IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i4p1418-d323872.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational and Individual Determinants of Work-life Balance among Office Workers with Flexible Work Arrangements

Author

Listed:
  • Sofie Bjärntoft

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden)

  • David M. Hallman

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden)

  • Svend Erik Mathiassen

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden)

  • Johan Larsson

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden)

  • Helena Jahncke

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden)

Abstract

Flexible work arrangements permitting workers to work anytime and anywhere are increasingly common. This flexibility can introduce both challenges and opportunities for the organisation, as well as for worker work-life balance (WLB). This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the extent to which occupational factors (organizational, leadership and psychosocial) and individual work-related behaviours (over-commitment, overtime work and boundary management) are associated with WLB, and whether these associations are modified by the perceived level of flexibility at work (i.e., control over when, where, and how to do the work). In total, 2960 full-time office workers with flexible work arrangements at the Swedish Transport Administration participated. Associations were determined using linear regression analyses with adjustment for covariates. The strongest negative associations with WLB were found for over-commitment, quantitative job demands, expectations of availability, and overtime work. Strongest positive associations were found for boundary management, information about organizing work, social support, and relation-oriented leadership. Perceived flexibility was positively associated with WLB, and interacted with several of the examined factors, buffering their negative associations with WLB. Results suggest that WLB can be promoted by organizational initiatives focusing on minimizing excessive job demands, increasing psychosocial resources, supporting boundary management, and enhancing perceived flexibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofie Bjärntoft & David M. Hallman & Svend Erik Mathiassen & Johan Larsson & Helena Jahncke, 2020. "Occupational and Individual Determinants of Work-life Balance among Office Workers with Flexible Work Arrangements," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1418-:d:323872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1418/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1418/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emma Hagqvist & Katja Gillander Gådin & Mikael Nordenmark, 2017. "Work–Family Conflict and Well-Being Across Europe: The Role of Gender Context," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 785-797, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Timo Kortsch & Ricarda Rehwaldt & Manon E. Schwake & Chantal Licari, 2022. "Does Remote Work Make People Happy? Effects of Flexibilization of Work Location and Working Hours on Happiness at Work and Affective Commitment in the German Banking Sector," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Eva L. Bergsten & Katarina Wijk & David M. Hallman, 2021. "Relocation to Activity-Based Workplaces (ABW)—Importance of the Implementation Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-16, October.
    3. Juan Sandoval-Reyes & Sandra Idrovo-Carlier & Edison Jair Duque-Oliva, 2021. "Remote Work, Work Stress, and Work–Life during Pandemic Times: A Latin America Situation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Kapo Wong & Alan H. S. Chan & Pei-Lee Teh, 2020. "How Is Work–Life Balance Arrangement Associated with Organisational Performance? A Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Johanna Edvinsson & Svend Erik Mathiassen & Sofie Bjärntoft & Helena Jahncke & Terry Hartig & David M. Hallman, 2022. "A Work Time Control Tradeoff in Flexible Work: Competitive Pathways to Need for Recovery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dong-Jin Lee & M. Joseph Sirgy, 2018. "What Do People Do to Achieve Work–Life Balance? A Formative Conceptualization to Help Develop a Metric for Large-Scale Quality-of-Life Surveys," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 771-791, July.
    2. Olga Gómez-Ortiz & Andrea Roldán-Barrios, 2021. "Work–Family Guilt in Spanish Parents: Analysis of the Measurement, Antecedents and Outcomes from a Gender Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Tanja Lippe & Zoltán Lippényi, 2020. "Beyond Formal Access: Organizational Context, Working From Home, and Work–Family Conflict of Men and Women in European Workplaces," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 383-402, September.
    4. Emma Hagqvist & Stig Vinberg & Jonathan Q Tritter & Erika Wall & Bodil J Landstad, 2020. "The Same, Only Different: Doing Management in the Intersection between Work and Private Life for Men and Women in Small-scale Enterprises," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(2), pages 262-280, April.
    5. Nimitha Aboobaker & Manoj Edward, 2020. "Collective Influence of Work–Family Conflict and Work–Family Enrichment on Turnover Intention: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Individual Differences," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 21(5), pages 1218-1231, October.
    6. Xenia Chela-Alvarez & Oana Bulilete & M. Esther García-Buades & Victoria A. Ferrer-Perez & Joan Llobera-Canaves, 2020. "Perceived Factors of Stress and Its Outcomes among Hotel Housekeepers in the Balearic Islands: A Qualitative Approach from a Gender Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Egidio Riva & Mario Lucchini & Marcello Russo, 2019. "Societal Gender Inequality as Moderator of the Relationship Between Work–Life Fit and Subjective Well-Being: A Multilevel Analysis Across European Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 657-691, June.
    8. Lea-Sophie Borgmann & Petra Rattay & Thomas Lampert, 2020. "Longitudinal Analysis of Work-to-Family Conflict and Self-Reported General Health among Working Parents in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Giorgio Piccitto & Aart C. Liefbroer & Tom Emery, 2022. "Does the Survey Mode Affect the Association Between Subjective Well-being and its Determinants? An Experimental Comparison Between Face-to-Face and Web Mode," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 3441-3461, October.
    10. Divina Grace Salucop Honorario1 & Gloria Pacifico.Gempes, 2022. "Work-Life Balance of Collegiate Professors: A Mixed Methods Study," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(8), pages 392-399, August.
    11. Yvonne Lott, 2020. "Does Flexibility Help Employees Switch Off from Work? Flexible Working-Time Arrangements and Cognitive Work-to-Home Spillover for Women and Men in Germany," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 471-494, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1418-:d:323872. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.