ASRXXX10.1177/0003122415622391American Sociological ReviewMoen et al. 6223912015 American Sociological Review 2016, Vol. 81(1) 134 –164 Does a Flexibility/Support © American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0003122415622391 Organizational Initiative http://asr.sagepub.com Improve High-Tech Employees’ Well-Being? Evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network Phyllis Moen,a Erin L. Kelly,b Wen Fan,c Shi-Rong Lee,a David Almeida,d Ellen Ernst Kossek,e and Orfeu M. Buxtond Abstract This study tests a central theoretical assumption of stress process and job strain models, namely that increases in employees’ control and support at work should promote well-being. To do so, we use a group-randomized field trial with longitudinal data from 867 information technology (IT) workers to investigate the well-being effects of STAR, an organizational intervention designed to promote greater employee control over work time and greater supervisor support for workers’ personal lives. We also offer a unique analysis of an unexpected field effect— a company merger—among workers surveyed earlier versus later in the study period, before or after the merger announcement. We find few STAR effects for the latter group, but over 12 months, STAR reduced burnout, perceived stress, and psychological distress, and increased job satisfaction, for the early survey group. STAR effects are partially mediated by increases in schedule control and declines in family-to-work conflict and burnout (an outcome and mediator) by six months. Moderating effects show that STAR benefits women in reducing psychological distress and perceived stress, and increases non-supervisory employees’ job satisfaction. This study demonstrates, with a rigorous design, that organizational-level initiatives can promote employee well-being. Keywords subjective well-being, flexibility, organizational intervention, work-family, gender Scholars have long theorized social structures, aUniversity of Minnesota b contexts, and policies as central to physical and Massachusetts Institute of Technology cBoston College emotional health (cf. Berkman, Kawachi, and dPennsylvania State University Glymour 2014; House 2002; Schoeni et al. ePurdue University 2008; Tausig and Fenwick 2011). This “social determinants of health” framing has generated a Corresponding Author: lively field of sociological research on the social Phyllis Moen, Sociology Department, University of Minnesota, 1123 Social Science Building, 267 causes of illness, health, and subjective well- 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 being (Aneshensel, Rutter, and Lachenbruch E-mail: [email protected] Moen et al. 135 1991; Link and Phelan 1995; Turner, Wheaton, Third, fundamental cause theory is used to and Lloyd 1995; Wheaton 2001; Wheaton and explain the ongoing relationship between Clarke 2003; Wickrama et al. 1997). This work socioeconomic status (SES) and health/well- emphasizes the embeddedness of individuals in being outcomes over time (Link and Phelan particular social structures, with corresponding 1995; Link et al. 2008; Phelan et al. 2004; risks, rules, claims (or needs/demands), and Phelan, Link, and Tehranifar 2010). People resources that shape their subjective well-being with higher SES more often possess and have (Keyes 1998; Kohn and Schooler 1982; access to resources—such as economic, cul- Mirowsky and Ross 2003a, 2003b; Ross and tural, and social capital—that protect them Mirowsky 1992, 2003; Ryff and Keyes 1995). from multiple deleterious health outcomes. The social determinants of health perspec- The fourth thread emphasizes the social gra- tive proposes that changing the social context dient, arguing that occupational status pre- should, therefore, promote or reduce health dicts health, well-being, and mortality outcomes. This is the thesis underpinning our (Marmot et al. 1997; Marmot et al. 1991). study, in which we sought to implement a Because we are testing whether a deliber- change in the pivotal social environment of ate change in the work environment promotes paid work. Specifically, we draw on a group- subjective well-being, and not examining the randomized field trial of an organizational reproduction of advantages/disadvantages intervention designed to promote control over among people with different status locations, work time and supervisor support for employ- we draw on stress process and job strain theo- ees’ personal and family life. We collected ries. We control for location in the status hier- longitudinal data from 867 information tech- archy by sampling workers in one industry nology (IT) workers in a Fortune 500 corpo- (information technology) and one organiza- ration to assess whether such changes do, in tion (a Fortune 500 firm). This professional fact, improve