-RM18000 with 3% respondents and the income range of RM14001-RM16000 represents 7% of respondents. The majority of respondents 86.8% were permanent employees and 13.2% were contract employees. It consists about 56.6% of respondents were non-managerial positions and 43.4% respondents were managerial positions. About 34.2% respondents have taken time to office 20 minutes and less, followed by 41-60 minutes with 31.9% of respondents, 21-40 minutes with 25.3% of respondents, more than 60 minutes with 8.6% of respondents. Moreover, the majority respondents staying in the distance range of 11-25 kilometres with a leading percentage of 35.5%, followed by the distance range of fewer than 10 kilometres with 32.2%, then the distance range of 36-45 kilometres with 16.1% and the least percentage of 6.9% staying distance range of more than 45 kilometres.
The data has been processed systematically, for example by running factor analysis, normality test, reliability tests, Chi-Square, The Mann- Whitney U test and the logistic regression. The reliability for Flexible Working Arrangement (FWA) is 0.821; Work Interference with Family (WIF) is 0.886; Family Interference with Work (FIW) is 0.924; Employee Performance (EP1) is 0.917; Employee Performance (EP2) is 0.945 and Supervisor Support is 0.931. The ideal of Cronbach Alpha Coefficient scale should be above than 0.7 (Paterson, 1995). If it is less than 0.6, the variables will be considered questionable, while those in range 0.7 will be accepted. The reliability is good when it is more than 0.8 (Sekaran & Bougie, 1993). The greater the alpha close to 1 the greater the internal consistency of the study item (George & Mallery, 2016). It can be concluded that the study variables reliability is good since all the values exceeding 0.8. Chi-square test is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.Summary of Chi-Square Test Results Variable
/Demographics Factor
Age Gender Marital
Status Number of Children Results Flexible Working Arrangement (FWA)
p<0.025 p<0.153 p<0.924 p<0.134 FWA has significant association with age Work Interference
with Family (WIF)
p<0.001 p<0.026 p<0.205 p<0.492 WIF has significant association with age and gender
Family
Interference with Work (FIW)
p<0.029 p<0.296 p<0.156 p<0.206 FIW has significant association with age
Supervisor
Support (SS) p<0.598 p<0.726 p<0.321 p<0.483
SS has no significant association between these 4 factors
Note: Significant level p<0.05, p<0.01
The Mann-Whitney U test is non-parametric test used for comparing the differences between the two independent groups on continuous measures. The Mann Whitney U Test is substitutes to T-Test (for parametric statistical test) which it compares median of the variables. It has converted the scores from continuous variables to ranks and compares across the two groups (Pallant, 2001). The results indicated thatthe work interference with family (WIF) was significantly greater for female employees (Mdn = 4) than for male employees (Mdn = 4), Z= -2.296, p=.022 < .05.As for Supervisor Support (SS) between Gender, the results indicated that that the
supervisor support (SS) is not significant even it was close to Alpha significant level which median for female employees (Mdn = 4.0) and male employees (Mdn = 4.0), Z= -1.896, p=.058 < .05. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric analysis used to test whether samples were from the same distribution. It is used for comparing the differences on the continuous variables for three or more independent groups of the samples. It extends the Mann-Whitney U test, which is used for comparing only two groups.
The Kruskal-Wallis test is an alternative to parametric test of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated that there is a significant difference value of work interference with family (WIF) score between age, χ2(2) (4) = 9.247, p = .005, with a mean rank of 117.83 for 18 to 24 years old, 149.06 for 25 to 34 years old, 165.75 for 35 to44 years old, 147.76 for 45 to 54 years old and 78.6 for 55 years old and above.As for Supervisor Support (SS) between Age, the test showed that there is no significant difference value, χ2(2)(4) = 7.576, p = .108, with a mean rank of 181.53 for 18 to 24 years old, 147.50 for 25 to 34 years old, 142.40 for 35 to44 years old, 175.52 for 45 to 54 years old and 165.10 for 55 years old and above. As for Work Interference with Family (WIF) between Number of Children, it showed that there is no significant difference value, χ2(2)(4) = 3.220, p = .200, with a mean rank of 141.43 for none, 155.47 for 2 children and below, and 164.41 for more than 2 children.Finally, the test of Supervisor Support(SS) between Number of Childrenshowed that there is no significant difference value, χ2(2)(2) = 2.750, p = .253, with a mean rank of 163.48 for none, 145.18 for 2 children and below, and 149.16 for more than 2 children.
