In January 2009, Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute published the findings of a study on the impact of four flexible working arrangements – flexitime, part-time hours, homeworking and job sharing – on two key employee outcomes – work pressure and work–life conflict. Using national survey data from 2003, the results show that part-time work and flexitime tend to reduce work pressure and work–life conflict, while homeworking increases both outcomes.
Researchers from Ireland’s independent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) published a paper in the academic journal Gender Work and Organization in January 2009 entitled ‘The impact of flexible working arrangements on work–life conflict and work pressure in Ireland’.
The study draws on data from the first nationwide survey of employees in the Republic of Ireland in 2003, commissioned by the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) and conducted by ESRI. The survey consisted of a nationally representative sample of over 5,000 employees. Fieldwork was carried out using a telephone methodology, targeting individuals living in private households. A total of 5,198 interviews were completed, representing a response rate of 46.5%.
Prior to the current recession in Ireland, the ESRI researchers note that a period of rapid economic growth in Ireland was accompanied by a strong surge in the number of women in employment. This led to a significant increase in the proportion of dual-earner families. These changes have brought the issue of reconciliation between work and care commitments to the fore. Flexible working arrangements in companies have been identified as one important means of balancing work and personal commitments.
As part of their study, the researchers investigated the relationship between four flexible working arrangements – namely, flexitime, part-time work, homeworking and job sharing – and two key employee outcomes – that is, work pressure and work–life conflict. The measure of work pressure used looks at the general intensity of work – both physical and mental – and time pressures. The measure of work–life conflict applied in the study captures tensions between work and family commitments. The study investigated whether flexible working arrangements facilitate a better work-life balance and reduce work pressure.
The ESRI researchers point out that while there are significant relationships between flexible working arrangements and work pressure and work–life conflict, not all of the effects are as expected. Homeworking is generally associated with greater levels of both work pressure and work–life conflict. Therefore, the paper concludes that homeworking cannot be considered a work–life balance arrangement. Homeworking is associated with working longer hours but also appears, the researchers suggest, to cause a greater intrusion of work on family time and may be justifiably considered as a form of work intensification.
Involvement in part-time working operates in the manner anticipated, reducing both pressure levels and work–life conflict. However, the positive effects with regard to work pressure are found only in the case of women. Involvement in flexible hours is associated with lower levels of work pressure, but does not have a significant effect on work–life conflict when other factors are controlled. Job sharing had no discernible effect on work pressure or on work–life conflict among women, but was associated with greater levels of work–life conflict for men who share jobs.
Therefore, on the basis of the current research, the ESRI researchers observe that of the four types of working arrangements studied, part-time working hours appear to offer the greatest opportunity for achieving work–life balance, followed by flexitime. On the other hand, neither homeworking nor job sharing have such an effect, at least in terms of reducing work–life conflict and work pressure.
In summary, the study findings suggest that flexible working arrangements should not be treated as a package. It is important to distinguish between such measures to identify their potential for reducing work–life conflict and work pressure. In relation to gender differentials, the researchers suggest that the results raise questions about the extent to which men’s patterns of flexible working contribute to a better work–life balance. The only form of flexibility that was more common among men than women – that is, homeworking – was found to be linked to increased pressure and work–life conflict. Furthermore, the positive impact of part-time work on work–life conflict was less significant for men than for women.
In terms of policy implications, the researchers point to a general limitation of company-specific measures that dominate in Ireland – namely, that they are exercised at the discretion of employers. This tends to benefit valuable, high-earning employees and those in the public sector. In light of this, a future avenue for Irish policy might be to follow the British example and legislate regarding access to flexible working arrangements. Another possibility would be to guarantee the right to work part time for either parents or all employees, as is the case in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Russell, H., O’Connell, P.J. and McGinnity, F., ‘The impact of flexible working arrangements on work–life conflict and work pressure in Ireland’, Gender Work and Organization, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2009, pp. 73–97.
Tony Dobbins, National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway