Perceived flexibility requirements: Exploring mediating mechanisms in positive and negative effects on worker well-being

Abstract

Based upon the interdisciplinary literature on organizational flexibility, the study investigates positive and negative effects of perceived flexibility requirements (PFR) on worker well-being. The authors define PFR as perceived expectations conveyed by the organization to its employees, regarding self-directed behavior related to flexibility and efficiency in organizational practices; their content can refer to (1) task fulfillment, (2) career development, (3) learning, and (4) working time. Based on a heterogeneous sample of N = 931 employees, the authors tested a structural equation model, in which time pressure, work–family conflict, and personal initiative mediated between PFR and strain. Negative effects on well-being were most pronounced for PFR with regard to working time and mediated via time pressure and work–family conflict. PFR related to task fulfillment had both negative and positive effects via time pressure, but also stimulating employee initiative. The other two dimensions of PFR explained only small amounts of additional variance in dependent variables.

Keywords

Challenge–hindrance demands organizational flexibility perceived flexibility requirements worker well-being

Introduction

Since the late 1980s organizations and workers in industrialized economies have been confronted with progressively increasing requirements for flexibility, changing the nature of work and employment and the quality of working life in general (Allvin et al., 2011; Felstead and Jewson, 1999; Näswall et al., 2008). The objective of the present study is to explore the effects of such flexibility requirements on worker well-being and to investigate mediating mechanisms. For this purpose, we apply the multidimensional concept of perceived flexibility requirements (PFR; Höge, 2011; see below). To master the challenges of globalization and the transformation from mass production to more customized modes of production and service, organizations implement ‘new’ managerial strategies enhancing organizations’ flexibility, adaptability, and efficiency (Oeij and Wiezer, 2002; Rousseau, 1997). Examples of such flexibility-related strategies imposing new requirements for workers are the increased usage of contingent employment, reducing hierarchy levels and intra-organizational bureaucracy, implementing self-regulated teams and project work, flexible working time schedules as well as management by objectives or other managerial practices increasing employees’ outcome responsibility in the fulfillment of their everyday work tasks (Allvin, 2008; Oeij and Wiezer, 2002). Scholars have argued that many of these contemporary changes of deregulation (Allvin, 2008) follow a common rationale which can be summarized as a shift from external control of workers to increased self-control and self-organization (Pongratz and Voß, 2003b; Voß and Pongratz, 1998).

One stream of research – especially in sociology and philosophy – has formulated an ambivalent or even negative outlook stressing the emergence of more indirect forms of re-regulation by means of subjectification and governmentality (Foucault, 1991), and describing the transformation of rigid external control into more indirect, subtle, and internalized forms of self-domestication of workers (Knights and Willmott, 2002; Rose, 1991, 1992; Weiskopf and Loacker, 2006). Sennett (1998) has diagnosed the flexible worker to suffer from a corrosion of character, constantly changing her or himself according to the varying demands of jobs and labor markets. Work intensification, blurred boundaries between work and the private life domain, impaired recovery, as well as job insecurity are frequently cited as the downsides of organizational flexibility (Allvin et al., 2011; Burchell et al., 2002; Hudson, 2002; Moldaschl, 2001).

Other streams of research, however, have emphasized possible positive consequences, such as increased opportunities for employees’ self-determination, less restricted career paths, better integration of work and private life, and more prospects for learning, personal growth, and self-actualization (e.g., Giddens, 1991; Hall and Mirvis, 1996; Reilly, 1998).

The present study integrates both perspectives by exploring possible negative and positive effects on worker well-being within one research framework.

Besides a general lack of quantitative psychological research on this issue, another problem is that previous studies focused on the effects of very specific sub-aspects of flexibility like contingent employment, flexible work schedules, or working conditions of dependent self-employed workers (Aronsson et al., 2002; Connelly and Gallagher, 2004; De Cuyper et al., 2008; Guest, 2004; Martens et al., 1999; Nicol and Botterill, 2004). In contrast, the present study tries to take a more comprehensive approach by applying the more general and multidimensional concept of perceived flexibility requirements (PFR). It abstracts from specific ‘objective’ organizational practices and focuses on individuals’ subjective interpretation of his or her work and employment situation.

Perceived flexibility requirements (PFR)

PFR draw on the sociological literature on the entreployee-concept, which postulates that one consequence of managerial practices towards organizational flexibility is that workers are increasingly expected to act as entrepreneurs of their own labor power (Pongratz and Voß, 2003b; Voß and Pongratz, 1998). Based on Höge (2011) we define PFR as individually perceived expectations, conveyed by an organization to its employees, concerning self-directed behavior related to flexibility and efficiency in organizational practices. Accordingly, perceived flexibility requirements are part of an employee’s interpretations of her or his work role and of the psychological contract with the organization (Conway and Briner, 2005; Rousseau, 1995) covering the perceived level of own obligations concerning self-directed and flexible work-related behaviors.

PFR are investigated in four domains with regard to (1) task fulfillment, (2) career development, (3) learning activities, and (4) working time.

Flexibility requirements regarding task fulfillment refer to the need on the part of workers to use individual strategies of self-organization, self-motivation, and self-management in their everyday work activities (Pongratz and Voß, 2003b). Instead of doing their job ‘by the book’, employees are increasingly expected to take a self-directed and outcome-oriented approach in fulfilling job tasks and achieving work goals (Frese et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1997). Allvin et al. (2011: 35) call the type of flexibility leading to increased PFR in this dimension ‘flexibility through empowerment’. The growing number of studies on topics like proactivity (Bindl and Parker, 2010; Crant, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2006, 2010), personal initiative (Fay and Frese, 2001), and self-leadership (e.g., Manz and Sims, 1987; Sims and Manz, 1996) reflects this increased significance of self-organized and self-controlled work behaviors.

Flexibility requirements regarding career development and learning both relate to increased responsibility of employees for their own occupational biographies. Pongratz and Voß (2003b) discuss these aspects in terms of a growing need for self-commercialization, that is, employees increasingly have to act as ‘producers’ and ‘salesmen’ of their own work capacity. Organizational efforts to achieve flexibility and the deregulation of labor markets have changed the nature of typical careers towards more self-directed and individualized career patterns. The emerging literature on the so-called boundaryless or protean careers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2004; Hall and Mirvis, 1996) as well as on employability, competence development, and lifelong learning (e.g., Brown et al., 2003; Fugate et al., 2004; Hall and Mirvis, 1995, 1996; Van Dam, 2004) is a response of science to the stated changes in career patterns and the increasing uncertainties in deregulated labor markets.

Finally, flexibility requirements regarding working time concern the temporal aspect of employment. Organizations increasingly make use of work arrangements beyond traditional full-time contracts to respond to short-term fluctuations in required labor power and increase the temporal flexibility of the workforce. These trends are evident, for example, in the decline of classic ‘nine to five jobs’ in favor of flexible on-call work, zero-hour contracts, rotating shift-work, so-called trust-based working hours, or contracts that only specify the working hours per month or year (Costa et al., 2006; Deery and Mahony, 1994; Seifert, 2003). These and similar arrangements require higher temporal flexibility on the workers’ side, challenge the daily structuring work and non-work routines, and necessitate new approaches to manage the interface and boundaries between these two life domains (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kattenbach et al., 2010). This may be one reason among others for the increasing attention of research on topics like the work/non-work interface, work–family conflict, and work–life balance (Amstad et al., 2011; Byron, 2005; Eby et al., 2005; Hochschild, 1997; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998).

Individuals’ PFR emerge – similar to the development of psychological contracts (De Vos et al., 2003; Rousseau, 1995, Shore and Tetrick, 1994) – from a variety of different sources during organizational socialization: e.g., interpretations of explicit task descriptions, features of the employment contract, explicit and implicit verbal and non-verbal behaviors of supervisors and perceptions of the specific organizational structure and culture. Additionally, individually internalized work values, work orientations and shared beliefs should be important frames for the perceptions and interpretation processes forming individuals’ PFR (De Vos et al., 2005; Höge, 2011; Pongratz and Voß, 2003a). However, PFR are not conceptualized as purely idiosyncratic interpretations unlinked to external conditions. Similar to subjective experiences of other aspects of the work situation (e.g., tasks, self-reported job characteristics, work stressors, psychological climate), PFR are individually shaped redefinitions of the organizational reality and therefore results of the interplay between personal and environmental or subjective and objective factors (Hacker, 2003; Hackman and Oldham, 1976).

Höge (2011) distinguished PFR from related concepts like intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003; Pinchot, 1985), boundaryless careers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), and protean careers (Hall and Mirvis, 1996). Moreover, the results reported by Höge (2011) indicated factorial construct validity of the PFR dimensions as well as weak to medium correlations with job control, working time autonomy, flexible work orientations, and protean career orientations.

Hypotheses

Against the background of assumptions from role theory (Katz and Kahn, 1978) and the challenge–hindrance–demand model (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007), we suggest that negative and positive effects of PFR may occur simultaneously, because PFR should be associated with work intensification, work extensification, and impaired well-being on the one hand, but stimulate proactive behavior on the other hand.

In our study impaired well-being was conceptualized in terms of psychological irritation (Mohr et al., 2006). Irritation refers to work-related psychological strain consisting of emotional and cognitive aspects. The emotional component taps feelings of nervousness, irritability, and negative affect; the cognitive component includes negative thought patterns and rumination about work problems in leisure time. A number of studies have established irritation as an outcome of job demands or work stressors (Dormann and Zapf, 2002; Höge, 2009; Mohr et al., 2006; Müller et al., 2004), and as a predictor of more severe or long-term syndromes, such as burnout, depression, and psychosomatic complaints (Höge, 2009; Mohr et al., 2006; Müller et al., 2004).

Negative effects of PFR: Work intensification and extensification

Work intensification denotes the experience of working under time pressure defined as imbalance between the amount of work an employee is expected to accomplish and the time available (Höge, 2009). Work extensification refers to an increase in the time spent at work or being occupied with work-related activities, cognitions or affect transcending psychological boundaries between work- and non-work life domains (Brannen, 2005; Burke, 2006; Burke and Cooper, 2008). An indicator for work extensification is the experience of work–family conflict referring to interferences between one’s work and family role (e.g., Adams et al., 1996; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985).

As explained above, PFR reflect new and additional requirements on workers to fulfill organizational role expectations, which contributes to organizational flexibility and efficiency. Challenging routines at work and requiring constant self-directed adaptation to changing organizational needs, PFR and the subsequent work-related behaviors to meet the expectations inherent in PFR should lead to increased cognitive and behavioral efforts which – in turn – should be associated with experiences of work intensification, work extensification, and strain. In line with this, the impact of PFR on two common indicators of work intensification and extensification were investigated in the present study: time pressure and work–family conflict. Increased employee responsibility for work outcomes, career development, learning activities, and hours of work can be expected to amplify time conflicts on the job as well as the work/non-work interface. Employers’ expectations of a more self-directed fulfillment of work tasks and the overtake of additional responsibilities and regulatory functions traditionally located in higher hierarchical levels (Pongratz and Voß, 2003b) may imply that workers put in extra time and effort, for instance, to overcome obstacles or compensate for delays caused by work problems. Requirements for self-directed career development and learning may include pursuing developmental activities in addition to one’s regular job duties and outside the regular working time. Most obviously, requirements for temporal flexibility decrease the predictability of working hours and schedules and thus increase the potential for conflicts at the interface of the work and non-work domain (Jansen et al., 2004). In sum, we assume that PFR are likely to be associated with risks for role overload (Rizzo et al., 1970), blurred boundaries and conflicts between the life domains compared to more traditional and less subjectified work and employment conditions (Allvin et al., 2011; Hellgren et al., 2008).

Both time pressure and work–family conflict are established stressors negatively related to well-being and health (Costa et al., 2006; Demerouti et al., 2004) and positively to irritation (Höge, 2009). Representing the potential downside of PFR, we expected that time pressure and work–family conflict would mediate effects of PFR on increased psychological work strain, that is, symptoms of cognitive and emotional irritation:

Hypothesis 1: PFR will be positively related to time pressure (H1a) and work–family conflict (H1b).

Hypothesis 2: Time pressure (H2a) and work–family conflict (H2b) will mediate positive relationships between PFR and irritation.

Positive effects: Proactive work behavior

Proactive work behavior can be defined as future-focused, change-oriented and self-directed behaviors at work (Bindl and Parker, 2010; Grant and Ashford, 2008), and relates to positive affective states (Bindl and Parker, 2010; Sonnentag, 2003). Proactivity is inherent in the concept of personal initiative, capturing self-starting, anticipatory, and persistent behavior to overcome problems and achieve work and personal goals (Frese et al., 1997). Although partly determined by individual personality predispositions, extensive research has shown that personal initiative also develops through processes of occupational socialization based on the experience of control and complexity at work (Frese et al., 1996, 2007; Speier and Frese, 1997).

One of our core assumptions is that PFR may not only have negative impacts on workers’ well-being but also can elicit positive effects by stimulating proactive work behavior in terms of personal initiative. Therefore, PFR can be conceptualized against the theoretical framework of the hindrance–challenge–demands model (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007). To explain previous findings on ambiguous effects of work demands and stressors on outcomes, Cavanaugh et al. (2000) distinguished between hindrance demands and challenge demands. Hindrance demands are defined as work-related demands appraised as obstacles to task accomplishment, personal growth, and personal goals. In contrast, challenge demands are based on appraisals of opportunities for personal development and achievement, and – though also eliciting strain – trigger active coping and are in line with personal goals (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007; Staufenbiel and König, 2010; Webster et al., 2010). Hindrance and challenge appraisals can occur concurrently (Gilboa et al., 2008; Staufenbiel and König, 2010; Widmer et al., 2012). Widmer et al. (2012) showed in a recent study that work demands can simultaneously affect employees’ well-being negatively and positively via increasing strain on the one hand, and providing positive experiences like increased self-esteem on the other hand.

Correspondingly, we speculated that PFR may not only increase strain and impair well-being, but also can be appraised as challenge stimulating more proactive employee behavior.

What speaks for such an assumption is that PFR imply expectations for self-directed behavior in pursuing a course of action that contributes to organizational flexibility and efficiency, that is, proactive rather than compliance-oriented behavior (e.g., Frese et al., 1996; Parker, 2000). Internalizing these role expectations thus may lead to more flexible role orientations (Parker, 2000; Parker et al., 1997) which – in turn – generally increase a more proactive approach at work, including the development of self-efficacy and the self-initiated and persistent pursuit of personal and organizational goals, that is, personal initiative. As proactive behavior supports individuals in successfully coping with job demands even in light of potentially stressful situations (e.g., Frese et al., 1997; Taris and Wielenga-Meier, 2010; Weigl et al., 2010), personal initiative is usually associated with positive affect (Bindl and Parker, 2010; Sonnentag, 2003). In line with this, we further assumed that PFR may have negative indirect effects on irritation mediated via enhanced levels of employee initiative.

Hypothesis 3: PFR will be positively related to personal initiative.

Hypothesis 4: Personal initiative will mediate negative relationships between PFR and irritation.

The four hypotheses were integrated into one structural equation model (SEM, see Figure 1). Based on results of previous studies, we allowed the three hypothesized mediators to correlate (e.g., Fay and Sonnentag, 2002; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2009; Höge, 2009, 2011; Hornung et al., 2008; Ohly et al., 2006). We did not hypothesize specific directions of the effects, because previous results are not non-ambiguous and this is not in the focus of our research question.

Figure 1.

Results for structural equation model (standardized path coefficients); controls: age, sex, education, leadership position, job control, job tenure, employment contract (permanent vs. temporary), part-time contract.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted in Austria. In the course of four students’ teaching projects in 2010 and 2011, 1300 questionnaires were handed out via a ‘snowball’ procedure to employees from a large variety of occupations, industries, and organizations (convenience sample). N = 931 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 71.6%); 53.4% of participants were female; mean age was 35 years and 10 months (SD = 12 years, 0 months; range: 16–65 years); average job tenure was 8 years (SD = 8 years, 7 months); 29.1 % of participants worked in part-time arrangements (< 35 hours per week) and 20.9% had a temporary employment contract; 37.2% were (applied-) university graduates, 62.8% had not received a higher education; 26.8% reported to work in a position with leadership responsibilities. Participants worked in the following sectors: 15.2% in craft, manufacturing, or production (blue-collar); 5.0% in the public administration; 25.2% in the administration of private enterprises (white-collar); 26.5% in health services, education or social work; 5.0% in consulting, IT, media, culture; 18.8% in ‘classic’ service branches (e.g., retail, gastronomy); 4.3% in other parts of the industry. Compared to official statistical data on the Austrian workforce, participants with academic education, employees in health services, education or social work, and employees with temporary contracts are over-represented in our sample (Statistik Austria, 2010).

Measures

For the measurement of the variables, we used the following scales. Internal consistencies of the scales (Cronbach’s alpha) are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, inter-correlations, internal consistencies.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1	Age (years)	35.69	12.00	–
2	Sex (0 = female; 1 = male)	–	–	.02	–
3	Education (0 = non-academic; 1 = academic)	–	–	.05	.06	–
4	Position (0 = no leadership; 1 = leadership)	–	–	.14**	.16**	.04	–
5	Job tenure (years)	8.02	8.75	.65**	.03	.03	.15**	–
6	Employment contract (0 = permanent; 1 = temporary)	–	–	−.21**	−.08*	.07*	−.05	−.25**	–
7	Part-time (0 = full-time; 1 = part-time)	–	–	.12**	−.16**	.06	−.11**	−.02	.10**	–
8	Job control	3.65	0.83	.05	.10**	.15**	.21**	.11**	−.09**	−.03	.83
9	PFR – task	4.80	0.81	.04	.10**	.18**	.22**	.09**	−.14**	−.09*	.50**	.75
10	PFR – career	4.13	1.29	−.03	.08*	.17**	.08*	.01	.07*	−.04	.27**	.29**	.84
11	PFR – learning	3.88	1.39	.10**	.06	.24**	.25**	.09**	.01	.01	.24**	.41**	.42**	.77
12	PFR – time	4.19	1.12	.01	.10**	.01	.17**	.03	−.01	−.09*	.10**	.19**	.17**	.10**	.74
13	Time pressure	3.20	0.97	.07*	.06*	.02	.12**	.09**	−.10**	−.14**	.04	.19**	.14**	.10**	.31**	.82
14	Work–family conflict	2.23	0.87	.02	.03	.06	.08*	−.04	.06	−.03	−.12**	−.04	.03	.04	.35**	.4**	.91
15	Personal initiative	3.79	0.58	.03	.04	.13**	.13**	.07*	−.04	−.06	.27**	.35**	.20**	.20**	.17**	.20**	.01	.81
16	Cognitive irritation	2.58	1.01	.04	.00	.08*	.09**	.03	.02	−.05	.02	.12**	.10**	.12**	.24**	.34**	.49**	.06	.87
17	Emotional irritation	2.32	.89	−.07*	.01	−.05	.10**	−.05	.03	−.04	−.12**	−.12**	−.02	−.09**	.10**	.21**	.39**	−.08*	.45**	.85

Notes: PFR: perceived flexibility requirements; * p < .05, ** p < .01; matrix diagonal: Cronbach’s alpha (scale reliability); M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Perceived flexibility requirements (PFR)

To measure PFR, we used four scales developed by Höge (2011) based on the entreployee-concept (Pongratz and Voß, 2003b; Voß and Pongratz, 1998). The stem of the measure read: ‘In my work, my employer expects from me …’. Five items measured PFR regarding task fulfillment (PFR – task; e.g., ‘to make my own decisions without asking my superior first’), two items PFR regarding career development (PFR – career; e.g., ‘to take personal responsibility for my career development’), two items PFR regarding learning (PFR – learning; e.g., ‘to further my continuing education in my free time as well’), and four items captured PFR regarding working time (PFR – time; e.g., ‘… to be flexible as far as my working hours are concerned’). Response format was a six-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’. The full instrument is provided in the Appendix. In contrast to the original version, we omitted one item (‘In my work, my employer expects from me …. not to allow my family life to affect my work’) from the PFR – time scale because of a comparatively poor factor loading in an initial analysis (λ = .34; see factor loadings of all the other items in the Appendix). Moreover, in comparison to the original measure in Höge (2011) we changed the verbal scale labels for reasons of clarity and parsimony. However, the content was unaffected.

Mediators: Time pressure, work–family conflict and personal initiative

Work intensification was measured by a two-item time pressure scale by Prümper et al. (1994; e.g. ‘I often work under time pressure’). Response format was a five-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘not true at all’ to 5 = ‘very true’.

Work–family conflict

Interferences between work and family life were measured with Netemeyer et al.’s (1996) five-item work–family conflict scale (e.g., ‘The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life’). Response format was a five-point Likert scale from ‘1 = not at all’ to ‘5 = yes, indeed’.

Personal initiative

Initiative was assessed by Frese et al.’s (1997) seven-item scale (e.g., ‘Whenever there is a chance to get actively involved, I take it’), which also uses a five-point Likert scale (‘1 = not at all’ to ‘5 = yes, indeed’).

Outcomes: Emotional and cognitive irritation

Impaired well-being was measured with the revised six-item version of the Irritation Scale by Mohr et al. (2006), which conceptualizes irritation as a second-order construct comprising two dimensions: Emotional irritation (three items; e.g., ‘I react irritably to other people although I do not want this’) refers to affective irritability; cognitive irritation (three items; e.g., ‘Even at home I cannot stop thinking about problems from work’) captures ruminating thoughts about one’s work and impaired detachment in leisure time. The same five-point Likert-scale as above was used (1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘yes, indeed’).

Controls

To prevent a possible confounding of PFR with employees’ job autonomy at work, job control was included as a control variable. The rationale for this inclusion is the assumption that PFR may co-occur with the resource of increased job control, because organizations expecting employees to behave in a self-directed and flexible way may also grant more decision latitude to their workers to cope with these requirements (Kalleberg, 2001; Pfeffer, 1994; Skorstad, 2009). Indeed, Höge (2011) report significant correlations between PFR – task, PFR – career, PFR – learning, and job control ranging from r = .26 to r = .56. However, as our study focuses specifically on the consequences of PFR on time pressure, work–family conflict, personal initiative, and irritation as such, accounting for the concurrent and potentially overlapping effects of actual job control as a potential resource for coping with PFR seems advisable. Job control was measured with a five-item scale (e.g., ‘Are you allowed to decide the way of fulfilling your work tasks’), drawn from the Instrument for Stress Oriented Task Analysis (ISTA) by Semmer et al. (1995) and using a five-point response format (1 = ‘very little’, 5 = ‘very much’).

Besides job control, we included the following demographic and structural control variables which also may affect PRF, our mediators and/or outcomes. Each was measured by a single item: age (in years), gender (0 = female; 1 = male), leadership position (0 = no; 1 = yes), education (0 = non-academic; 1 = academic), job tenure (in years), type of employment contract (0 = permanent; 1 = temporary), and part-time/full-time contract (full-time = 0; part-time = 1).

Scale analyses

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and zero-order correlations of all study variables are shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .74 to .91 indicating satisfactory reliability of all scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs; AMOS 18.0) was used to establish the scales’ factor structure. Results are detailed in Table 2. A four-factor measurement model of PFR displayed good fit and factor loadings ranged from .54 to .95 (see Appendix). A general one-factor model was not acceptable, thus providing evidence for the discriminant validity of PFR in the four domains. This replicates previous results on the factor structure of PFR (Höge, 2011). After establishing a four-factor measurement model of job control, time pressure, work–family conflict, and personal initiative, we further demonstrated the empirical distinctness of (a) PFR – task and job control, (b) PFR – task and personal initiative, (c) PFR – time and time pressure, as well as (d) PFR – time and work–family conflict. For the irritation scale, a two-factor model distinguishing between the cognitive and emotional component was superior to a one-factor model, yet still not acceptable. To improve fit, we tested for cross-loadings between the two factors; after adding a cross-loading from one emotional irritation item on the latent cognitive factor, good fit was achieved. We note that substantial cross-loadings between the two subscales are also reported Mohr et al. (2006). As we did not specify any differential hypotheses with regard to the two dimensions of irritation, their overlapping measurement is of minor concern. Finally, we combined all measurement models in a complete 10-factor CFA with good fit.