four measures of subjective sample was a deliberate choice because we well-being: burnout, job satisfaction, per- were seeking employees in a demanding work ceived stress, and psychological distress. environment but without a raft of other stress- Studying the well-being effects of increasing ors associated with low income that might work-time control and support also informs override any work initiative we could design. scholarship on work-family conflict, gender, In other words, this sample allows us to inves- and work-time mismatches (Angrave and tigate the effects of changes in the work envi- Charlwood 2015; Reynolds and Aletraris ronment among workers who face high work 2006; Schieman, Milkie, and Glavin 2009). demands, but who are unlikely to face addi- tional neighborhood and family stressors tied to poverty and financial struggles that would THEORETICAL not be addressed by this intervention. UNDERPINNINGS Four theoretical threads guide much of the research on the social determinants of health. Theorizing Change: The Stress Sociologists have drawn on stress process Process Approach theory, which contends that structural condi- Stress has been defined as the mismatch tions produce stress that affects subjective between claims and resources, or the misfit well-being (Pearlin 1999; Pearlin et al. 1981). between a person and her environment (Kaplan A second thread is the considerable interdisci- 1983). A long tradition of theory and research plinary scholarship on the job strain theoreti- on family stress (e.g., Hill 1949; Hochschild cal model, where high strain is the result of 1989), life course processes (Elder, George, high demands combined with low control and and Shanahan 1996; Moen and Roehling low support (Johnson and Hall 1988; Karasek 2005), and stress more generally (e.g., Lazarus 1979; Karasek and Theorell 1990, 2000). and Folkman 1984; Mirowsky and Ross 2003a, 136 American Sociological Review 81(1) 2003b; Pearlin et al. 1981; Pearlin et al. 2005; demanding jobs with low job control and low Turner et al. 1995) depicts stress as occurring support—are the most at risk of occupational when a gap between resources and claims (i.e., hazards tied to poor health. Karasek the demands, needs, and expectations that indi- (1979:290) describes job control as an viduals face) reduces people’s sense of control. employee’s “potential control over his tasks Scholars underscore that shifts in both and his conduct during the working day,” resources and claims alter the social environ- operationalizing job control as “decision ment over the life course (e.g., Elder 1998; authority” and “intellectual [or skill] discre- Pearlin et al. 1981; Pearlin et al. 2005). Pearlin tion.” Job control has been empirically linked, (1989:241) points out the importance of in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, to observing “how deeply well-being is affected exhaustion and depressive symptoms by the structured arrangements of people’s ( Mausner-Dorsch and Eaton 2000), psycho- lives and by the repeated experiences that stem physiological stress responses, alcohol use, from these arrangements.” high blood pressure, heart disease (e.g., The structural arrangements of paid work Bosma, Stansfeld, and Marmot 1998), mental are fundamental to well-being, given that and physical health (D’Souza et al. 2003; work is pivotal to identity, meaning, routine, Stansfeld and Candy 2006), and work-family and status, as well as income, and occupies conflict and strain (Thomas and Ganster many waking hours of adults in the work- 1995). Ample evidence thus links job control force. For contemporary workers, role strain with subjective well-being as well as physical is often implicitly or explicitly about time health (see also de Lange et al. 2004; Van Der (e.g., gaps between the time needed for occu- Doef and Maes 1999). pational and family demands, and how to Research using the job strain model typi- schedule and arrange work and family tasks cally compares workers with considerable so multiple responsibilities can be met) (see resources (like high levels of control and sup- also Clawson and Gerstel 2014; Fenwick and port) to other workers whose job conditions Tausig 2007; Jacobs and Gerson 2004; Moen offer few such resources (little control or sup- 2003; Schieman, Whitestone, and Van Gundy port). These research designs raise issues of 2006). This was the rationale for the develop- selection, because different types of workers ment of our intervention aimed at providing choose or are allocated to particular job envi- workers with more control over their time and ronments that provide more or less control training supervisors to recognize the conflict- and more or less support. In other words, it is ing work and home pressures workers face. difficult to disentangle