The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

Flexible working times: effects on

employees exhaustion,
work-nonwork conflict and job
performance

Flexible working
times

Ralph Kattenbach

Received 13 July 2009

Revised 3 December 2009
3 January 2010
Accepted 18 February 2010

Centre for Personnel Research, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Evangelia Demerouti

279

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology,

Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and

Friedhelm Nachreiner
Department of Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology Unit,
Carl von Ossietzky Universitat, Oldenburg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to provide a useful conceptualization of flexible working times
and to examine the relationships between flexible working times and employees well-being and peer
ratings of performance. It is supposed that an employees time-autonomy would be positively related
to performance and well-being. On the contrary, an unfavorable effect of time restriction on
well-being is expected.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire-study was conducted among 167 German
employees from 17 different organizations. Information about in-role and extra-role performance was
also obtained via peer evaluations.
Findings The data support a two-factor structure of flexibility. The time restriction factor adds to
the degree of exhaustion and the work-nonwork conflict, while time autonomy diminishes these
outcome variables. However, the flexibility dimensions are unrelated to performance.
Originality/value The multidimensional conceptualization of flexibility allows for the detection of
advantages and drawbacks regarding the effectiveness of flexible working time models.
Keywords Flexible working hours, Time-based management, Performance management,
Personal health, Germany
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Flexible working time (FWT) models have become an increasingly widespread
phenomenon in all areas of business. In Germany, more than 75 percent of the
workforce no longer has standard work schedules (Nachreiner and Grzech-Sukalo,
1997) and more than half of the working population (58 percent) seems to have some
flexible components in their work schedules (e.g. flextime, bank of hours). Due to
employers demands to react to changes in the market and to use their workforce
efficiently, FWT is becoming more and more popular. For employees it has also
become more important to balance and organize job tasks and nonwork-activities with

Career Development International

Vol. 15 No. 3, 2010
pp. 279-295
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620431011053749

CDI
15,3

280

each other because a broader individualization of lifestyles (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim,

2003; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2005) requires more individualized time planning.
Employers should mind such interests of employees, in an attempt to optimize the use
of human capital. It thus might seem that everybody advocates FWT models as a
means of adopting working times to changing demands from both sides. However,
flexibility on behalf of the employer does not mean flexibility on behalf of the employee
and vice versa, it can even counteract each other. Therefore the scope of the present
study is to conceptualize FWT from the employees point of view regarding the extent
of autonomy and its boundaries due to restrictions and employer-oriented flexibility to
predict individual (i.e. exhaustion and work-nonwork conflict) and organizational
outcomes (in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior).
The current literature has invested little effort in differentiating the impact of single
flexibility aspects. The findings regarding the effects of working time flexibility on
employees well-being are relatively scarce and rather controversial, ranging from
negative to zero to positive effects (Costa et al., 2003; Geurts and Demerouti, 2003).
Reported outcomes for employees satisfaction and work-life balance are
predominantly positive (Geurts and Demerouti, 2003; Thierry and Meijman, 1994;
van Rijswijk et al., 2002). Nevertheless, in the majority of the cases the character of the
tested FWT models is not specified. Another limitation is that most of the studies are
case studies or evaluations without theoretical background and quasi-experimental
controls that fail to use appropriate statistical methods (Costa et al., 2003; Baltes et al.,
1999). Due to the enormous number of different FWT schedules nowadays, some
theoretical understanding is important to evaluate their effects accurately and
purposefully.
Conceptualization of flexible working time
Because of the variety of FWT models and the differences in research outcomes, it
seems reasonable to conceptualize flexibility not as one single factor but as a
multidimensional concept with different time components influencing the success of
the overall working time arrangement (cf. Pierce and Newstrom, 1983; Knauth, 2000;
Janen and Nachreiner, 2004b; Schultes-Jaskolla, 2001). According to this approach, it
is possible to categorize FWT schedules based on different dimensions. One
meaningful distinction is between flexibility in the employers interest and flexibility in
the interest of the employee. These theoretical considerations have only recently found
their way into empirical studies (e.g. Costa et al., 2003; Hyman et al., 2003; Janen and
Nachreiner, 2004a). Such a two-dimensional view of flexibility is an important step
towards a more objective and general view of the implications of flexibility aspects in
working time models. According to Costa et al. (2003), Flexible working hours involve
a continuous choice on behalf of employers, employees, or both, regarding the amount
(chronometry) and temporal distribution (chronology) of working hours. This
definition presents variations in the amount of working time (e.g. variable length of a
work day) and the temporal distribution (e.g. variable starting / ending point of a work
day). Most importantly, the definition stresses the allocation of power to vary the
time-schedule. This has been empirically supported by results produced by Janen and
Nachreiner (2004b). From the employees point of view the ability to vary working time
can be called time-autonomy. The employers flexibility in the sense of
company-orientated adjustment of working times and bureaucratic elements in the

companys time-policy can probably be considered time restrictions. The localization of

the working time arrangement on both of these dimensions should play an important
role in acceptance and should affect work and nonwork related outcomes on the
employee-side.
Theoretical framework
The job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) explains burnout
symptoms on the basis of constellations of workplace aspects. The basic premise of the
JD-R model is that employees may work in different work environments, but the
characteristics of these work environments can be classified into two broad categories:
(1) job demands; and
(2) job resources that are differentially related to specific outcomes (Demerouti et al.,
2001).
Job demands are those aspects of the job that require intense physical or mental effort
and are therefore linked with certain physiological and/ or psychological costs
(Demerouti et al., 2001; Demerouti et al. 2009). High or badly designed demands in the
job lead to energy depletion (or exhaustion) and in the long-term to diminished health.
Examples include high work pressure, an unfavorable physical environment and
emotionally demanding interaction with clients (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
Job resources in contrast are those physical, social or organizational features of the
job that:
.
are instrumental in attaining work-related goals;
.
decrease job demands and the physiological and psychological costs linked to
these demands; and
.
cultivate personal growth and development.
Examples of job resources include job autonomy, social support (from supervisors and
colleagues), performance feedback, and collegiality.
Based on this differentiation, the JD-R proposes two processes (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007). The first is the health impairment process, which begins with
persistent job demands, that may diminish employees energy resources and may thus
lead to burnout and weakening of health (Hakanen et al., 2006). Demanding aspects of
work can lead to constant overtaxing and exhaustion. The second psychological
process is the motivational process, which starts with the availability of job resources
and is likely to lead to work engagement and positive outcomes such as greater
organizational commitment and enhanced job performance (e.g. Bakker and
Demerouti, 2008, Salanova et al., 2005, van Emmerik, 2004). When the external
environment lacks resources, individuals cannot cope with the negative influences of
job demands. Emotional withdrawal from the job is one essential self-protection
mechanism (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
Originally, working time flexibility is not explicitly covered by the JD-R model but
the following hypotheses are based on the idea that aspects of flexible working times
can be classified into the two categories of working conditions demands and
resources as recognized by the JD-R model. Since variations of working time are
affecting not only work content like the factors autonomy and work pressure, but

Flexible working
times

281

CDI
15,3

282

the overall framing of the working-time and the time off, it should provide additional
explanatory value for exhaustion and disengagement.
Autonomy is a central motivator for intrinsic work engagement and job satisfaction
(e.g. Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Since flexible working-time models have only recently
become popular the term autonomy in general refers to the latitude of arranging tasks
and actions within a given time-frame but not to the autonomous handling of
working-time and the possibility of varying working time duration and distribution
according to ones own needs itself. However, such a time-autonomy can be classified as
a job resource according to the definition mentioned above as it supports the employee in
coping with everyday efforts on the job and during the time off.
Time restrictions, i.e. time bureaucracy and unpredictable time variations, can be
interpreted as a job demand because it requires effort and energy and therefore can be
related to psychological costs. On behalf of time-restriction this leads to our first
hypothesis that is directly deduced from the health-impairment process:
H1. Time restrictions will be positively related to exhaustion.
Work-nonwork conflict
As working times directly affect the remaining time off, one can also assume a major
impact of time autonomy and restrictions on the work-nonwork conflict. The concept of
work-nonwork conflict (WNW-conflict) refers to a situation where the requirements of
work and non-work are mutually incompatible (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). The total
amount of working hours is an important predictor for WNW-conflict as time and
energy are limited resources (van Rijswijk et al., 2002). For a lot of employees there is
still a gap between the agreed and the preferred amount of working time. According to
the work-status congruence, it is not the working situation itself, but the discrepancy
between it and a desired situation that affects affective reactions, e.g. satisfaction and,
obviously, WNW-conflict (Burke, 2004). We do not expect this preferred situation to be
a constant but more dynamically changing over time as aspects of work and nonwork
life change. Therefore, to allow employees to vary their schedule to match changing
situations in their family and work life should increase the work-status congruence.
H2. Time autonomy will be negatively related to WNW-conflict.
In contrast, time restrictions should interfere with adjustments in the planning of
work-nonwork integration. Even the possibility that the company may change the
employees time planning leads to psychological strain in the workforce (Ferreira and
Pfitzinger, 2000) which is covered by our third assumption:
H3. Time restrictions will be positively related to WNW-conflict.
Performance
Different theoretical approaches support the idea that time autonomy should positively
influence performance. First, arguing with a circadian rhythm approach (Pierce et al.,
1989), everyone has a few hours per day when they perform at an optimal level, or at least
feel ready to perform. This time period varies from person to person and depends on the
individual biological rhythm and other individual differences (e.g. morningness
eveningness, see Harma, 1993). Therefore, time autonomy should enable the adjustment
of ones working time to their individual rhythm and it should lead to a better usage of

