No abstract

PurposeMore companies embrace flexible work arrangements (FWA) as one of their employee retention strategies, yet its effectiveness is not consistent. Generally, past researchers use the social exchange theory to explain how FWA lowers turnover intention, while the rest adopts the border theory to justify why FWA can be ineffective. Here, the authors compare the competing theories for the first time to differentiate the theoretical reasoning of three forms of FWA (flex time, flex leave and homeworking). Two mediators (organisational commitment and work−family conflicts) are chosen to represent the mechanism of each theory.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ the latest wave of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) Work Orientation Module from 2015. Based on nationally representative data from 35 nations and 17,604 participants, the authors employed simple mediation and parallel double-mediation models via bootstrapping procedures to investigate the theoretical reasoning behind each FWA.FindingsThe results indicate that organisational commitment and work−family conflicts as significant mediators in all models, supporting both theories. The authors first tested each mediator in separated models. In models concerning the social exchange theory, all FWA lead to increased organisational commitment before lowering turnover intention, implying the beneficial outcomes of FWA. However, findings also support the border theory's perspective where flex time and homeworking increase turnover intention through heightened work−family conflicts. The parallel double-mediation further suggests that all three FWA forms have their unique theoretical framework, impacting turnover intention differently.Originality/valueBoth the social exchange theory and border theory are well-developed theories but grounded on different theoretical reasoning. This is the first paper that compares both theoretical perspectives in the context of FWA. It offers a new perspective in explaining the inconclusive effectiveness of FWA and provides future researchers a more integrated interpretation and prediction of FWA's impact on turnover intention.

Working from home (WFH) has had both positive and negative impacts on the work conduct. To maximise the benefits of homeworking, previous literature mainly focuses on creating self-help strategies for homeworkers to reduce work stress and maintain work engagement. However, fewer studies take on the policymaker perspective and evaluate optimal working conditions in the homeworking context. Using the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, this study evaluates the effects of various work characteristics (job demands and resources) on the stress and engagement of infrequent and frequent homeworkers. Using the sixth European Working Conditions Survey 2015 which contains 5090 participants from 34 European countries, we studied 6 job demands and 5 job resources via Exploratory Factor Analysis. After testing the model’s fitness using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, multiple mixed-effects models were used to test the job demands and resource effects on worker stress and engagement. Dominance Analysis was then used to identify the relative importance of each job demand and resource when explaining employee stress and engagement. We found emotional demands, time pressure, and workload to be the top three demand factors that cause work stress across the groups. Other than daily homeworkers, a positive and fair social climate is the most prominent resource able to boost job engagement across all of the other groups. By identifying the homeworkers’ most influential demands and resources, this study will help managers better understand the steps to take to provide healthy job conditions for homeworkers.