The logistic regression was used to measure goodness of fit of the model in two ways. First, looking at the Pseudo R2 value in Model Summary Table that contains Cox & Snell R2 value and Nagelkerke R2 value. Second,
it can be measured through the value of Chi-Square in Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients table and the corrected percentage in Classification table that represent the accuracy of the model. The lower of 2 log likelihood values (-2LL) is considered as better fit model (Hair et. al, 2014).The -2LL value can be compared with first model and proposed model for estimation fit.
Ho1:There is no relationship between flexible working arrangement and work interference with family (WIF).
It was illustrated in Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients table, the chi-square value is27.60 with p-value=.002 was statistically significant, X2(12, N=304) =27.60, p< .05, demonstrated that the full modelwas able
to differentiate between the employees who has WIF and the employees who do not have WIF. The full model explained 8.7 percent (Cox and Snell R Squared) and 13.3 percent (Nagelkerke R Squared) of the variance in predicting the occurrence of WIF. The full model hascorrectly classified 79.9percent of cases. The overall association between WIF and the dependent variable of FWA and demographic variables has showed the mixed result of logistic analysis which indicated by Wald Coefficient, Regression Coefficient (B) and the Exp B (OR) value.
Table3. Logistic Regression Predicting Likelihood of Work Interference with Family (WIF) (Model 3)
Variable Logistic Regression Coefficient (B) SD Wald Coefficient
Df Sig. value Odd Ratio (Exp (B)) Flexible Working Arrangement ( FWA) -2.104 .963 4.771 1 .029 0.122 Supervisor Support (SS) -1.601 .690 5.376 1 .020 0.202 FWA by SS .650 .259 6.274 1 .012 1.915 Constant 6.393 2.590 6.092 1 .014 597.364 Model X2(3, N=304)= 8.37
Pseudo R2=2.7 (Cox & Snell), 4.2 (Nagelkerke)
N =304
Note:= The dependent variable in this analysis is Work Interference with Family (WIF) a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: FWA, SS, FWA by SS (Moderator)
In Model 3, the variable in equation of WIF was generated without addition of demographic variables, which shows a significant relationship between FWA and WIFwith p-value =.029, (Wald =4.771,p<.05). Model 3 has corrected classified 77.6 per cent and show a significant of p-value=.03 in Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients with the chi-square value of 8.37, X2(3, N=304) = 8.37, p< .05. In Model 3, the odd ratio (OR) for FWA is
0.122<1, regression coefficient (B)= -2.104indicated that for every additional per employee uses the FWA, were 0.12 times less likely to report WIF.
Assessedin full model, the demographic variable of age (Age 2 to Age 4) (Wald=11.098, df =5, p<0.025)demonstrated it was a significant predictor of WIF. The strongest predictor of predicting the WIF is the respondent who are in rangeof Age 2 with p-value=.014 (Wald =6.028, p<.05) (25-34 years old) and Age 3with p-value=.013 (Wald =6.223, p<.05) (35-44 years old) with the respective odd ratio (OR) of 23.41 and 23.88. Thisindicatedthat the respondentbetween aged 25 to 34 years old and 35 to 44 years old have 23 times more likely predicting WIF compared to the respondent aged 55 years old and above.In addition, Age 4 (45-54 years old)also hascontributed a significant relationship with p-value=0.047 towards predicting WIF (Wald =3.957, p<.05). Hence, Hypothesis of H01 is rejected.
Table 4.Logistic Regression Predicting Likelihood of Work Interference with Family (WIF)
Variable Logistic Regression Coefficient (B) SD Wald Coefficient Df Sig. value
Odd Ratio (Exp (B)) Flexible Working Arrangement ( FWA) -1.974 1.044 3.576 1 0.059 0.139 Supervisor Support (SS) -1.387 0.730 3.611 1 0.057 0.250 FWA by SS 0.598 0.278 4.637 1 0.031 1.819 Gender (Female) -0.418 0.305 1.877 1 0.171 0.659 Age (55 years old and above
:Ref Group) 11.098 4 0.025 Age (1) 2.028 1.382 2.152 1 0.142 7.599 Age (2) 3.154 1.284 6.028 1 0.014 23.419 Age(3) 3.173 1.272 6.223 1 0.013 23.883 Age (4) 2.514 1.264 3.957 1 0.047 12.354 No of Children (More than 2 children : Ref Group) 3.331 2 0.189 No of Children (1) -0.886 0.486 3.316 1 0.069 0.412 No of Children (2) -0.494 0.425 1.349 1 0.245 0.610 Constant 3.578 2.972 1.449 1 0.229 35.797 Model X2(10, N=304)= 27.60
Pseudo R2=8.7 (Cox & Snell), 13.3 (Nagelkerke)
N =304
Note: The dependent variable in this analysis is Work Interference with Family (WIF)
H02: There is no moderation effect of supervisor support between flexible working arrangement and work
interference with family (WIF).
To examine the role of the supervisor support as the moderator, the interaction variable (FWA by SS)between independent variable (FWA) and dependent variable (WIF) Model 3 were assessed. In Table 4the independent variable of FWA, the moderator variable (SS) and interaction variable (FWA by SS) were generated without addition of demographic variables. It was hypothesized that there is a statistically significant interaction between (FWA by SS)(Wald= 6.274, p=.012) with regards to having WIF.SS does moderate the relationship between FWA and WIF. Thus, the hypothesis of H02 isrejected.
Ho3: There is no relationship between flexible working arrangement and family interference with work conflict (FIW)
It was illustrated in Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients table, the chi-square value is 28.67 with p-value=.001 was statistically significant, X2(10, N=304) =28.67, p< .05, demonstrated that the full model was
able to differentiate between the employees who have FIW and the employees who do not have FIW. The full model explained 9 per cent (Cox and Snell R Squared) and 12.1 percent (Nagelkerke R Squared) of the variance in predicting the occurrence of FIW. The full model has correctly classified 63.8 percent of cases.
Table5.Logistic Regression Predicting Likelihood of Family Interference with Work (FIW)
Variable Logistic Regression Coefficient (B) SD Wald Coefficient df Sig. value
Odd Ratio (Exp (B)) Flexible Working Arrangement ( FWA) 0.147 0.842 0.030 1.000 0.862 1.158 Supervisor Support (SS) 0.501 0.587 0.728 1.000 0.394 1.650 FWA by SS 0.012 0.223 0.003 1.000 0.955 1.013 Gender (Female) 0.004 0.254 0.000 1.000 0.989 1.004 Age (55 years old and above
:Ref Group) 10.524 4.000 0.032 Age (1) 0.983 1.290 0.581 1.000 0.446 2.673 Age (2) 1.732 1.175 2.172 1.000 0.141 5.654 Age(3) 2.067 1.167 3.139 1.000 0.076 7.905 Age (4) 1.123 1.171 0.921 1.000 0.337 3.074 No of Children (More than 2 children : Ref Group) 2.334 2.000 0.311 No of Children (1) 0.107 0.379 0.079 1.000 0.778 1.113 No of Children (2) 0.437 0.329 1.771 1.000 0.183 1.548 Constant -4.082 2.524 2.615 1.000 0.106 0.017 Model X2 (10, N=304) = 28.67
Pseudo R2=9.0 (Cox & Snell), 12.1 (Nagelkerke)
N =304
Note:The dependent variable in this analysis is Family with Work Interference (FIW) a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age, Gender, Number of Children, FWA by SS (Moderator)
As per Table 5, the full model has showed the predictor of flexible working arrangement (FWA) between FIW with the addition of demographics variables (age, gender and number of children). None of the predictors that predict the outcome in dependent variable of FIW in any model. Therefore, there is no relationship between FWA and FIW. Hence, Hypothesis Ho3 is failed to reject.
H04: There is no moderation effect of supervisor support between flexible working arrangement and
family interference with work (FIW).
The interaction variable of FWA by SS was not showing a significant interaction whichthe p-value=0.955 (Wald=0.003, p>.05)between FWA in predicting outcome variable of FIW in any model. There is no moderation between SS and FIW. Therefore, H04 hypothesis is failed to reject.Below is the summary of the results of the
study.
Table6.Summary of Findings
Hypothesis Statement Relationship status
H01: There is no relationship between flexible working
arrangement and work interference with family conflict (WIF).