ones peak time. Second, the work-status congruence concept, which refers to the
employees needs and wishes (Bishop et al., 1993), takes into consideration whether or not
the work status is congruent with the employees preference. Not surprisingly, congruent
work arrangements are linked to favorable work outcomes and incongruent
arrangements to unfavorable outcomes. Thus, it is not the time schedule per se but the
congruence with the workers most desirable timetable that can predict work outcomes
and psychological well-being (Barnett et al., 1999). Following this logic, discretion over
ones own working time is similar to a work-status congruence, since one can
continuously adjust working time to their own preferences, at least within certain limits.
In the literature, positive organizational behavior is further differentiated into
in-role (Williams and Anderson, 1991) and extra-role performance (Staufenbiel and
Hartz, 2000). The first describes the manner in which employees fulfill job-inherent
tasks and actions. It is based on general expectations, written and/or oral agreements.
The latter describes voluntarily engaged behavior going beyond the expected in-role
performance, whereby voluntary means that no compensation claim can be deduced
from the behavior (Organ, 1988). Our assumption is that time-autonomy enhances the
internal work motivation and contributes to a suitable work-situation like other job
resources do (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).
H4. Time-autonomy will be positively related to in-role performance.
H5. Time-autonomy will be positively related to organizational citizenship
behavior.
While the theoretical basis suggests favourable effects of FWT on job performance,
empirical evidence is mixed. It has been found that the gains incurred from a highly
flexible schedule may be offset by the extra control required to monitor the number of
hours worked by the employee (Coltrin and Barendse, 1981). Furthermore, it is possible
that increased flexibility may have become more of an inconvenience for employees than
a benefit (especially the colleagues of employees who make use of large amounts of
flexibility). For instance, employees may experience negative consequences from flextime
when they cannot communicate and/or cooperate with other employees because they are
not at work during the same time period (Nollen, 1981). Thus, too much flexibility may
cause problems for employees who are interdependent. Furthermore, Baltes et al. (1999)
found that the positive effects of flextime decreases when the flextime schedule is more
flexible (i.e. had a smaller number of core hours). These unfavorable effects are probably a
result of the studies failure to differentiate between employee-related flexibility (e.g.
flextime) and employer-based time variation (e.g. overtime or work on call).
Method
Procedure
The data are drawn from an employee questionnaire survey conducted in 17 human
services organizations in Germany, including, among others, a bank, an insurance
agency, a research institute, a nursing service, a municipal administration and a
university department. The selection of participating organizations is designed to get a
broad variety of work schedules within the field of human services. Note, however, that
we do not want to compare the different time schedules but the underlying structural
schedule components. HR executives were contacted by telephone to get permission for
surveying their employees. In total, 265 questionnaires were distributed with a postage

Flexible working
times

283

CDI
15,3

284

paid reply envelope. A total 167 participants filled out and mailed the questionnaire back
(response rate 63 percent). With the approval of the company, a separate peer-evaluation
on the participants in-role performance and OCB was handed out with every
questionnaire. Participants were instructed to give the enclosed questionnaire to a direct
colleague who would fill it out with regard to the participant. Four of the participating
organizations refused to give permission for this peer-evaluation, thus only 116 forms
were distributed. 71 evaluation-forms returned which corresponds to a response rate of
61 percent. For the analyses involving peer-evaluations 71 surveys are available,
whereas for the analyses excluding peer evaluations data from 167 respondents is used.
Participants
The proportion of male (43 percent) and female respondents (57 percent) corresponds
closely to the average proportion in the German human services sector (ISO-Koln,
2002). The majority of the participants work with people (58 percent), information (23
percent) or both (12 percent) and only 7 percent with objects. One quarter (24 percent)
work part-time and one fifth (19 percent) have fixed-term contracts. About 16 percent
have supervisory duties. The majority lives in some kind of partnership
(approximately 70 percent) of which 83 percent have a partner who is also working.
A total of 39 percent have one or more children living at home and about one sixth have
to take care of adults or other relatives. The questionnaire includes a classification of
the objective working time model that can be subsumed into five categories. Of the
participants 25 percent have rigid day-shifts. The most common flexible arrangements
are flextime (23 percent) with variable beginning and/or ending time of each day-shift,
a bank-of-hours-system (20 percent). A total of 16 percent are working in a free
allocation of hours system and in a shift-work system respectively.
Measures
Work-situation. In total, 11 items from Demerouti (1999) are chosen to measure the
presence of job demands and resources in the work situation. Answers to all items of
job demands and resources are given on a four-point scale from 1 disagree to
4 agree. Reliability is indicated by Cronbachs a and by Pearsons r for
two-item-scales respectively.
The job resources are differentiated into job autonomy (three items, a 0.72)
collegiality (five items, one item reversed, a 0.65) and supervisor support (two items,
r 0.71, p , 0.001). Example items are: I can decide how I carry out my tasks on my
own (job autonomy), There is a good team-spirit within our section/department
(collegiality) and My supervisor cares about my problems and work-related desires
(supervisor support). Job demands are differentiated into bureaucracy (two items,
r 0.54, p , 0.001), work pressure (three items, a 0.74) and dependency on
colleagues (two items, r 0.43, p , 0.001) because these apply to all kinds of jobs. The
first two scales are taken from the JD-R Model (Demerouti, 1999). The latter has been
added specifically for this study to cover the relevant interdependencies with regard to
flexibility. Example items are: My tasks and duties are defined in detail
(bureaucracy), I have to work very quickly (work pressure), my colleagues and I
are very much dependent on each other regarding (a) our attendance at work (b) our
task completion (dependency on colleagues).