Table 2.

Fit indices for CFAs and SEMs.

	χ²	df	χ²/df	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
CFA: PFR – 4 factors	173.91	59	2.95	.97	.96	.97	.046
CFA: PFR – 1 factor	1723.00	65	26.51	.52	.42	.52	.166
CFA: Job control / Time pressure / Work–family conflict / PI – 4 factors	446.58	146	3.06	.96	.95	.96	.047
CFA: Irritation – 1 factor	1087.30	9	120.81	.65	.42	.65	.359
CFA: Irritation – 2 factors (without cross-loading)	93.70	8	11.71	.97	.95	.97	.107
CFA: Irritation – 2 factors (with cross-loading)	28.40	7	4.06	.99	.99	.99	.057
CFA: PFR – Task / Job control – 2 factors	191.28	34	5.63	.95	.93	.95	.071
CFA: PFR – Task / Job control – 1 factor	613.40	35	17.53	.80	.76	.82	.133
CFA: PFR – Task / PI – 2 factors	276.22	53	5.21	.92	.91	.92	.067
CFA: PFR – Task / PI – 1 factor	974.68	54	17.55	.70	.63	.69	.133
CFA: PFR – Time/ Time pressure – 2 factors	40.14	8	5.02	.98	.96	.98	.066
CFA: PFR – Time / Time pressure – 1 factor	517.09	9	57.46	.66	.43	.66	.246
CFA: PFR – Time / Work–family conflict – 2 factors	138.45	26	5.33	.97	.96	.97	.068
CFA: PFR – Time/ Work–family conflict – 1 factor	724.31	27	26.38	.83	.77	.83	.167
CFA: Complete measurement model – 10 factors	1504.67	619	2.43	.94	.94	.94	.039
SEM: Structural model (with controls)	1941.51	824	2.36	.93	.92	.93	.038
SEM: Structural model (with controls, including common method factor)	1669.19	786	2.12	.95	.93	.95	.035
SEM: Alternative model 1 (PFR → Irritation → PI, TP, WFC; with controls)	2161.46	828	2.61	.92	.90	.92	.042
SEM: Alternative model 2 (PI, TP, WFC → PFR → Irritation; with controls)	2432.17	833	2.92	.91	.89	.90	.045
SEM: Alternative model 3 (Irritation → PI, TP, WFC → PFR; with controls)	2228.11	857	2.60	.92	.91	.92	.041

Notes: PFR: perceived flexibility requirements; PI: personal initiative; TP: time pressure; WFC: work–family conflict; χ² = chi-square discrepancy; df = degrees of freedom; χ²/df = relative chi-square; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; **p < .01, *p < .05.

Results

Hypothesis testing

Based on the established measurement model, hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model (SEM), which is displayed in Figure 1. According to our hypotheses, we specified direct paths from all four types of PFR on time pressure, work–family conflict, and personal initiative as well as effects of those three mediating variables on cognitive and emotional irritation. Additionally, the hypothesized mediators were allowed to correlate. Age, sex, education, leadership position, job control, job tenure, full-time vs. part-time, and permanent vs. temporary contract were included as independent control variables with direct effects on all mediating and dependent variables. The resulting model fits the data well (χ²/df = 2.36, p < .001; IFI = .93, TLI = .92, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .038). Correlations between PFR and control variables are reported in Table 3. Path coefficients from controls on the mediating and dependent variables are shown in Table 4.

Table 3.