Hypothesis of H01 is rejected (significant)
H02: There is no moderation effect of supervisor support
between flexible working arrangement and work interference with family (WIF).
Hypothesis of H02 is rejected
(significant) H03: There is no relationship between flexible working
arrangement and family interference with work conflict (FIW)
Hypothesis Ho3 is failed to reject H04: There is no moderation effect of supervisor support
between flexible working arrangement and family interference with work (FIW).
Hypothesis of H04 is failed to reject
6. Discussions
The result demonstrates that there is a relationship between flexible working arrangement (FWA) and work interference with family conflict (WIF) and that there is a moderation effect of supervisor support (SS) between flexible working arrangement and work interference with family (WIF). However, the result shows that there is no moderation effect of supervisor support (SS) between flexible working arrangement and family interference with work (FIW) which contradicts with a previous study by Lapierre and Allen (2006) and Hammer, Neal, Newsome, Brockwood and Colton (2005) and that there is no the moderation effect of supervisor support (SS) between flexible working arrangement and work interference with family (WIF) rejects the inference that there is no relationship between flexible working arrangement (FWA) and family interference with work conflict (FIW). The results of logistic regression showed a significant relationship between FWA and WIF. This supports the idea that FWA is associated with WIF compared with FIW (Allen, French, Dumani & Shockley, 2015) consistent with findings by Byron (2005). Also, age was recognized as one of the main demographic variables as the strongest predictor that contributed a significant result to the model of predicting WIF. The interference was referred to as on the result of how an employee responds to the pressures of the conflict occurred in the domain (Wood & Michaelides, 2016). For instances, it has been identified that higher workload, working long hours at the office and bring back-office work at home has brought the negative effect towards employee's home domain (Soomro, Breitenecker & Shah, 2018; Wood & Michaelides, 2016) and it limits an employee to integrate the work-life balance (Kundu, Phogat, Datta & Gahlawat, 2016).
Plausible reasons are that the employees come from the group of employees aged between 25 to 44 years old that represented more than half of the study population. Many of them may have families at an early age (Kohno, Dahlui, Nik Farid, Safii & Nakayama, 2020). Age, which is often referred to as a generational cohort, plays an important part in predicting WIF (Bennett, Beehr & Lepisto, 2016). The older the persons get, they have less stress compared to younger employees. This source stress usually comes outside of and unrelated to the workplace (e.g., marital problems or caring for an ill parent) (Bennett, Beehr & Lepisto, 2016) which is normally found among young employees. They are experiencing a lot of changes in their life, for example from being single to married, from being a husband or wife to becoming a father or mother and many more. Readjusting to life changes has long been considered as a major source of stress (Hobson & Delunas, 2001; Holmes & Rahe, 1967). This can explain where the majority of the respondent is between the age of 24 years old to 54 years old representing 95.1% of respondent. They are categorized as Xers and Generation Y. Xers who were born roughly between the year of 1963 and 1983. The "X" in Xers, who are aware of its existence, but overshadowed by the
huge number of Boomers who were born between 1946 and 1964 (Coupland, 1991). Whereas Generation Y is known as Millennials that born since 1981 (Strauss & Howe, 1991). Both Generation Y and X have high expectation on maintaining the work-life balance that was to contribute higher WIF (Beutell, 2013; Bennett, Beehr & Lepisto, 2016). The respondents, in this, the study revealed that they were having experience more WIF compared to FIW. About one-quarter of the respondent reported that they do not have sufficient time for their family roles and they need to spend long hours for their work roles. They highlighted that the FWA arrangement given by their employers are beneficial to them and they utilized arrangement in aiding them in managing their work roles. This is consistent with the research conducted by Ugargol and Patrick (2018).
As for the idea that supervisor support is a resource that helps employees to manage the occurrence of interference from work to family, this study found that supervisor supports moderates the relationship between FWA and WIF which is consistent with the previous study (Ashforthet. al, 2000; Masuda et. al, 2012; Shockley & Allen, 2007). The reasons are that the employee assumes that their supervisors are supporting them, thus creating the feeling of control over work and family requirements. This is supported by the study by Wayne, Randel and Stevens (2006) which will lead to lower work-family conflict. However, this study also found that supervisor supports does not moderate the relationship between FWA and FIW (Shockley, & Allen, 2007). The supervisor support was critically important for the employees as the support helps employees in managing their work roles efficiently and permits the employees to juggle the home roles without any disruption. It was said that the mutual understanding between the supervisor and the employee has played an important role in which the effect of WIF can be reduced. The implementation of FWA needs support especially from the supervisor that sought to confer the benefits to the employees. WIF primarily reside in the work domain, FIW primarily present in the family domain (Frone, 2003). Therefore, a supervisor can only help employees in work matters but they are incapable to solve family matters faced by employees, which require support from family members and spouse (Abd Razak et.Al, 2019; Abdul Razak, 2010; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992). Overcoming FIW supports particularly from family members either siblings, parents (Matias, Ferreira, Vieira, Cadima, Leal & Mena Matos (2017) and spouse (Abd Razak et.al, 2010) is important and relevant because they are the one who would be able to help with the house chores, caring for the children, old parents and so forth. The implication for this study is that solving, work conflict issue requires the proactive effort and support not only from the organization in terms of supervisor support, through FWA but also support within the family circle. The implication would be on the employee and the employees' career and personal life. Organizations approach in adopting FWA in their attempts to minimize WFC is recommendable but it should be applied across occupation and organizations as one of employee benefits policy. There is a need for organizations not only to emphasize profit but also to put employees' interest to reduce the effect of WFC. Offering FWA benefits in the organization will enhance organizational and individual outcomes (Kattenbach et. al, 2010; de Menezes & Kelliher, 2011)
References
1. Abu Bakar, Z., & Salleh, R. (2015). Role Demands, Work-Family Conflict and Motivation: A Proposed Framework. Global Business & Management Research, 7(2), 78–87.
2. Abd Razak, Ahmad Zainal Abidin, Yeop Yunus N.K.Samsudin,N, Ab Wahid,H. and Wahid,Z. 2019. “Social Support Moderating Effect Between Work-Family Conflict and Health and Stress of Working Students in UPSI”. InternationalBusiness Education Journal 12 (November), 25-38. http://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/IBEJ/article/view/2649.
3. Abd Razak, A.Z.A.,Mohd Zulkifli, C. O., Yusof,J.N. (2010). Family issues and work-family conflict among medical officers in Malaysian public hospitals. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(1), 26–36
4. Aboim, Sofia. 2010. Gender cultures and the division of labour in contemporary Europe: A cross-national perspective. The Sociological Review 58: 171–96.
5. Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-Supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational Perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774
6. Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work–Family Boundary Dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
7. Allen, T. D., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2014). Work–family conflict among members of full-time dual-earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender, and age. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036941
8. Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2012). Work-Family Conflict and Flexible Work Arrangements: Deconstructing Flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345– 376. doi:10.1111/peps.12012
Work-Family Conflict Mean Differences: Does National Context Matter?. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 90. 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.006.
10. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
11. Beatson, M. (2019). CIPD Mega trends Flexible Working. CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development), (January), 1–60.
12. Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M., & Stewart, J. (2018). Flexible Work Arrangements and Work–Family Conflict: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies Among Academics. Human Resource Development Review, 17(3), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318787628
13. Beutell, N. (2013). Generational Differences in Work-Family Conflict and Synergy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(6), 2544–2559. doi:10.3390/ijerph10062544 14. Bryan, M. L., & Sevilla, A. (2017). Flexible working in the UK and its impact on couples’ time coordination. Review of Economics of the Household, 15(4), 1415–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-017-9389-6
15. Byrne, J. M., & Canato, A. (2017). It’s been a hard day’s night: Work family interface and employee engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.006 16. Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009
17. Cascio, Wayne & Montealegre, Ramiro. (2016). How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 3. 349-375. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352.
18. Cerrato, Francisco & Cifre, Eva. (2018). Gender Inequality in Household Chores and Work-Family Conflict. Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 1-11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01330.
19. Chung, H., & van der Lippe, T. (2018). Flexible Working, Work–Life Balance, and Gender Equality: Introduction. Social Indicators Research, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x 20. Clarke,S. & Holdsworth, L. (2017). Flexibility in the Workplace: Implications of flexible work
arrangements for individuals, teams and organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management (Vol. 27). https://doi.org/10.2307/41845205
21. Coupland, D. Generation X: Tales for An Accelerated Culture; St. Martin’s: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
22. De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2017). Flexible Working, Individual Performance, and Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 1051– 1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21822
23. 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. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x
24. Erdamar, G., & Demirel, H. (2014). Investigation of Work-family, Family-work Conflict of the Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4919–4924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1050
25. Ferri, L. M., Pedrini, M., & Riva, E. (2018). The impact of different supports on work-family conflict. Employee Relations, 40(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2017-0211
26. Fiksenbaum, L. M. (2014). Supportive work–family environments: implications for work–family conflict and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(5), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.796314
27. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 723–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130708
28. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes : A four-year longitudina ... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner . Further reproduction prohibited without permission . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 29. Galea, C., Houkes, I., & De Rijk, A. (2014). An insider’s point of view: How a system of flexible
working hours helps employees to strike a proper balance between work and personal life. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1090–1111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816862
30. Gialis, Stelios & Taylor, Michael. (2015). A regional account of flexibilization across the EU: the ‘Flexible Contractual Arrangements’ composite index and the impact of recession. Social Indicators Research. 128. 1121–1146. 10.1007/s11205-015-1072-9.
31. Goh, Z., Ilies, R., & Wilson, K. S. (2015). Supportive supervisors improve employees’ daily lives: The role supervisors play in the impact of daily workload on life satisfaction via work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.009
32. Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. 2008. Creating Gender Egalitarian Societies: An Agenda for Reform. Politics & Society 36: 313–49. [CrossRef]
33. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4277352
34. Greenhaus, J. H., & Kossek, E. E. (2014). The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091324
35. Gutek, B. A. ., Searle, S. ., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role expectations for family-work conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 560–568.
36. Grunow, Daniela, Katia Begall, and Sandra Buchler. 2018. Gender Ideologies in Europe: A Multidimensional Framework. Journal of Marriage and Family 80: 42–60. [CrossRef]
37. Halinski, M., & Duxbury, L. (2019). Workplace flexibility and its relationship with work-interferes-with-family. Personnel Review, 49(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2019-0048
38. Hammer, L. B., Demsky, C. A., Kossek, E. E., & Bray, J. W. (2015). Work–Family Intervention Research. (T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby, Eds.) (Vol.1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199337538.013.27
39. Hammer, L. B., Neal, M. B., Newsome, J. T., Brockwood, K. J., & Colton, C. L. (2005). A longitudinal study ofthe effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family–friendly workplace supports on work and familyoutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799–810.
40. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. (2006). Clarifying the Construct of Family-Supportive Supervisory Behaviors (FSSB): A Multilevel Perspective. In Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being (Vol. 6, pp. 165–204). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555(06)06005-7
41. Hammig, O. (2017). Health and well-being at work: The key role of supervisor support. SSM - Population Health, 3, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.04.002
42. Higgins, C., Duxbury, L., & Julien, M. (2014). The relationship between work arrangements and work-family conflict. Work, 48(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141859
43. Hobson, C. J., & Delunas, L. (2001). National norms and life-event frequencies for the Revised Social Readjustment Rating Scale. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 299–314.
44. Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 11, 213–218.
45. International Labour Organization (2011). Working time in the twenty--first century: Discussion report for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts onWorking-Time Arrangements 2011. Geneva: International Labour Office.
46. Jason Flynn, Andrew Coccia, Senior, Patricia Ryan, Kelley Lewis, Yon-Loon Chen, E. I. L., & Feinstein, J. (2017). Total Rewards Practices Survey Detailed Response Analysis. Deloitte.
47. Kattenbach, R., Demerouti, E., & Nachreiner, F. (2010). Flexible working times: Effects on employees' exhaustion, work-nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International, 15(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011053749
48. Kecklund, G., Beckers, D. G. J., Leineweber, C., & Tucker, P. (2017). How Does Work Fit with My Life? The Relation Between Flexible Work Arrangements, Work-Life Balance and Recovery from Work. In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 430–447). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch23
49. Kelliher, Clare. (2016). Impact of flexible work arrangements on intra- workgroup relations : A review of the literature.
50. Kim, S. L., Lee, S., Park, E., & Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, work–family conflict and supervisor support: investigating a three-way effect. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(19), 2434–2452.