Flexibility of working time. Altogether, 14 items measure time-related aspects at the

workplace. Five items are adopted from an earlier study on FWT (Nachreiner et al.,
2002). One example item is: How free are you in deciding on the number of working
hours per day? The other items are designed to acquire information about autonomyand restrictive aspects of the respondents working time arrangement. Seven items are
measured on a five-point scale of acceptance, one item on a three-point scale. The other
items are answered by the indication of quantitative amounts (e.g. hours of overtime
per month). Note that autonomy means the possibility to vary working time, not the
frequency of actually using these possibilities, which would depend more on individual
lifestyle and personal characteristics. In contrast, time restrictions are indicated by
their actual occurrence (e.g. the amount of overtime or the frequency of emergencies).
Performance. Performance is measured on two scales: in-role performance and
helping as a significant dimension of OCB. The performance is evaluated by the
participant (self-evaluation) and by a direct colleague (peer-evaluation). The
self-evaluation items are verbalized in an impersonal infinitive form. All items had a
four-point response scale ranging from 1 disagree to 4 agree. In-role performance is
measured using four items (one reversed) from a scale by Williams and Anderson (1991).
An example is: To fulfil duties in an expected manner. Cronbachs a is 0.83 for
self-evaluation and 0.65 for peer-evaluation respectively. OCB is indicated by five items
on helping from a German short version of an Organizational Citizenship Behavior
questionnaire (Staufenbiel and Hartz, 2000). An example item is: To help overloaded
colleagues. Cronbachs a for the self-evaluation is 0.73 and 0.76 for the peer-evaluation.
Since participants are nested in organizations we have tested whether it is
meaningful to conduct multi-level analysis. Since Intra Class Correlations for our
peer-rated performance measures are 0.09 for extra-role and .20 for in-role performance
respectively we have decided that the organization is not a meaningful level of
analysis. This is not unexpected because several of our participants have different job
positions and work tasks even though they work for the same organization and in the
same department.
Exhaustion. For the measurement of exhaustion, seven items (three reversed,
a 0.87) are taken from the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti, 1999).
Exhaustion refers to physical as well as mental overtaxing and the need for rest (e.g.
There are days when I already feel tired before work has started.
Work-nonwork conflict. In order to measure WNW-conflict we use two items from a
Dutch questionnaire (SWING; Geurts, 2000). An example item is: How often does it
happen that you have difficulties in fulfilling your duties at home due to your working
times? Three additional items Carlson et al. (2000) are added (e.g. Do you think your
working time fits well with your private life?) Participants can respond using a
five-point-Likert scale. Further analysis is based on the mean of these item scores, with
one item reversed (Cronbachs a 0.89).
Results
Dimensionality of FWT
To confirm the expected two-dimensional structure of FWT arrangements, a principal
component analysis with varimax-rotation is conducted. The 14 items are tested for
sampling adequacy using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
(MSA). Five items with values less than 0.50 are excluded. The remaining nine items

Flexible working
times

285

CDI
15,3

286

are thus qualified for further analysis with MSA 0.71, which can be classified as
medium (Backhaus et al., 1996). Both the scree-test and the Kaiser criterion
(eigenvalue . 1) suggest the extraction of two factors. The factor loadings are
presented in Table I. Factor 1 consists of six items. Because these focus on the
employees ability to vary working times we name this factor time-autonomy. Its
eigenvalue is 3.72 and explains 39.71 percent of the total variance. Cronbachs a 0.85
indicates high internal consistency.
The second factor has loadings from three items: the frequency of help-out
emergencies, the amount of overtime, and the period of forewarning necessary in order
to take a day off. Therefore this factor is named time-restriction. The eigenvalue is 1.75
and it explains 21.00 percent of the total variance. With Cronbachs a 0.67 internal
consistency is less good than for the first factor but still moderate. Cronbachs alpha
takes into account the number of items based on the idea stating that the more items
the more reliable a scale will be (Miller, 1995). The second factor is made up of only
three items, which might explain the lower reliability. Factor scores above 0
correspond to high time autonomy and high time restriction respectively, while factor
scores below 0 correspond to low time autonomy and low time restrictions respectively.
Table II shows the correlation matrix of the created factors and all other study
variables. Furthermore, both flexibility factors differ significantly as a function of the
objective time schedules [F (4, 162) 28.94; p , .001 for time autonomy; F (4,
162) 15.52; p , 0.001 for time restriction]. Specifically, post-hoc Scheffe tests show
that rigid day and shift-work schedules have the lowest time autonomy (M 20:73
and M 20:75 respectively) and shift work also has the highest time restriction
(M .91). The free allocation of hours system shows the highest time autonomy
(M 0:75) followed by the bank-of-hours system (M .69). The schedules with the
lowest time restriction are the rigid schedule (M 20:51) and the bank-of-hours
system (M 20:45).
According to our explanations above, both, job demands and resources as well as
time-restriction and time-autonomy differ in their main effects. Time-restriction as a
demanding factor is expected to cause exhaustion and WNW conflict, time-autonomy

Item

Table I.
Principal component
analysis of nine items on
working time flexibility

Variability of starting timea

Variability of the ending timea
Autonomy in varying the duration of a work dayb
Autonomy in varying the duration of a work weeka
Possibility to stop earlierb
Possibility to make longer breaksa
Frequency of emergencies to help outa
Amount of overtime in hours per monthc
Planning time needed to take a day off in daysc
Explained variance (in %)
Cronbachs alpha

Factor loading
Factor 1
Factor 2
0.86
0.84
0.83
0.75
0.68
0.55
2 0.15
0.15
2 0.27
39.71
0.85

0.01
0.01
20.06
0.02
20.27
20.15
0.82
0.76
0.74
21.00
0.67

SD

1.44
1.90
3.22
2.96
2.71
2.92
2.41
10.35
4.05

1.80
2.68
1.18
1.20
1.28
1.37
0.87
11.13
4.76

Notes: Items are standardized for factor analysis; loadings . 0.50 in italics; a measured on a fivepoint scale; b measured on a four-point scale; c in hours; open question; n 167

SD

1
1
0.68
0.43
0.82
0.90
0.67
0.78
0.45
0.44
0.67
0.93
0.38
0.49

Mean

0
0
3.06
2.92
3.12
2.50
2.69
2.60
3.59
3.31
2.10
2.31
3.71
3.40
0.00
0.37 * *
0.17 *
0.24 * *
20.52 * * *
0.07
20.30 * * *
0.04
0.02
20.17 *
20.22 * * *
0.17
20.17

20.14
20.05
20.23 * *
0.11
0.34 * * *
0.32 * * *
20.05
0.09
0.45 * * *
0.57 * * *
0.04
20.10

0.16 *
0.28 * * *
2 0.32 * * *
0.05
2 0.10
0.06
0.15
2 0.27 * * *
2 0.22 * *
0.11
0.03

0.46 * * *
20.07
20.10
0.04
0.12
0.22 * *
20.24
20.14
0.25 *
0.10

Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001; n 167, n 71 for peer-evaluations

Time-autonomy
Time-restriction
Job autonomy
Collegiality
Supervisor support
Bureaucracy
Work pressure
Dependency
In-role performance
Helping
Exhaustion
WNW conflict
In-role (peer-rated)
Helping (peer-rated)
0.01
20.18 *
20.01
0.18 *
0.16 *
20.41 * * *
20.29 * * *
0.12
0.13

2 0.01
0.34 * * *
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.13
2 0.20
0.13

0.17 *
0.04
0.15
0.50 * * *
0.36 * * *
0.00
0.17

0.12
0.21 * *
0.18 *
0.20 * *
0.04
0.06

0.38 * * *
20.25 * * *
20.15
0.32 * *
0.27 *

20.08
0.05
0.21
0.14

10

0.54 * * *
2 0.24 *
2 0.10

11

13

0.39 * * *

12

20.13
0.02

14

Flexible working
times

287

Table II.
Correlation matrix:
time-factors, job
resources, demands and
dependent measures

CDI
15,3

288

should also affect WNW-conflict and seen as a resource it should have an impact on
in-role and extra-role performance. The postulated hypotheses are tested by two-step
regression analyses. According to the JD-R model, the first-step statistical model
includes either job demands to explain WNW-conflict and exhaustion or job resources
to explain job performance. Both time-factors, autonomy and restriction, are added in
the second step. The self- and peer-evaluation of in-role and extra-role performance are
tested separately.
FWT and exhaustion
As shown in Table III, the data support the assumption that both job demands and
time-restriction influence the degree of exhaustion in an unfavorable way. Together the
three demands explain 25 percent (adj. R 2) of variance, which can mainly be ascribed
to the effect of work pressure. However, adding the time factors to the model brings a
significant change of explained variance (DR 2 13 percent) so that the adjusted R 2 of
the second step statistical model is 0.36. In comparison, the regression coefficient for
time restriction ( 0.33; p , 0.01) is stronger than the coefficient for
time-autonomy ( 20:23; p , 0:001). According to our first hypothesis this shows
that beside work pressure, time restriction is the main predictor of exhaustion.
FWT and WNW-conflict
In agreement with our H2 and H3, the analysis clearly shows that time-autonomy reduces
WNW-conflict ( 20:27; p , 0.001) whereas time-restriction shows the largest impact
on the gravity of WNW-conflict ( 0:53; p , 0:001). As shown in Table III the
two time-factors improve the appropriateness of the statistical model (DR 2 26 percent;
p , 0.001). Time-restriction has a stronger impact than time-autonomy and both are
stronger than any of the job-demands. In total, the statistical model is capable to explain
40 percent (adj. R 2) of the variance in WNW-conflict.
FWT and performance
None of the obtained scales of performance neither self-reported nor in peer-evaluation,
show a significant correlation with any of the time-factors. The regression analyses
concerning the self-evaluated job performance does not provide more clues to a link
between time-factors and performance (Table III). The analysis of the peer-evaluations
does not pass the F-test either, probably due to the insufficient sample size of the data.
Thus, H4 is not supported. However, there is one remarkable finding. Contrary to our
expectations (H5) time-autonomy has a meager negative relationship to peer-rated
helping ( 20:25; p 0:06).
Discussion
Due to the growing variety of working time arrangements, a more general and
multidimensional understanding is needed to categorize the various arrangements of
flexible working times and to anticipate or evaluate specific outcomes for the company
and the working staff. Therefore, the primary rationale for this study is to examine a
useful differentiation of working time flexibility components and to take a closer look
at the effects of these kinds of flexibility. Conceptions and hypotheses are based on the
Job Demands-Resources Model and its implications for time flexibility in work
arrangements. According to the Job Demands-Resources model and its separation of

0.16 * * *

0.34 * * *
0.10
0.11

0.26 * * *

20.27 * * *
0.53 * * *

0.21 * *
20.02
0.08

0.26 * * *

0.12 * * *

20.23 * *
0.33 * * *

0.42 * * *
20.03
20.06

Exhaustion
1
2
0.49 * * *
0.07
0.07

Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001

Changes in R

Step 2
Time-autonomy
Time-restriction

Step 1
Work pressure
Bureaucracy
Dependency
Job-autonomy
Collegiality
Supervisor support

WNW-conflict
1
2

0.02

0.14

0.15
0.18 *
0.09

0.11
0.19 *
0.04

0.07 *

Altruism
1
2

0.02

20.02
0.07
0.11

0.06

2 0.08

0.00
0.14
0.14

Altruism (peer)
1
2

0.04

0.01
0.05
0.16

0.00

2 0.01

0.01
0.05
0.16

In-role

0.03
0.21
0.00

0.03
0.24
0.02

0.07

0.01

0.03

In-role
(peer)

Flexible working
times

289

Table III.
Regression analyses of
the self-rated dependent
measures (N 167) and
peer-rated altruism and
in-role performance
(N 71)

CDI
15,3

290

work aspects into job demands and job resources, the present study is based on a
differentiation of FWT into time-autonomy and time-restrictions from the employees
point of view. Although several authors have argued for a multidimensional approach
(Pierce et al., 1989), this study is one of the first to examine such a differentiation and to
deduce and test specific outcomes from each dimension empirically. Our hypothesized
two-dimensional structure of flexibility is supported by a principal component
analysis. Our findings are thus consistent with some other recent studies introducing a
multi-dimensional approach (Costa et al., 2003; Hyman et al., 2003; Janen and
Nachreiner, 2004b). We do not expect this two-dimensional approach to represent the
whole nature of working time flexibility but to provide a useful differentiation for
classifying their effects and for organizational decision-making. This study provides
evidence for the need to consider a broader range of working time-aspects, not just the
employees (perceived) flexibility but also his or her temporal restrictions, imposed by
others, e.g. the employer, in order to obtain to an adequate evaluation of the effects and
their causal pathways. Interpreting the two time factors as job demands and job
resources, hypotheses regarding their effects on psychological well-being, job
performance and the work-nonwork conflict of the employee are examined using
conventional job demands and job resources as control variables.
Exhaustion
To date, the link between time-flexibility and the exhaustion component of burnout has
scarcely been researched. However, there is some evidence that time-autonomy is
negatively related to burnout (Bussing, 1995). In the present study we found strong
support for H1 that time-restrictions is related to exhaustion. This impact remains
significant even after controlling for the more classical job demands. The data thus
provides support for the implications of the Job Demands-Resources Model on
time-flexibility.
Work-nonwork conflict
Regarding the compatibility of activities on the job with those in the private sector the
obtained data confirms a strong effect of time-restrictions. This finding is congruent
with our H3 and agrees with findings of some earlier studies (for a review see Geurts
and Demerouti, 2003). This impact stands out from the influence of the other obtained
job-demands and resources. Reports of a positive effect of a work-non-work balance on
the companys economy (Barnett, 1998) emphasize the importance of a deliberate and
balanced working time arrangement. In contrast, and contrary to H2, time-autonomy
shows no additional value in explaining WNW-conflict after considering job-resources.
This might be attributed to the more occasional character of the time-autonomy factor
as operationalized here. Whereas the time-restriction factor is obtained by the actual
degree of time-related restrictions, the items of the time-autonomy factor measure the
possibility to fit ones scheduling to ones own interests. We have neither measured the
actual usage of such autonomy nor have we examined the gap between the desired
amount and the actual given amount of time-autonomy in terms of work-status
congruence (Burke, 2004). It seems more reasonable that this gap, rather than the
absolute amount of time-autonomy, causes dissatisfaction and leads to reports of
negative consequences by employees. We recommend future research to account for
the nominal/actual value comparison of time-autonomy.

