5.1 Associations Between Different Types of FWAs and Flexibility, Respectively, with Interference
Although no significant difference in the level of LIW and WIL, respectively, was observed across the two types of FWAs in the descriptive analysis, interesting results emerged in the regression model, including FWA, flexibility and gender as predictors. Our results suggest that those with non-regulated work reported significantly higher levels of WIL compared to those with flex-time, which supports the results of Lott (
2020). This result is in contrast to the observed association between higher flexibility and lower WIL since flexibility was higher in those with non-regulated work. Hence, our result suggests that while non-regulated work is beneficial to flexibility, it may still have a negative impact on WIL. The significant result between working time autonomy and WIL shown by Lott (
2020) became non-significant when adjusted for overtime hours. This suggests that the relationship was due to the high number of work hours among those with working time autonomy (Lott,
2020). Thus, it seems that having complete control over the work hours with no regulations is related to WIL because of the overtime hours needed. This could also be the case in our study which could give support to previous arguments that too much flexibility in terms of control over when, where and how to work may increase WIL (Bjärntoft et al.,
2020; Hagqvist et al.,
2020; Kelliher & Anderson,
2010; Kelliher et al.,
2019). It is in line with Grönlund (
2007) who found that job control had a marginal beneficial effect on WIL, while job demands significantly hampered the possibility of balancing work and private-life. However, more studies are needed to explore the role of job demands, such as long work hours, in the relationship between non-regulated work, flexibility and WIL. We found that some of the effects of non-regulated work on WIL were explained by the selected covariates (i.e. age, manager, having a partner and education). However, the estimate from the adjusted model was still statistically significant, suggesting that other factors also play a role.
For individuals' experience of LIW, FWAs and flexibility were of minor importance. Our study confirmed previous results that perceived flexibility tends to reduce the perception of WIL but had no relationship with LIW (Allen et al.,
2013; Januszkiewicz,
2019).
5.3 Men and Women and Their Flexible Work Arrangements, Flexibility and Interference
Overall, our results add to previous research by showing that it is important to take gender into consideration when studying FWAs, flexibility and interference, especially for WIL. These results give emphasis to the arguments presented by Williams et al. (
2016). Guided by gender theory, male and female roles in work and home are coloured by gender norms and gender relations (Connell,
2002; West & Zimmerman,
1987) which seem to impact FWAs, flexibility and interference for men and women differently.
First, when addressing the relationships between FWA, flexibility and WIL, our results showed no significant moderating effect of gender. However, in gender-stratified models, we found that FWAs only related directly to men’s experiences of WIL and not women’s experiences of WIL. Thus, although we found evidence that differences in estimates exist, they are small and uncertain. A similar pattern was found in the study by Lott (
2020). Reasons for this can be several, for instance, the distribution of men and women differs across different types of FWA, which is demonstrated in this study as well as the study of Lott (
2020). Another reason is that non-regulated work is more often found among workers in management positions which are more represented by men than women. When gender is only included as a moderator, the analytical model does not fully acknowledge gendered norms in the studied phenomenon, i.e., work hours, management positions, and responsibilities at home. Thus, men and women have different prerequisites in work and life, which is not fully taken into consideration when gender is only used as a moderator (Giritli Nygren & Olofsson,
2014).
Non-regulated work seems to increase the perception of WIL in men but not in women. This agrees with findings by Lott (
2020), who showed that men and not women with non-regulated work reported higher levels of WIL. The fact that we identified no independent relationship between women’s FWA and WIL seems to be explained by the pronounced indirect effect through perceived flexibility, as further discussed below.
Secondly, in the stratified mediation models, gender differences were more pronounced. Whereas the competitive mediation effect was only observed in men, women showed an indirect-only effect (Hayes,
2009; Zhao et al.,
2010). In fact, as much as 89% of the relation between FWA and WIL is accounted for by flexibility in women. Thus, having non-regulated work seems beneficial for increasing flexibility and reducing interference in women. Future studies should look for omitted mediating factors between FWA and WIL for men.
For women who often have to combine a full-time job with the main responsibility over home and family (Hagqvist et al.,
2017b; van der Lippe et al.,
2011) flexibility is of more importance than that type of FWA. It has previously been suggested that flexibility is more important for reducing women’s level of interference than men’s (Fahlén,
2014), which our study confirms. In similarity to Hayman (
2009), this study shows that FWA in itself does not explain variance in interference among women. Moreover, a gender pattern is emphasized by the fact that having children at home as well as a partner increased women’s level of interference but not men’s level of interference. This parental and partner effect on interference for women with different FWAs has been shown in previous studies (Allen et al.,
2013; Lott,
2020). Allen et al. (
2013) argue that studies need to differentiate between the availability of FWA and being able to use FWA, which seems to be more valid for women than men. Thus, for women, any policies directed towards reducing women’s WIL should focus on their perceived flexibility rather than FWA.
For men, who in general report working more and longer hours than women (Hagqvist et al.,
2019) and often have higher normative pressure to work long hours (Connell & Messerschmidt,
2005; Thébaud,
2010), non-regulated work might add to perceived demands and normative pressure of working long hours and therefore cause more WIL, as indicated by the direct effect of FWA on WIL (Fig.
2, men). Bjärntoft et al. (
2020) showed that over-commitment reduced work–life balance for men and women. Non-regulated work often implies that the employee should be available to work outside office hours and other studies indicate that non-regulated work relates to longer working hours (Chung & Van der Horst,
2020). This is a very similar situation as being self-employed, who describe this need to be available as “always on” refereeing to the fact that attention must be at work all the time (Hagqvist et al.,
2020; Hilbrecht & Lero,
2014). Our study shows that non-regulated work gave male employees more flexibility than flex-time. A similar pattern was found for the self-employed that experienced being “always on” who also said they experienced high autonomy and control. In addition, for men working long hours also means fewer possibilities to participate in childcare and home duties, which for men with a quest to have a gender equal relationship can cause unease (Harryson et al.,
2012,
2016). In future studies, working hours, work demands, work flexibility and attitudes to family responsibilities should be investigated as possible mediators between FWA and WIL for men.
All in all, this study suggested that not all employees benefit from flexibility at work in the same way. This conclusion is supported by Wöhrmann et al. (
2020), who showed that individual-focused working time flexibility is related to more balance between work and home compared with organizational-focused working time flexibility. Employers and policymakers should aim at individualizing FWAs to improve perceived flexibility and minimize the possible negative effects of FWAs on WIL. In this study, we show that having children or a partner, as well as work positions and educational level, can be important individual factors that can influence men's and women’s need to be flexible and have FWAs. In future research, the individual differences should be further investigated. Furthermore, we recommend that future studies in this field clearly define and distinguish between FWAs and perceived flexibility to facilitate interpretation and enable meta-analyses.
5.4 Methodological Discussion
The present study builds on a large sample of men and women with flexible work arrangements and a high response rate (66.5%). Data were gathered in one large governmental organization, which can be a strength as organizational culture and support for FWA are fairly equal (Lambert et al.,
2008).
The strengths of this study and its contribution to the field of gender studies are that this study includes gender in various ways and, as such, acknowledges that gender norms factors are studied in different ways (Connell,
2012). Furthermore, in difference from previous research, this study acknowledges various aspects of flexible work in differentiating between flexible work arrangements and flexibility (Allen et al.,
2013).
The cross-sectional design is a limitation precluding causal inferences. Thus, it is possible that the level of WIL resulted in changes in FWAs and flexibility, which needs to be addressed in future studies using a prospective design. Still, the finding of a negative association between flexibility and WIL is consistent with a previous prospective study on 26,000 employees in Sweden (Albrecht et al.,
2016).
The scientific literature on the methodological development of mediation modelling is inconsistent with what conditions need to be met in order to draw a conclusion that a mediation effect exists (O’Rourke & MacKinnon,
2018). Some argue that indirect effect is the same as mediating effects, while others oppose that statement arguing that there are different types of mediating effects (MacKinnon et al.,
2000; Preacher & Hayes,
2004). In this study, we have applied the second approach.