51. Klindzic, Maja & Marić, Matija. (2019). Flexible Work Arrangements and Organizational Performance – The Difference between Employee and Employer-Driven Practices. Društvena Istraživanja / Journal for General Social Issues. 28. 89-108. 10.5559/di.28.1.05.
52. Kohno, Ayako & Dahlui, Maznah & Farid, Nik & Safii, Razitasham & Takeo, Nakayama. (2020). Why girls get married early in Sarawak, Malaysia - an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Women's Health. 20. 10.1186/s12905-020-00911-z.
53. Kossek, Ellen & Distelberg, Brian. (2009). Work and family employment policy for a transformed labor force: Current trends and themes. Work-life policies.
54. Kossek, E. E., & Thompson, R. J. (2015). Workplace Flexibility. (T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby, Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family (Forthcoming) (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
55. Kossek, E. E. (2016a). Implementing organizational work–life interventions: toward a triple bottom line. Community, Work & Family, 19(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2016.1135540
56. Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How Work-Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in Organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01353.x
57. Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2014). Designing Work, Family & Health Organizational Change Initiatives. Organizational Dynamics, 43(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.10.007
58. Koivisto, Satu & Rice, Ronald. (2016). Leader prototypicality moderates the relation between access to flexible work options and employee feelings of respect and leader endorsement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 27. 1-22. 10.1080/09585192.2015.1126337.
59. Kotey, Bernice & Sharma, Bishnu. (2019). Pathways from flexible work arrangements to financial performance. Personnel Review. 48. 10.1108/PR-11-2017-0353.
60. KPMG. (2019). https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2019/11/future-of-hr-2020.pdf download on 4th April, 2020
61. Kundu, S. C., Phogat, R. S., Datta, S. K., & Gahlawat, N. (2016). Impact of workplace characteristics on work-family conflict of dual-career couples. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(5), 883–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2015-0840
62. Lake, A. (2016). Smart Flexibility: Moving Smart and Flexible Working from Theory to Practice. CRC Press.
63. Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2012). Control at Work, Control at Home, and Planning Behavior: Implications for Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1500–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385868
64. Liao, E. Y., Lau, V. P., Hui, R. T. yin, & Kong, K. H. (2019). A resource-based perspective on work– family conflict: meta-analytical findings. Career Development International, 24(1), 37–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2017-0236
65. Masuda, A. D., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., Spector, P. E., Lapierre, L. M., Cooper, C. L., … Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible Work Arrangements Availability and their Relationship with Work-to-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: A Comparison of Three Country Clusters. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00453.x
66. Matias, M., Ferreira, T., Vieira, J., Cadima, J., Leal, T., & Mena Matos, P. (2017). Workplace Family Support, Parental Satisfaction, and Work-Family Conflict: Individual and Crossover Effects among Dual-Earner Couples. Applied Psychology, 66(4), 628–652. doi:10.1111/apps.12103
67. Masuda, Aline & Poelmans, Steven & Allen, Tammy & Spector, Paul & Lapierre, Laurent & Cooper, Cary & Abarca, Nureya & Brough, Paula & Ferreiro, Pablo & Fraile, Guillermo & Lu, Luo & Lu, Chang-qin & Siu, Oi & O'Driscoll, Michael & Simoni, Alejandra & Shima, Satoru & Moreno Velazquez, Ivonne. (2012). Flexible Work Arrangements Availability and their Relationship with Work-to-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: A Comparison of Three Country Clusters. Applied Psychology. 61. 1 - 29. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00453.x.
68. Mee Choo, J. L., Desa, N. M., & Abu Hassan Asaari, M. H. (2016). Flexible Working Arrangement toward Organizational Commitment and Work-Family Conflict. Studies in Asian Social Science, 3(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.5430/sass.v3n1p21
69. Meguella, Achour & Abdul Khalil, Shahidra & Ahmad, Bahi & Mohd Nor, Mohd Roslan & Bi, Mohd. (2017). Management and supervisory support as a moderator of work–family demands and women’s well-being: A case study of Muslim female academicians in Malaysia. Humanomics. 33. 00-00. 10.1108/H-02-2017-0024.