Performance
The two dimensions of time-flexibility are neither significantly related to self-reported
in-role nor to extra-role performance. Additionally, the peer-evaluation does not show
strong linkages with the time-factors. We only found that time-autonomy is
responsible for inhibition of cooperative behavior in the perception of colleagues but
strictly speaking the relationship is not significant (p 0:06). Although not expected,
this seems reasonable as highly flexible working times can interfere with
communication and cooperation among colleagues because employees are not at
work during the same time period (Nollen, 1981). Such problems can arise particularly
if tasks are highly interdependent (Ronen and Primps, 1981). Although not supporting
our H4 and H5, the findings are not inconsistent with other reports in literature as
there are reports of positive as well as negative or no links at all between
time-flexibility and performance or productivity (for an overview see Baltes et al.,
1999). It is not clear which factors are responsible for the different outcomes and
further research should be done on this issue. Several scholars also provide statements
that the positive effect decreases as flexibility becomes too flexible (e.g. Baltes et al.,
1999; Pierce et al., 1989; Lewis, 2003). It may be that such a curvy-linear model is more
appropriate than the linear assumptions used in the present study.
Limitations and strengths
The present study has been conducted to explore meaningful working time aspects
according to a multidimensional approach of working time flexibility. Therefore, it has
been intended to gather a sample covering important facets of working time
arrangements in the human services area. Due to this heterogeneity and to the
relatively small sample size, the deduced conclusions are definitely not representative
but can be seen rather as a test of the time-factors and their relevance for employee
reactions or perceptions. Particularly the conclusions regarding peer performance are
tentative because of the small sample size and a lack of power issue. A second
limitation is that because of the cross-sectional design of the current study, the
postulated relationships between working time flexibility and hypothesized outcomes
cannot be interpreted causally. Longitudinal studies and quasi-experimental research
designs are urgently needed for a further validation of the hypothesized relationships.
A third limitation is that scales are built up with relatively few items and reliability for
collegiality is below the criterion 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The scales meet the
recommendation of Nunnally (1978) that a Cronbachs alpha greater than 0.60 is the
minimum value sufficient for research purposes. Still, low reliability of some scales
remains a drawback of the present study.
Conclusions
Our findings argue for a differentiated understanding of flexible working times to
anticipate their impact on employees and thus also on the company. The two extracted
factors time-autonomy and time-restrictions are not two poles from one scale but
relatively independent from each other. An employee who has total time-autonomy can
also be asked by the supervisor to work outside the normal working hours in case of
emergencies. This is called as a time-restriction. Our study is one of the first to
differentiate empirically between these two dimensions of working times and to show
that they have differential effects on individual and organizational outcomes. The

Flexible working
times

291

CDI
15,3

292

result that the negative impact of time-restrictions outweighs the positive outcomes of
time-autonomy on work-nonwork conflict and well-being is an important indicator for
practitioners in human resource management. Time-autonomy is able to improve the
employees situation but it is even more important to avoid time-restrictions if possible.
Practically this means to put established routines in handling working times under
scrutiny. Starting with a focus on time-restrictions the HR management should define
the scope of employer-oriented flexibility needed and then detect unnecessary or
avoidable restrictions (e.g. simplify forms and procedures). By anticipatory scheduling
and information in time the company can increase predictability and reduce perceived
time-restrictions. In addition to avoiding dispensable restrictions the management
should think about realizable steps to improve the employees time-autonomy, such as
by considering individual preferences in the working times or by allowing the work
team to make own rosters.
References
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W. and Weiber, R. (1996), Multivariate Analysemethoden,
Springer, Berlin.
Bakker, A. and Demerouti, E. (2007), The job demands-resources model: state of the art, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-28.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), Towards a model of work engagement, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-23.
Baltes, B., Briggs, T.E., Huff, J.W., Wright, J.A. and Neuman, G.A. (1999), Flexible and
compressed workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 496-513.
Barnett, R.C. (1998), Toward a review and reconzeptualization of the work/family literature,
Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 125-82.
Barnett, R.C., Gareis, K.C. and Brennan, R.T. (1999), Fit as a mediator of the relationship
between work hours and burnout, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 307-13.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2003), Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its
Social and Political Consequences, Sage, London.
Bishop, D.R., Ofori-Dankwa, J.C. and McKether, W. (1993), A comparison of the work attitudes
of contingent and core employees: test of a model, paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Burke, R.J. (2004), Work status congruence, work outcomes and psychologic well-being, Health
Care Manager, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 120-7.
Bussing, A. (1995), Autonomie und Flexibilitat in der Arbeitszeitgestaltung, in Bussing, A. and
Seifert, H. (Eds), Sozialvertragliche Arbeitszeitgestaltung, Hampp, Munchen.
Carlson, D.S., Dacmar, M.K. and Williams, L.J. (2000), Construction and validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict, Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 249-76.
Coltrin, S.A. and Barendse, B.D. (1981), Is your organization a good candidate for flexitime?,
Personnel Journal, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 712-5.
Costa, G., Akerstedt, T., Nachreiner, F., Frings-Dresen, M., Folkard, S., Gadbois, C., Gartner, J.,
Grzech-Sukalo, H., Harma, M. and Kandolin, I. (2003), SALTSA: As Time Goes by Flexible
Work Times, Health and Well-Being National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm.

Demerouti, E. (1999), Burnout, Eine Folge konkreter Arbeitsbedingungen bei Dienstleistungs- und
Produktionstatigkeiten, Lang, Frankfurt a.M.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), The job
demands-resources model of burnout, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,
pp. 499-512.
Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. and Hox, J. (2009), Present but sick:
a three-wave study on job demands, presenteeism and burnout, Career Development
International, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 50-68.
Ferreira, Y. and Pfitzinger, J. (2000), Analyse der Arbeitszufriedenheit nach Einfuhrung eines
flexiblen Arbeitszeitmodells bei einem deutschen Flughafen, Zeitschrift fur
Arbeitswissenschaften, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 19-24.
Geurts, S. (2000), SWING: Survey Work-Home Interaction-Nijmegen, Background information
and Dutch and English version, University of Nijmegen.
Geurts, S. and Demerouti, E. (2003), Work-non-work interface: a review of theories and
findings, in Schabracq, M.J., Winnubst, J.A.M. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Handbook of
Work and Health Psychology, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 280-312.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), Sources of conflict between work and family roles,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), Burnout and work engagement among
teachers, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 495-513.
Harma, M. (1993), Individual differences in tolerance to shiftwork: a review, Ergonomics, Vol. 36
Nos 1-3, pp. 101-9.
Hyman, J., Baldry, C., Scholarios, D. and Bunzel, D. (2003), Work-life imbalance in call centres
and software development, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 215-39.

