Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Nemanja Berber
 -- 1558 2022-04-28 12:58:54 |
2 update layout and references
Rita Xu
 -8 word(s) 1550 2022-04-29 03:20:08 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Berber, N.; Gašić, D.; Katić, I.; Borocki, J. Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22440 (accessed on 03 July 2024).
Berber N, Gašić D, Katić I, Borocki J. Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22440. Accessed July 03, 2024.
Berber, Nemanja, Dimitrije Gašić, Ivana Katić, Jelena Borocki. "Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22440 (accessed July 03, 2024).
Berber, N., Gašić, D., Katić, I., & Borocki, J. (2022, April 28). Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22440
Berber, Nemanja, et al. "Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions." Encyclopedia. Web. 28 April, 2022.
Flexible Working Arrangements and Turnover Intentions
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14084502

The problem of employee turnover has been investigated in recent years because more and more countries and organizations are faced with the lack of an adequate labor force. The new generation of employees (Y and Z generations), contemporary political, social, and economic challenges, and the COVID-19 pandemic have raised new issues in human resource management (HRM), especially concerning turnover intentions. In such situations, companies need to create working conditions that will attract, motivate, and retain employees. One possible response is the usage of flexible working arrangements (FWAs) as a more flexible way of organizing traditional jobs and working positions; these arrangements allow employees more possibilities to maintain work–life balance.

flexible working arrangements job satisfaction turnover intentions

1. Introduction

The problem of employee turnover has been investigated in recent years because more and more countries and organizations are faced with the lack of an adequate labor force [1][2][3]. The most important managerial task related to human resource management (HRM) is the attraction of qualified human resources and the struggle for retention of talent. Employee turnover is one of the biggest challenges for all organizations. It may cause different economic, psychological, and organizational consequences [3] (p. 32), such as the loss of human capital and the loss of institutional knowledge [2] (p. 1467).
Numerous challenging factors influence the business environment and labor market; however, the most important are the presence of the new generation of employees (Y and Z generations) on the labor market, who have different views and ideas about jobs, careers, and authority; contemporary political, social, and economic challenges; the COVID-19 pandemic; and especially rapid technological development. In such conditions, many organizations struggle to maintain their competitiveness. In addition, several organizational factors like managerial style, organizational culture, HR practices (staffing, compensation, training, career development, etc.), job satisfaction, and stress and conflict management influence the organizational ability to be an attractive employer and to retain employees. Companies need to create working conditions that will attract, motivate, and retain employees.
According to previous studies, one possible response to many challenges in HRM is the implementation of flexible working arrangements (FWAs) as a new and more flexible way of organizing traditional jobs and working positions; this allows employees to have more possibilities to maintain work–life balance and to choose how and when they perform business activities [4][5]. FWAs can be defined as a “work option that provides a control for employees in terms of ‘where’ and/or ‘when’ to perform their job tasks” [4] (p. 3). This level of control over job tasks means greater perceived autonomy of an employee, which could lead to a greater possibility for balancing work and private life and to the preservation of time and energy of an employee [6]. This is one of the most important benefits of FWAs.
Previous research pointed to the conclusion that FWAs are seen as HRM practices that comprise greater productivity, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, lower absenteeism, lower turnover intentions, etc. [5][6]. On the other hand, some of the limitations of FWAs lie in the fact that not all types of FWAs would have such effects in organizations. Potential costs for employees could be related to increased stress if the workload is in excess of the reduced work time or when employees are required to attend to work issues on their days off [5] (p. 734). This could harm employee performance and diminish FWAs’ positive effects.
The above-mentioned relations are derived from the social exchange theory, which states that positive and benevolent behavior of one person (sender) to another (receiver) in an interdependent relationship would create the potential for the receiver to feel obligated to reciprocate with returned positive behavior [4]. It is important to emphasize that this relation or exchange in the employment context is not a contract; it is more about the beliefs and perceptions of both sides, that is, employees and employers. Namely, if employees perceive the work environment and other HRM practices of employers as positive and satisfactory, they could feel obligated to show positive work attitudes and behaviors. On the contrary, if employees perceive HRM practices as not satisfactory, they will show negative organizational behavior and attitudes. Based on the social exchange theory and previous research, it is expected that FWAs would have positive effects on turnover intentions, as a type of employee behavior, in terms of decreasing turnover [4][5][6][7]. In addition, FWAs are seen as a driver of higher job satisfaction [8], one of the most important employee attitudes related to the willingness to stay or to leave the organization [5]. 

2. Theoretical Background

Flexible working arrangements have gained great attention recently due to the great negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic all over the world. FWAs are seen as a solution for many business issues, but are mainly related to work–life balance. FWAs could increase work control, and are defined as constructs that possess two major forms of flexibility, related to time (flex-time) and related to location (flexplace) [9]. FWAs are generally seen as a “negotiated term of employment related to timing and/or place of work” [10]. FWAs are also explained as “employer-provided benefits that permit employees some level of control over when and where they work outside of the standard workday” [11][12] and are usually related to home-based working, flex-time, reducing or extending contract hours, or allowing overtime hours to support employees’ work–life balance and improve firm performance [13] (p. 727).
Flexibility in work has a great effect on employees and employers. Employees are more ready to “join an organization, be satisfied with the jobs they do and continue working with the same employers. Employers have become aware of some outcomes, such as being interested, motivated, and retaining their talented employees, having satisfied and numerous engaged employees, along with improving employee effectiveness and success” [14]. Previous research investigated the effects of FWAs on employees’ behavior and attitudes, such as turnover [12][15], engagement [16], job satisfaction [17], absenteeism [18], etc. In most of these areas, FWAs showed a positive relation to the dependent variables, in terms of increasing job satisfaction, engagement, or performance, while decreasing absenteeism and turnover.
For this research, bearing in mind that more and more companies are struggling to retain their best employees, the authors decided to investigate relations between FWAs, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions of employees. The mentioned constructs are important outcomes of organizational behavior strategies; organizational human resource management practices influence organizations such that the outcomes can be measured by employee performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover [19].
Regarding turnover, the best way to investigate the turnover of employees is to follow their turnover intentions, as a reliable predictor of actual turnover behavior [2]. Sandhya and Sulphey stated that turnover intentions can be defined as “a mental decision prevailing between an individual’s approach with reference to work to continue or leave the work”; it is “a measure for understanding turnover before employees actually quit or leave organizations” [1] (p. 327). FWAs, in terms of gaining more control over the job and the usage of different work types, like teleworking, flex-time, home-based work, etc., should decrease the turnover intentions of employees. This idea is derived from social exchange theory, in which positive employer practices towards their employees should cause positive work behavior (i.e., decision to stay, reduction of turnover intentions, and turnover itself) and work attitudes (commitment, engagement, job satisfaction, etc.). In most of the previous research, this hypothesis has been proven [20], but the question is what is happening now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when more companies are using FWAs [21] and when different external factors are moving organizations towards greater usage of FWAs.
FWAs like flex-time (which allows employees to vary the times when they start and finish work), sabbaticals (paid leave from work), and home-based work (work from a location outside workplace, in a household) increased job satisfaction, while sabbaticals and home-based work decreased turnover intention of employees in a sample of German employees [20]. In addition, Tsen et al. [4] investigated 16,920 respondents from 35 countries and found that perceived job independence significantly moderates the relationship between FWAs and turnover intention. They found that employees who perceive their jobs as highly independent have a lower turnover intention when they are using FWAs such as flex-time, flex-leave, or home-based work, while more interdependent employees who use home-based work and flex-time may have a greater intention to leave [4] (p. 1). In a similar study, the authors found that flexible work hours had no significant effect on job satisfaction, but they reduced staff turnover. In contrast, job satisfaction improved with job sharing and flexible leave [5].
Masuda et al. [22] investigated the relationship between FWAs and job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and work–family conflict in Latin American, Anglo, and Asian country clusters in a sample of 3918 managers from 15 countries. The results showed that there is a negative relationship between flex-time work and turnover intentions in the Anglo cluster and that the relationship is not significant for the Latin American cluster. In addition, a positive relationship was found between flex-time availability and job satisfaction for the Anglo cluster, but not in the Latin American cluster.
De Sivatte and Guadamillas [23] also investigated similar relations in a sample of 480 employees in Spain and noted that FWAs have a negative relation to turnover intentions (these practices reduce the intention of employees to leave the organization) and a positive relation to employees’ commitment. Mullins et al. [24] found that FWAs are associated with lower dissatisfaction of employees, but with small effects on employee intention to leave the organization.

