Employees using flexible work arrangements (FWAs), or "work options that permit flexibility in terms of 'where' work is completed [e.g., flexplace, telework] and/or 'when' work is completed [e.g., flextime, schedule flexibility]" (Allen et al., 2013, p. 345) now comprise a larger share of the workforce than ever before. In the wake of this growth-and the implications that it poses for employee coordination-questions have begun to surface about the potential negative impact of employee flexibility on innovation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in organizations with high concentrations of high-tech, knowledge-based workers. A 2013 Yahoo! internal memo to employees, released by then-CEO Marissa Mayer as she shuttered the organization's telework program, illustrates this tension: "To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-byside. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home." (Swisher, 2013) Although considerable research has been conducted on the outcomes associated with FWAs for individuals, surprisingly little is known about outcomes for teams. Using data collected from teams in a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company, I develop and test a model that examines whether informal "water cooler" communication is an important predictor of idea generation and innovation and, furthermore, whether teams in which members work more flexibly are at a greater risk of losing out on these types of interactions.

Although work schedulers serve an organizational role influencing decisions about balancing conflicting stakeholder interests over schedules and staffing, scheduling has primarily been described as an objective activity or individual job characteristic. The authors use the lens of job crafting to examine how schedulers in 26 health care facilities enact their roles as they “fill holes” to schedule workers. Qualitative analysis of interview data suggests that schedulers expand their formal scope and influence to meet their interpretations of how to manage stakeholders (employers, workers, and patients). The authors analyze variations in the extent of job crafting (cognitive, physical, relational) to broaden role repertoires. They find evidence that some schedulers engage in rule-bound interpretation to avoid role expansion. They also identify four types of schedulers: enforcers, patient-focused schedulers, employee-focused schedulers, and balancers. The article adds to the job-crafting literature by showing that job crafting is conducted not only to create meaningful work but also to manage conflicting demands and to mediate among the competing labor interests of workers, clients, and employers.

No abstract

No abstract

The increase in remote work during COVID-19 has drawn attention to the function of commutes as work-home transitions. While prior work-home research has referenced commutes as an example of role transitions, little is known about how the characteristics of a commute or the behaviors and processes undertaken in a commute affect their nature. We integrate research on commute characteristics, role transitions, and psychological recovery to develop a transitional perspective of commuting. We provide a conceptualization of liminal space that differentiates its physical and temporal dimensions and its psychological dimension as characteristics of the space through which one transitions during the commute and the experience of rolelessness one may perceive while doing so. We argue that perceived liminality during the commute frees cognitive resources for psychological role transition and recovery. Based on our conceptual model, we discuss implications for role transitions, commuting, and telecommuting research. Plain Language Summary Commutes provide a regular opportunity for individuals to shift from the work domain to the home domain. While making this transition, commuters occupy a “liminal space” in which they are neither fully engaged with work or home thoughts and behaviors. We explain and explore the physical, temporal, and psychological dimensions of this space, how the characteristics of commutes shape these dimensions, and how these dimensions create an opportunity for individuals to both recover from work and more effectively shift into the home role domain after the commute.