ISO-Koln (2002), Arbeits- und Betriebszeiten 2001 12/2002.

Janen, D. and Nachreiner, F. (2004a), Flexible Arbeitszeiten (Flexible working hours),
Wirtschaftsverlag Nordwest, Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz und
Arbeitsmedizin (BauA).
Janen, D. and Nachreiner, F. (2004b), Health and psychosocial effects of flexible working
hours, Revista de Saude Publica, Vol. 38, pp. 11-18.
Knauth, P. (2000), Innovative arbeitsgestaltung: wirtschaftlichkeit und humanitat, Zeitschrift
fur Arbeitswissenschaften, Vol. 54, pp. 292-9.
Lewis, S. (2003), Flexible working arrangements: implementation, outcomes and management,
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 1-27.
Miller, M.B. (1995), Coefficient alpha: a basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test
theory and structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 255-73.
Nachreiner, F. and Grzech-Sukalo, H. (1997), Flexible Formen der Arbeitszeit (Flexible forms
of working time), Handbuch Arbeitswissenschaft, Schaffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp. 952-7.
Nachreiner, F., Lenzig, K. and Janen, D. (2002), Flexible Arbeitszeiten (FlexAz) Questionnaire.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nollen, S.D. (1981), The compressed workweek: is it worth the effort?, Industrial Engineer,
Vol. 13, pp. 58-64.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.

Flexible working
times

293

CDI
15,3

294

Pierce, J.L. and Newstrom, J.W. (1983), The design of flexible work schedules and employee
responses: relationships and process, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 247-62.
Pierce, J.L., Newstrom, J.W., Dunham, R.B. and Barber, A.E. (1989), Alternative Work Schedules,
Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Ronen, S. and Primps, S.B. (1981), The compressed workweek as organizational change:
behaviours and attitudinal outcomes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 61-74.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M. (2005), Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service
climate, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-27.
Schultes-Jaskolla, G. (2001), Mo glichkeiten und Grenzen der stellenbezogenen
Arbeitszeitvariation, in Marr, R. (Ed.), Arbeitszeitmanagement, Schmidt, Berlin,
pp. 101-16.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2005), Leben und Arbeiten in Deutschland - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus
2004, Stat. Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.
Staufenbiel, T. and Hartz, C. (2000), Organizational citizenship behaviour: entwicklung und
erste validierung eines meinstrumentes, Diagnostica, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 73-83.
Thierry, H. and Meijman, T. (1994), Time and behaviour at work, in Triandis, H.C., Dunnette,
M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 341-413.
van Emmerik, I.J.H. (2004), For better and for worse: adverse working conditions and the
beneficial effects of mentoring, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 358-73.
van Rijswijk, K., Bekker, M.H.J. and Rutte, C.G. (2002), Parttime werk, flexibele werktijden en de
werk-familiebalans, Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 320-33.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role Behaviours, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-17.
Further reading
Karasek, R.A. (1979), Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job
redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308.
About the authors
Ralph Kattenbach studied social and organizational psychology at Ruhr-Universitat Bochum
and Utrecht University. He received his PhD of economic sciences (Dr. rer. Pol.) in 2009 from
University of Hamburg, Germany, where he is currently working as a research fellow for the
Centre for Personnel Research. His research interests and teaching are related to working time
arrangements and changes in work patterns, the implications of labor law on HR practices,
organizational behaviour, and various facets of the quality of working life. Ralph Kattenbach is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at Ralph.Kattenbach@wiso.uni-hamburg.de
Evangelia Demerouti is a full professor of organizational behaviour at Eindhoven University
of Technology, The Netherlands. She studied psychology at the University of Crete and received
her PhD in the job demands-resources model of burnout (1999) from the Carl von Ossietzky
Universitat Oldenburg, Germany. Her main research interests concern topics from the field of
work and health including the job demands resources model, burnout, work-family interface,
crossover of strain, flexible working times, and job performance. She has published over 50

national and international papers and book chapters on these topics, and serves as a reviewer for
various national and international scientific journals.
Friedhelm Nachreiner is a retired professor of work and organizational psychology from the
University of Oldenburg, Germany, and now working for the Gesellschaft fur Arbeits-,
Wirtschafts- und Organisationspsychologische Forschung. He studied psychology at the
University of Cologne, from which he also received his PhD in 1974, and worked at the Institut
fur Arbeitsphysiologie, Dortmund, before changing to the University of Oldenburg. His main
research interests are problems associated with the design of working time, especially shift work
and flexible work hours, mental work load, and human-machine-interaction. He has published
numerous papers on these topics and serves as a reviewer for various national and international
scientific journals. He is a fellow of the Working Time Society and still active in the
standardization of ergonomics within ISO TC 159 Ergonomics.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Flexible working
times

295

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.