CHAPTER 1 7 FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES Ellen Ernst Kossek and Jesse S. Michel Flextime has made our work force more employee interests in mind, flexible work schedules efficient and more focused while they can increase efficiency and work focus and empower are working. It is a step backwards to go individuals to self-manage work time (Halpern, back to rock solid hours. As long as 2005; Kossek, 2005). an employee is getting the job done, Flexible work schedules are an increasingly they should be treated like an adult. important issue for industrial and organizational (Hernreich, 2008) (I/O) psychology because they reflect the adaptation of human resource practices to the changing nature Flexible work schedules, such as flextime, telework, of work, seen in a labor force increasingly diverse in or compressed workweeks, are examples of increas­ ing variation in the timing and duration of work work time availability and in dramatic changes in the hours and the location of work. Although standard design of work systems in response to a 24-7 global work schedules have traditionally been the norm in economy. Accordingly, many new challenges are cre­ organizations, growing numbers of employers are ated for I/O psychologists. For example, how can we experimenting with a wide range of flexible work rigorously assess the benefits of flexible work sched­ schedules at the same time as they are transforming ules for individuals and organizations? When and employment systems and work processes across time how should flexible work schedules be used to attract zones and cultures. The increasing proliferation of and retain an increasingly diverse workforce? What flexible and more varied work schedules for organi­ are strategies for managing and socializing talent zational members is a global employment phenome­ when people are working many different schedules non (jacobs, Gerson, &. Gornick, 2004). National across different time zones with little face-to-face country studies from the United States to Australia interaction? What are the best selection tools to estimate that only about half of employees work a identify individuals who will work well in jobs standard fixed daytime work schedule 5 days a week involving global teams with constant technological (Golden, 2001; Watson, Buchanan, Campbell, &. interaction over a 24-7 period? What is the optimal Briggs, 2003). As the opening quotation suggests, design of training programs to help supervisors when implemented with both employer and coordinate and motivate employees who have many We thank Leslie B. Hammer for her input to an earlier version of this chapter ami Sheldon Zedeck and anonymous reviewers for their comments. This research was partially supported by the Work. Family and Health Network. which is funded by a cooperative agreement through the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; Grants UOIHD051217. UOIHD051218, UOIHD051256, UOIHD051276), National Institute on Aging (Grant UOIAG027669), Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Grant U010(1008788). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of these institutes and offices. Special acknowledgment goes to extramural staff science collaborator Rosalind Berkowitz King (NICHD) and Lynne Casper (now of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles) for the design of the original Workplace, Family, Health and Well-Being Network Initiative, Persons intereste.d in learning more about the network should go to http}lwww.kpchLorglworkplacenetworkl, http://ellenkossek.lir.msu.eduf, and http://\\-'Vv'W.wfsupport.psy.pd.,,.eduf. 535 Kosstk and ~fichel different schedules? How can high performance cul­ during the Great Depression, the Kellogg Company, tures be created and contributions accurately assessed the largest manufacturer of cereal in the world, when employees have less face time at work? What altered the standard of an 8-hour day conducted over are effective coaching programs to reduce work-life three shifts, substituting four 6-hour shifts. Employee conflicts for virtual workers who have simultaneous morale increased as a result of more leisure time, access to work and life demands? When are flexible there were fewer accidents, and the price per unit of work schedules effective as organizational develop­ production declined as employees worked more ment interventions to reduce job stress and improve productively (Avery &. Zabel, 2001). The program productivity and when do they increase stress? These was publicized as a national model, supported by are just some of the pertinent questions regarding many stakeholders from government to labor to flexible work schedules that pose new issues for the business. Although the company briefly went back to field of IJO psychology to investigate. offering only 8-hour shifts during the World War II What we found in our review is that scholars exigencies, both 6-hour and 8-hour shifts were have been more successful in answering the first two offered in the postwar decades. Hunnicutt (1996, research questions on the potential benefits of flexi­ p. 106) noted the "feminization of shorter hours," as ble work schedules, and who desires them, than in women were the biggest supporters and users opting clarifying how to ensure successful implementation for the 6-hour day. Except for men near retirement and adaptation of human resource systems and or disabled workers, most men continued to work organizational cultures (Ryan &: Kossek, 2008). Our the 8-hour day. During an economic downturn in chapter is organized as follows: (a) flexible work the 1980s, in order to reduce headcount and benefits schedules overview; (b) relevant theories; (c) mea­ costs, Kellogg ended the 6-hour day, but by then the surement challenges and cross-cutting characteristics notion of flexible work schedules had developed as a of what makes a flexible schedule "flexible"; (d) indi­ corporate experiment, primarily serving the needs of vidual and organizational outcomes; and (e) future women and noncore workers. The 6-hour day initia­ research and directions. tive provides an important historical remnant for 21st century organizations, as flexible work schedul­ ing has gradually become mainstream, allOwing for FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES OVERVIEW growing employee discretion over at least some In this section, we give a brief overview of the his­ aspects of work scheduling. tory, organizational rationale, and types of flexible work schedules. Growth From a macro-organizational perspective, labor mar­ History ket, cost, and environmental and technological forces Historically, prior to the u.s. industrialization are driving employers to implement flexible work period of the mid-1800s, most workers were either schedules. Labor market demographic shifts reveal farmers or self-employed, thus determining their a workforce that increasingly needs and values flex­ own work schedules (Ronen, 1981). Then standard­ ibility. Statistics show an explosive growth in the ized employer-set work schedules, with work carried number of individuals who must ensure that family out away from the home or a personal business, responsibilities are managed while they are at work. started appearing as large factories spread with Although we cite U.S. statistics here, these trends are industrialization. A traditional full-time schedule mirrored around the world. Since 1975, the labor was assumed to be a 40-hour week during which force participation of U.S. women with children employees worked an 8-hour day, 5 days a week, under 18 years age has increased from 47% to 78% with fixed starting and stopping times (Avery &: (Kossek, 2006). Nearly 40% of all professionals and Zabel, 2001). Hunnicutt (1996) described an impor­ managers who work at major U.s. companies are now tant historical development that occurred in women, many of whom simultaneously juggle care­ December 1930. To create jobs for laid-off workers giving and their jobs (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, &. 536 Flexible Work Schedules Prottas, 2003). The U.s. Census Bureau reported that Telework reduces office costs by enabling 82% of U.S. families are dual earners or single par­ more efficient facility management and space use ents with children under the age 'of 18 years at home (Karnowski &: White, 2002). One review summariz­ (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). A third of all ing costs savings noted that IBM saved over $75 mil­ workers (equally men and women) provide elder lion in annual real estate costs, whereas the U.s, care (Bond et al., 2002). Fifty percent of all children General Services Administration (GSA) had major will live in a single-parent family before reaching reductions in office energy costs (Kurkland &: Bailey, 18 years (Cohen, 2002). Fathers playa greater role in 1999). A study by Robert and Borjesson (2006) found caregiving and value flexibility more than those of significant reductions in rental costs from introduc­ previous generations (Pleck, 1997). Millenials, the ing flexible offices and telecommuting at a Swedish current generation of workers entering the workforce, telecom. Yet some scholars warn that the employer take a more balanced approach to work than previous cost savings may be at worker expense, as shifting generations (Deal, 2007). operations to workers' homes increases home office Product and labor cost savings