70. Michael Page Malaysia. (2015). 2015 Employee Intentions Report Malaysia. Michael Page, 24.
Retrieved from
http://www.michaelpage.com.sg/sites/michaelpage.com.sg/files/2015_SGMP_EMPLOYEE_INTENTI ONS_FINAL_0.pdf
71. 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(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.81.4.400
72. Noor, N. M., Mahdzir, A. M., Nor, A. M., & Abdullah, R. (2019). Marital wellbeing indicators amongst Malay Muslim couple in Malaysia: A preliminary study. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 15, 114-119.
73. Oshio, T., Inoue, A., & Tsutsumi, A. (2017). Examining the mediating effect of work-to-family conflict on the associations between job stressors and employee psychological distress: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015608
74. OECD (2012). Employment Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD
Publishing.https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2012-en 75. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS.Survival.Manual.pdf.
76. Panatik, S. A. B., Badri, S. K. Z., Rajab, A., Abdul, H. R., & Shaha, I. M. (2011). The impact of work family conflict on psychological well-being among school teachers in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1500–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.390
77. Powell, G. N., Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Advancing and Expanding Work-Life Theory from Multiple Perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0310
78. Powell, G. N., Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Advancing and Expanding Work-Life Theory from Multiple Perspectives. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0310
79. Rathi, N., & Lee, K. (2017). Understanding the role of supervisor support in retaining employees and enhancing their satisfaction with life. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1605–1619. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2015-0287
80. Regus. (2013). The flexible road to workforce productivity. Regus, (November), 1–17. Retrieved from press.regus.com/united.../re3339_prs_gbs9productivityreport_global_oct13_v3.pdf
81. Regus. (2017). A picture of flexible working 2017. The Workplace Revolution, (January), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(88)90079-0
82. Russo, M., Ollier-Malaterre, A., Kossek, E. E., & Ohana, M. (2018). Boundary management permeability and relationship satisfaction in dual-earner couples: The asymmetrical gender effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(SEP). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01723
83. Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. (2017). Alternative workarrangements: Two images of the new world of work. The AnnualReview of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1),473–499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332
84. Strauss, William & Howe, Neil (1991). Generations. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. p. 318. Available: http://www.lifecourse.com/.
85. Schwab, K., & Samans, R. (2016). Global Challenge Insight Report : The Future of Jobs. World Economic Forum (Vol. 5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756712473437
86. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (1993). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Long Range Planning, 26(2), 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(93)90168-F
87. Shagvaliyeva, S., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). Impact of Flexible Working Hours on Work-Life Balance. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 04(01), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2014.41004
88. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2012). Motives for flexible work arrangement use. Community, Work and Family, 15(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.609661
89. Society for Human Resource Management. (2016). SHRM Survey Findings : 2016 Strategic Benefits — Wellness Initiatives.
90. S. F. H. R. M. (2015). SHRM Research: Flexible Work Arrangements. Retrieved from
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Flexible Work Arrangements.pdf
91. Soomro, Aqeel & Breitenecker, Robert & Shah, S A Moshadi. (2018). Relation of work-life balance, work-family conflict and family-work conflict with the employee performance-moderating role of job satisfaction. South Asian Journal of Business Studies. 7. 10.1108/SAJBS-02-2017-0018.
92. TalentCorp, M. (2016). EMBRACING THE WINNING FORMULA FOR FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS. TalentCorp Malaysia.
93. Tammelin, M., Malinen, K., Rönkä, A., & Verhoef, M. (2016). Work Schedules and Work–Family Conflict Among Dual Earners in Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Journal of Family Issues, 38(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/0192513x15585810
94. Ugargol, J. D., & Patrick, H. A. (2018). The Relationship of Workplace Flexibility to Employee Engagement among Information Technology Employees in India. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 5(1), 40–55. doi:10.1177/2322093718767469
95. Warokka, A., & Febrilia, I. (2015). Work-Family Conflict and Job Performance: Lesson from a Southeast Asian Emerging Market. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 2015, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5171/2015.420802
96. Wayne, J.H., Randel, A.E., & Stevens, J. (2006). The role of identity and work–familysupport in work– family enrichment and its work-related consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior,69, 445–461 97. Williams, Joan & Berdahl, Jennifer & Vandello, Joseph. (2015). Beyond Work-Life "Integration".
Annual review of psychology. 67. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033710.
98. Wood, S. J., & Michaelides, G. (2016). Challenge and hindrance stressors and wellbeing-based work– nonwork interference: A diary study of portfolio workers. Human Relations, 69(1), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715580866