References

  1. Sandhya, S.M.; Sulphey, M.M. Influence of empowerment, psychological contract and employee engagement on voluntary turnover intentions. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2020, 70, 325–349.
  2. Verma, B.K.; Kesari, B. Does the Morale Impact on Employee Turnover Intention? An Empirical Investigation in the Indian Steel Industry. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 21, 1466–1488.
  3. Poór, J.; Slavić, A.; Nikolić, M.; Berber, N. The managerial implications of the labor market and workplace shortage in Central Eastern Europe. Strat. Manag. 2021, 26, 31–41.
  4. Tsen, M.K.; Gu, M.; Tan, C.M.; Goh, S.K. Effect of Flexible Work Arrangements on Turnover Intention: Does Job Independence Matter? Int. J. Sociol. 2021, 51, 451–472.
  5. Kotey, B.A.; Sharma, B. Pathways from flexible work arrangements to financial performance. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 731–747.
  6. Onken-Menke, G.; Nüesch, S.; Kröll, C. Are you attracted? Do you remain? Meta-analytic evidence on flexible work practices. Bus. Res. 2017, 11, 239–277.
  7. Berber, N.; Morley, M.J.; Slavić, A.; Poór, J. Management compensation systems in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparative analysis. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 1661–1689.
  8. Wheatley, D. Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work. Employ. Soc. 2017, 31, 567–585.
  9. Allen, T.D.; Johnson, R.C.; Kiburz, K.M.; Shockley, K.M. Work-Family Conflict and Flexible Work Arrangements: Deconstructing Flexibility. Pers. Psychol. 2013, 66, 345–376.
  10. Allen, T.D.; Shockley, K. Flexible work arrangements: Help or hype. In Handbook of Families and Work: Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Crane, D.R., Hill, E.J., Eds.; University Press of America: Plymouth, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 265–284.
  11. Lambert, A.D.; Marler, J.H.; Gueutal, H.G. Individual differences: Factors affecting employee utilization of flexible work arrangements. J. Vocat. Behav. 2008, 73, 107–117.
  12. McNall, L.A.; Masuda, A.D.; Nicklin, J.M. Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment. J. Psychol. 2009, 144, 61–81.
  13. Groen, B.A.; van Triest, S.; Coers, M.; Wtenweerde, N. Managing flexible work arrangements: Teleworking and output controls. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 727–735.
  14. Karsili, H.; Yesiltas, M.; Berberoglu, A. Workplace Flexibility for Sustainable Career Satisfaction: Case of Handling in the Aviation Sector in North Cyprus. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6878.
  15. Gašić, D.; Berber, N. The Influence of Flexible Work Arrangement on Employee Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Republic of Serbia. Manag. Sustain. Bus. Manag. Solut. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 26, 73–88.
  16. Azar, S.; Khan, A.; Van Eerde, W. Modelling linkages between flexible work arrangements’ use and organizational outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 134–143.
  17. Neirotti, P.; Raguseo, E.; Gastaldi, L. Designing flexible work practices for job satisfaction: The relation between job characteristics and work disaggregation in different types of work arrangements. New Technol. Work Employ. 2019, 34, 116–138.
  18. Peretz, H.; Fried, Y.; Levi, A. Flexible work arrangements, national culture, organisational characteristics, and organisational outcomes: A study across 21 countries. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2018, 28, 182–200.
  19. Štangl Šušnjar, G.; Slavić, A.; Berber, N. Organizational Behavior (Organizaciono Ponašanje); Ekonomski Fakultet u Subotici: Subotica, Serbia, 2021.
  20. Kröll, C.; Nüesch, S. The effects of flexible work practices on employee attitudes: Evidence from a large-scale panel study in Germany. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 1505–1525.
  21. Vasić, M. Challenges of teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anal. Èkon. Fak. U Subotici 2020, 56, 63–79.
  22. Masuda, A.D.; Poelmans, S.A.; Allen, T.D.; Spector, P.E.; Lapierre, L.M.; Cooper, C.L.; Abarca, N.; Brough, P.; Ferreiro, P.; Fraile, G.; et al. Flexible Work Arrangements Availability and their Relationship with Work-to-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: A Comparison of Three Country Clusters. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 61, 1–29.
  23. de Sivatte, I.; Guadamillas, F. Antecedents and outcomes of implementing flexibility policies in organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 1327–1345.
  24. Mullins, L.B.; Charbonneau, É.; Riccucci, N.M. The effects of family responsibilities discrimination on public em-ployees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions: Can flexible work arrangements help? Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2021, 41, 384–410.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Nemanja Berber
,
Dimitrije Gašić
,
Ivana Katić
,
Jelena Borocki
View Times: 969
Entry Collection: COVID-19
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback