• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Alternative work arrangements and their relationship to work and nonwork outcomes: A research synthesis

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Marlon Franklyn Sukal
Abstract:
The current research synthesis performs a qualitative and quantitative review of Alternative Work Arrangements (AWAs) and their relationship on work and nonwork outcomes, including an investigation of the moderating levels on these relationships. A total of 77 studies yielding 194 effect sizes and involving 66,335 participants were examined. Findings imply small effect sizes for AWAs on work-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job productivity, job performance, turnover intention, absenteeism, and stress). In addition, findings for AWAs on nonwork-related outcome (i.e., work-in-family conflict, family-in-work conflict, and work/life balance) indicate negligible to small effect sizes. Moderational analyses suggest significant variation in effect sizes of age, gender, and tenure groups in relation to the AWA-DVs relationships, specifically job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, turnover intention, work-in-family conflict, family-in-work conflict, and work/life balance. Other less prominent moderators were task type, education level, work hours, and employee type. In addition, systematic differences such as flextime versus telework, dissertation versus journals, and fixed-effects versus random-/mixed-effects models were explored. Overall findings did corroborate other qualitative and quantitative reviews with some variation. The author's recommendations are that AWAs are inevitable ways of work, therefore finding the best ways to implement them successfully in organizations is paramount for the organization and their employees' work/life balance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables xii List of Figures xvii List of Appendices xxi Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Research Problem, Background, and Context 6 Significance of the Research, Contribution to Knowledge 10 Research Questions 12 Definition of Terms 13 Research Assumptions 20 Delimitation of the Problem 21 Limitations of the Problem 22 Overview of the Study 23 Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24 Qualitative Overview 25 Theoretical Framework 26 Literature on Alternative Work Arrangements 29 Flextime 29 Telework 33 Alternative Work Arrangements and Work-Related Outcomes 36 Job Satisfaction 37 Organizational Commitment 46 Job Productivity 53 Job Performance 59 Turnover Intention 65 Absenteeism 70 Stress 74 Literature on Alternative Work Arrangements and Nonwork-Related Outcomes 79 Work-in-Family Conflict 82 Family-in-Work Conflict 88 Work/Life balance 92 Study Descriptors/Moderators and Systematic Variables 97 Objective Study Descriptors/Moderators 97 Vll

Subjective Study Variables 101 Systematic Variables 102 Literature Review Conclusion 103 Chapter III METHODOLOGY 104 A Meta-Analysis Overview 104 Threats to Research Validity 109 External Validity 109 Internal Validity I l l Construct Validity 115 Statistical Conclusion Validity 116 Meta-Analysis Technique 116 Meta-Analysis Approach 117 Meta-Analysis Model 118 Literature Search 122 Digital Databases 122 Search Terms and Keywords 122 Fugitive Literature 123 Ancestry Approach 124 Programs from Professional Meetings & Personal Contacts 124 Data Management 125 Sampling Inclusion/Exclusion 125 Data Evaluation 126 Coding Protocol 126 Coder (Judges) Selection and Training 126 Inter-Coder Agreement 127 Data Extraction 128 Instruments Implemented 128 Data Entry and Error Checks 129 Missing Data 129 Statistical Independence 130 Statistical Analysis Protocol 131 Raw Data Combinations 131 Calculating Effect Sizes 132 Weighting of Studies 134 Significance Testing 135 Sensitivity Analysis 135 Moderation analysis 137 Graphic Representations 139 Methodology Conclusion 139 Vl l l

Chapter IV RESULTS 141 Results of the Literature Search 141 Job Satisfaction 143 Outliers 143 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 145 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 148 Publication bias 150 Moderators 152 Organizational Commitment 167 Outliers 167 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 170 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 172 Publication bias 174 Moderator Analysis 176 Job Productivity 189 Outliers 189 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 191 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 193 Publication bias 195 Moderator Analysis 197 Job Performance 206 Outliers 206 Basic Meta-Analytic statistics 208 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 210 Publication bias 212 Moderator Analysis 218 Turnover Intention 228 Outliers 228 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 231 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 233 Publication bias 235 Moderator Analysis 241 Absenteeism 253 Outliers 253 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 256 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 258 Publication bias 260 Moderator Analysis 262 Stress 262 Outliers 262 ix

Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 264 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 266 Publication bias 268 Moderator Analysis 274 Work-in-Family Conflict 283 Outliers 283 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 285 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 288 Publication bias 290 Moderator Analysis 296 Family-in-Work Conflict ..308 Outliers 308 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 310 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 312 Publication bias 314 Moderator Analysis 316 Work/Life Balance 326 Outliers 326 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics 328 Heterogeneity and Effects Model Comparison 330 Publication bias 332 Moderator Analysis 334 Summary of Results 344 Chapter V DISCUSSION 346 General Summary of Findings 346 Discussion of Findings 348 The Relationship between AW As and Job Satisfaction 348 The Relationship between AW As and Organizational Commitment... 351 The Relationship between AWAs and Job Productivity 353 The Relationship between AWAs and Job Performance 355 The Relationship between AWAs and Turnover Intention 356 The Relationship between AWAs and Absenteeism 357 The Relationship between AWAs and Stress 357 The Relationship between AWAs and Work-in-Family Conflict 358 The Relationship between AWAs and Family-in-Work Conflict 359 The Relationship between AWAs and Work/Life Balance 360 Implications for Practice 362 Limitations of the Study 363 Sample size 364 x

Coding & Availability of Studies 364 Validity Issues 365 Recommendations for Future Research 366 Overall Conclusions 369 References 370 XI

List of Tables Table 1 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 41 Table 2 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 49 Table 3 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Job Productivity 56 Table 4 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Job Performance 62 Table 5 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Turnover Intention 67 Table 6 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Absenteeism 72 Table 7 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Stress 76 Table 8 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict (WFC) 85 Table 9 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict (FWC) 90 Table 10 Positive and Negative effects of AWAs on Work/Life Balance (WLB) 94 Table 11 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Satisfaction 146 Table 12 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Satisfaction 149 Table 13 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs and Job Satisfaction 151 Table 14 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 156 Table 15 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 162 Table 16 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 164 Table 17 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its effect on AWAs and Job Satisfaction 166 xn

Table 18 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Organizational Commitment 171 Table 19 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Organizational Commitment 173 Table 20 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs on Organizational Commitment 175 Table 21 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs and Organizational Commitment 178 Table 22 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 184 Table 23 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 186 Table 24 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its effect on AWAs and Organizational Commitment 188 Table 25 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Productivity 192 Table 26 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Productivity 194 Table 27 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs and Job Productivity 196 Table 28 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Job Productivity 198 Table 29 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Job Productivity 203 Table 30 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Productivity 205 Table 31 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Performance 209 Table 32 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Performance 211 Table 33 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs on Job Performance 213 Table 34 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Job Performance 216 Table 35 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Job Performance 220 xiii

Table 36 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Job Performance 225 Table 37 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Performance 227 Table 38 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Turnover Intention 232 Table 39 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Turnover Intention 234 Table 40 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs on Turnover Intention 236 Table 41 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Turnover Intention 239 Table 42 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Turnover Intention 243 Table 43 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Turnover Intention 248 Table 44 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Turnover Intention 250 Table 45 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Turnover Intention 252 Table 46 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Absenteeism 257 Table 47 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Absenteeism 259 Table 48 Classic Fail-safe N for AWAs on Absenteeism 261 Table 49 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Stress 265 Table 50 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Stress 267 Table 51 Classic Fail-safe TV for AWAs on Stress 269 Table 52 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Stress 272 Table 53 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Stress 275 Table 54 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Stress 278 xiv

Table 55 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AW As on Stress 280 Table 56 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AW As and Stress 282 Table 57 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AW As on Work-in-Family Conflict 286 Table 58 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 289 Table 59 Classic Fail-safe TV for studies of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 291 Table 60 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 294 Table 61 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 298 Table 62 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 303 Table 63 Meta-regression Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of studies of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 305 Table 64 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Work-in-Family Conflict 307 Table 65 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 311 Table 66 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 313 Table 67 Classic Fail-safe N of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 315 Table 68 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 317 Table 69 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 321 Table 70 Meta-regression of Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 323 Table 71 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Family-in-Work Conflict 325 xv

Table 72 Basic Meta-Analytic Statistics for AW As on Work/Life Balance 329 Table 73 Meta-Analytic Statistics for AW As on Work/Life Balance 331 Table 74 Classic Fail-safe N of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 333 Table 15 Analog to ANOVA Table for Categorical Study Descriptors of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 336 Table 76 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 341 Table 77 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 343 xvi

List of Figures Figure 1 Theoretical Framework 28 Figure 2 Decision Flow-chart on Fixed/Random/Mixed-Effects Model 121 Figure 3 QUOROM-type flow chart 142 Figure 4 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 144 Figure 5 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Job Satisfaction Relationship 159 Figure 6 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 161 Figure 7 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Satisfaction 163 Figure 8 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Job Satisfaction 165 Figure 9 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 168 Figure 10 Trimmed Studies of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 169 Figure 11 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Organizational Commitment Relationship 181 Figure 12 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 183 Figure 13 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Organizational Commitment 185 Figure 14 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Organizational Commitment 187 Figure 15 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Job Productivity 190 Figure 16 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Job Productivity Relationship 200 xvii

Figure 17 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method for AWAs on Job Productivity 202 Figure 18 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Productivity 204 Figure 19 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Job Performance 207 Figure 20 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (FEM) of AWAs on Job Performance 215 Figure 21 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (REM) of AWAs on Job Performance 217 Figure 22 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Job Performance Relationship 222 Figure 23 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method for AWAs on Job Performance 224 Figure 24 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Job Performance 226 Figure 25 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Turnover Intention 229 Figure 26 Trimmed Studies of AWAs on Turnover Intention 230 Figure 27 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (FEM) of AWAs on Turnover Intention 238 Figure 28 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (REM) of AWAs on Turnover Intention 240 Figure 29 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Turnover Intention Relationship 245 Figure 30 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method for AWAs on Turnover Intention 247 Figure 31 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Turnover Intention 249 Figure 32 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Turnover Intention 251 Figure 33 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs of Absenteeism 254 xvni

Figure 34 Trimmed Studies of AWAs on Absenteeism 255 Figure 35 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Stress 263 Figure 36 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (FEM) of AWAs on Stress 271 Figure 37 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (REM) of AWAs on Stress 273 Figure 38 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method for AWAs on Stress 277 Figure 39 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Stress 279 Figure 40 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Stress 281 Figure 41 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 2 84 Figure 42 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (FEM) of AWAs on Work- in-Family Conflict 293 Figure 43 Duval and Tweedie's Trim & Fill Plot (REM) of AWAs on Work- in-Family Conflict 295 Figure 44 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Work-in-Family Conflict Relationship 300 Figure 45 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 302 Figure 46 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Work-in-Family Conflict 304 Figure 47 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Work-in-Family Conflict 306 Figure 48 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 309 Figure 49 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Family-in-Work Conflict Relationship 318 Figure 50 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Family-in-Work Conflict 320 xix

Figure 51 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AW As on Family-in-Work Conflict 322 Figure 52 Meta-regression of Instrument Reliability and its Effect on AWAs and Family-in-Work Conflict 324 Figure 53 Untrimmed Studies of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 327 Figure 54 Moderating and Systematic Variables on the Alternative Work Arrangement-Work/Life Balance Relationship 338 Figure 55 Meta-regression of Judges Confidence Rating of Sampling Method of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 340 Figure 56 Meta-regression of Judges Overall Confidence Rating of Methodological Rigor of Studies of AWAs on Work/Life Balance 342 Figure 5 7 Relationships of AWAs on Work and Nonwork Outcomes 345 xx

List of Appendices Appendix A Summary Tables 388 Table 78 Studies Used in the current Research Synthesis 388 Table 79 Summary of Dependent Variables 388 Appendix B 394 Judges Coding Form... ... 394 Appendix C 410 Judges Coding Protocol 410 xxi

Chapter I INTRODUCTION The inkling of work/life balance began in the early 1940s during and after WWII. Women were forced to find jobs in the labor market as men were not present because of the war effort. Mothers had to find a way to balance raising their children while having gainful employment for living expenses. Since that period, the concept of work-family integration has had a long history of theory and research in its relation to work and nonwork outcomes. The current context looks at time demands as a way of balance between work and nonwork domains. According to the Families and Work Institute's 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce, most employed Americans feel that they have a limited amount of time. Sixty-seven percent of employed parents say they do not have enough time with their children, 63% say they do not have enough time with their spouse, and another 55% say they do not have enough time (as cited in Galinsky, Bond, & Hill, 2005). Expressions such as "there aren't enough hours in the day" and "the 25-hour workday," or cliche statements such as "working 24/7" have become common overtones in the way employees feel about time at work. Due to this "lack of time" feeling, work/life balance (WLB) has emerged as a popular topic for employees, organizations, and the like in the last few decades. To employees, trying to achieve such a balancing act seems elusive and unachievable, yet a Utopian way of life for which they constantly strive (Gambles, Lewis & Rapoport, 2006). As a result, masses of employees pressure their 1

respective employers to increase time spent outside the workplace, such as with their family and friends. A recent survey conducted by Hewitt Associates reported an increase in work-life pressures, a shrinking talent pool, and a more diverse, global and independent workforce has prompted an increasing number of companies to offer flexible work arrangements as another way to attract, retain, and engage talent (Hewitt Associates, 2008, February). These flexible work arrangements are organization-support systems that offer employees freedom and autonomy in the use of, not only their personal time, but also their work location, collectively known as alternative work arrangements (AWAs). Rau (2003) describe AWAs as work outside of "temporal boundaries" or the regular work arrangement of a "9am to 5pm" workday and 40-hour workweek, and without the physical confines or "spatial boundaries" of a traditional office location. As a result, employees, with careful stipulations from their employers, are free to work wherever and whenever they wish so long they fulfilled the duties of their job. In so doing employers offering AWAs can indirectly benefit through increased employee efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity that will make the organization as a whole, adaptable to changing demands (Hill, Grzywacz, Allen, Blanchard, Matz-Costa, Shulkin, & Pitt- Catsouphes, 2008). Avery and Zabel (2001, pp. 14-26) note several factors that drive flexibility in the workplace, such include an increasing number of women in the workforce; the changing role of fathers; an increase in eldercare responsibilities; the aging of baby boomers; a downshifting by employers; the downsizing of corporate structures; the recruiting and retention of employees; an increasing level of productivity; the developing global 2

economy; the lowering costs of transport; the growth of information technology; an increasing level of government support; more concern for environmental reasons; and an increasing labor pool. Research conducted at the Families and Work Institute show that of the 1,092 employers surveyed, 47% report that they provide work-life initiatives to recruit and retain employees, 25% report that they provide these initiatives to improve productivity and job commitment, whereas another 39% said that they want to help support employees and their families (Bond, Galinsky, Kim, & Brownfield, 2005). The US Bureau of Labor and Statistics National Compensation Survey shows that 7% of large employers offer some flexible work arrangement in comparison to only 2% of small employers (Kossek & Dyne, 2008). Although this is a low percentage, current trends show that smaller employers (50-99 employees) are significantly more likely to offer flexibility to all or most employees in comparison to employers of other sizes (Bond, Galinsky, Kim & Brownfield, 2005, September 6). Unfortunately, these ambitious companies rarely know the research behind AWA initiatives, about whether they help or harm their employees. Instead, the corporate world only views the business case for these initiatives as a means of attracting and keeping talent and do not see the real complex issue behind work-family issues that involve both domains of employees' lives. Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1997, pp. 234-235) claim that if organizations can support employees' work and personal lives then the reciprocal effect can prove long-term effectiveness to the organization by attaining business objectives. Paradoxically the Monster Work/Life Balance Survey (2007) reports that 89% of employees polled believe work/life balance programs such as flextime and telecommuting are important when evaluating a new job, yet only about half of HR 3

professionals polled consider work/life balance to be a salient initiative for their companies. One possible reason for lack of employer support is only until recently, many of the published articles on AWAs have been lengthy opinion pieces, case studies, and literature reviews. In addition, the empirical literature on AWAs has evoked questions of credibility and validity. For example, articles have measured employees' attitudes and perceptions towards AWAs as self-rated measurements without looking at how AWAs actually affect tangible work outcomes. In other words, how employees feel about AWAs may not necessarily translate into job satisfaction and other outcomes that help the organization and themselves. In the past few decades there has been extensive research pertaining to AWAs. Unfortunately, these studies show contrasting impacts of AWAs on work and nonwork outcomes that include productivity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, absenteeism, turnover, work-family conflict, and work/life balance. There are a few reasons for the incongruence of the value of AWAs on work and nonwork outcomes. First, AWA is a complex construct that is ambiguously defined in the literature. Specifically, AWAs comprise many different variables including flextime, telework, part-time work, and compressed workweek, all of which have undergone different and specialized research. Telework for example, is represented in the literature as telecommuting, remote-site working, virtual work, home-based work, and flexiplace. Therefore, with each derivation the AWA construct becomes more complex. The average reader trying to follow these varying nuances in the research literature can easily become overwhelmed, confused and frustrated. 4

The second reason for an indecisive answer on the value of AWAs is the fragmented avenues of research. Specifically, statistical results drawn from measuring the same main effects has led to differing conclusions (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Hence, the literature cannot definitively answer the question of, "Do work/life balance initiatives help improve work/life balance?" AWA studies differ in methodological quality and vary in work and nonwork outcomes resulting in contradictory findings. Several researchers have challenged one another on the results of AWAs and its influence on productivity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work/life balance, to name a few. The third reason for the indecisive answer on the value of AWAs on work and nonwork outcomes is the operationalization of the AWA construct. Specifically, different researchers have measured AWAs and their related outcomes in many different ways, using different instruments that have led to these contradicting results. All of these reasons have created confusion rather than clarification about whether AWAs are worthwhile organization initiatives and whether or not they are helpful or harmful to their employees. The overarching goal of the current work is to determine the effects of AWAs on work and nonwork outcomes by combining and comparing primary empirical studies that have been either divergent or convergent in their respective findings. More specifically, the current work integrates research on telework (including virtual work and telecommuting) and flextime in relation to job productivity, job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, absenteeism, turnover, stress, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and work/life balance. In addition, study descriptors that moderated each of these independent on dependent relationships are analyzed. Such 5

moderators include tenure, gender, number of dependents, employee type, organizational type, task type, salary, education, sample selection, methodological rigor, to name a few (see Appendix B for the full list of study descriptors). The approach to the current work is the consolidation of research qualitatively (literature review) and quantitatively (meta-analysis), collectively known as "research synthesis". A research synthesis technique uses Cooper's (1984, p. 13) "Integrative Review Model". This involves a five-step process of (1) problem formation (2) data collection (3) data evaluation (4) analysis and interpretation and (5) public presentation. The current chapter discusses the problem formation, while the methodology chapter discusses data collection, data evaluation, and analysis techniques. The results chapter presents the findings of the meta-analysis while the discussion section interprets the results. Finally, the public presentation is the completed write-up of the current dissertation and presentation of the material to the academic dissertation committee for review. This technique of secondary analysis will give these primary studies more of a "voice" that would add value to the overall generalizability of these outcomes. The results of the current research can be a definitive reference for future research, as well as a resource for employees and organizations of the benefits or drawbacks of AWAs. Statement of the Research Problem, Background, and Context Work/life balance (WLB) has emerged as a widely used and popular way of talking about the challenges of combining paid work with other parts of life (Gambles, Lewis & Rapoport, 2006). There has been a plethora of research exploring work and family concerns that has led the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology to 6

Full document contains 443 pages
Abstract: The current research synthesis performs a qualitative and quantitative review of Alternative Work Arrangements (AWAs) and their relationship on work and nonwork outcomes, including an investigation of the moderating levels on these relationships. A total of 77 studies yielding 194 effect sizes and involving 66,335 participants were examined. Findings imply small effect sizes for AWAs on work-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job productivity, job performance, turnover intention, absenteeism, and stress). In addition, findings for AWAs on nonwork-related outcome (i.e., work-in-family conflict, family-in-work conflict, and work/life balance) indicate negligible to small effect sizes. Moderational analyses suggest significant variation in effect sizes of age, gender, and tenure groups in relation to the AWA-DVs relationships, specifically job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, turnover intention, work-in-family conflict, family-in-work conflict, and work/life balance. Other less prominent moderators were task type, education level, work hours, and employee type. In addition, systematic differences such as flextime versus telework, dissertation versus journals, and fixed-effects versus random-/mixed-effects models were explored. Overall findings did corroborate other qualitative and quantitative reviews with some variation. The author's recommendations are that AWAs are inevitable ways of work, therefore finding the best ways to implement them successfully in organizations is paramount for the organization and their employees' work/life balance.