Is using work–life interface benefits a career‐limiting move? An examination of women, men, lone parents, and parents with partners

Abstract

Summary Using a large national sample based on Workplace and Employee Survey data collected by Statistics Canada in 2001 and 2002, we examined the effects of employee usage of seven organizational work–life interface benefits on promotions. Analysis predicted promotions in 2002 when number of promotions received by 2001 were controlled. The main effect of using work–life interface benefits on promotions was positive, indicating that using these benefits is not a career‐limiting move. Gender, presence of young children, and marital status interacted with the use of work–life interface benefits. Single parents benefitted less than other employees from using work–life interface options. Altogether, these findings suggest that the ongoing positive effects of conservation of time and energy resources for employees outweigh the initial short‐term negative effects of signaling and stigmatization. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Telecommuting and Earnings Trajectories Among American Women and Men 1989–2008

“…The organizational literature on signaling and stigma suggests a different but related explanation for negative wage returns from telecommuting – one based on workplace norms and expectations rather than actual productivity or costs of providing flexibility (Blair-Loy 2003; Konrad and Yang 2012; Williams 2000). Explaining their reluctance to use schedule flexibility or telecommuting policies, managers cite the importance of “face time” as an indicator of work commitment to others in the workplace, including subordinates (Hochschild 1997).…”

The non-use of telework in an ideal worker culture: why women perceive more cultural barriers

“…The use of telework in the interests of work-life balance contradicts this ideal worker norm. As a consequence, following signaling theories (Spence, 1973) and stigmatization theories (Goffman, 1963), employees' use of telework is likely to be interpreted as a signal that they are less committed to their work (see also Konrad & Yang, 2012). In line with this, existing research refers to the 'flexibilitystigma,' whereby employees who use flexible work arrangements are perceived to be less committed to their work (e.g.…”

“…In line with this, existing research refers to the 'flexibilitystigma,' whereby employees who use flexible work arrangements are perceived to be less committed to their work (e.g. Chung & van der Horst, 2018;Konrad & Yang, 2012;Williams et al, 2013). Almer et al (2004) showed in a vignette experiment that employees who used flexible work arrangements such as telework were viewed as being less likely to advance.…”

What’s Broken? Not the Mold

“…There is evidence that job applicants and employees alike value flexible work arrangements as a means to enable family-work management (Cegarra-Leiva, Sanchez-Vidal, & Cegarra-Navarro, 2012;Eek & Axmon, 2013;Konrad & Yang, 2012;Thompson, Payne, & Taylor, 2015;WorldatWork, 2015). However, even when companies offer flexible work arrangements such as flex-time, flex-space, and telecommuting, workers do not take full advantage of them.…”

“…However, even when companies offer flexible work arrangements such as flex-time, flex-space, and telecommuting, workers do not take full advantage of them. Evidence shows they are sometimes penalized for taking advantage of such programs in ways that include being passed up for training, promotions, and special projects (Allen, 2001;Konrad & Yang, 2012). Whether a mother leaves the office early to watch her child's soccer game or to be at her ailing father's bedside, she may feel judged sufficiently to discourage future use of flexible arrangements (Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013).…”