Estimated partial correlations between controls and independent variables in the model.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1 Age (years)
2 Gender (0 = female; 1 = male)	.03
3 Leadership position (0 = no; 1 = yes)	.15**	.16**
4 Education (0 = non-academic; 1 = academic)	.09*	.04	.04
5 Job tenure (years)	.65**	.03	.15**	.03
6 Employment contract (0 = permanent; 1 = temporary)	−.21**	−.08*	−.05	.07*	−.25**
7 Part-time (0 = full time; 1 = part time)	.12**	−.16**	−.12**	.06	−.02	.10**
8 Job control	.04	.11**	.21**	.19**	.11**	−.09*	−.03
9 PFR – task	.05	.10**	.24**	.22**	.10**	−.16**	−.08*	.63**
10 PFR – career	−.03	.09*	.09*	.19**	.02	.07	−.05	.31**
11 PFR – learning	.11**	.06	.28**	.29**	.09*	.04	.02	.31**
12 PFR – time	.01	.11**	.20**	−.01	.03	−.01	−.10**	.12**

Notes: PFR: perceived flexibility requirements; **p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 4.

Standardized path coefficients for controls on mediators and dependent variables in the model.

	Personal initiative	Time pressure	Work–family conflict	Cognitive irritation	Emotional irritation
Age (years)	−.02	.06	.05	.00	−.14**
Gender (0 = female; 1 = male)	−.01	−.01	.00	−.04	−.02
Leadership position (0 = no; 1 = yes)	.02	.04	.03	.02	.12**
Education (0 = non-academic; 1 = academic)	.03	−.01	.08*	.07*	−.05
Job tenure (years)	.04	.02	−.06	.02	.04
Employment contract (0 = permanent; 1 = temporary)	.03	−.06	.03	.04	−.02
Part-time (0 = full-time; 1 = part-time)	−.04	−.09*	−.02	−.01	.01
Job control	.09	−.17**	−.14**	.08*	−.10*

Note: **p < .01, *p < .05.

To address the question of possible reversed causality and to support the validity of the hypothesized model we also tested three alternative structural models, in which (1) the order of mediators and outcomes was reversed, (2) PFR mediated the relation between personal initiative, time pressure, work–family conflict, and outcomes, and (3) personal initiative, time pressure, and work–family conflict mediated the effect of irritation on PFR. Although the fits of the alternative models are also sufficient, the indices were inferior to our hypothesized model.

Hypothesis 1a, which postulated a positive relationship between PFR and time pressure, was supported for PFR – task (β = .29, p < .01), PFR – career (β = .12, p < .05), and PFR – time (β = .35, p < .01), but not for PFR – learning (β = –.08, p > .05). Hypothesis 1b assumed positive effects of PFR on work–family conflict, which was the case only for PFR – time (β = .43, p < .01). In preliminary support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b, time pressure and work–family conflict related positively to both cognitive irritation (β = .22, p < .01 and β = .42, p < .01) and emotional irritation (β = .11, p < .05 and β = .31, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 concerning the potential positive effects of PFR on personal initiative was supported only for PFR – task (β = .29, p < .01). However, personal initiative related negatively only to the emotional (β = –.10, p < .05), but not the cognitive dimension of irritation.

For an examination of the mediated relationships postulated in Hypotheses 2 and 4, we followed a two-step approach. We first detected all cases with joint significance (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) of (a) effects of PFR on the potential mediators, and (b) effects of mediators on outcomes. According to the simulation study by MacKinnon et al. (2002) the joint significance test for establishing mediation provides the best balance between type I error and statistical power in samples with N > 500. For all cases with joint significance, we then assessed the indirect effects directly using the product-of-coefficients approach (Sobel, 1982). Statistical significance of the product of coefficients was analyzed with the Aroian version of Sobel-tests (Sobel, 1982) in conjunction with the revised critical z-values by MacKinnon et al. (2002). To evaluate whether the mediation was full or partial, we added direct effects of each type of PFR on the respective dimension of irritation and examined the significance of the direct effects as well as changes in model chi-square. Mediation analyses were conducted for all cases. Results are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Mediated effects.

Direct effect 1 (A → B)	β [B, SE]	Direct effect 2 (B → C)	β [B, SE]	Indirect effect (A → C)	β^a [B, SE]	z	Δχ²(1)Direct effect^b (A → C)
PFR – task→ Time pressure	.23** [0.29;0.09]	Time pressure→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.22** [0.25;0.05].11* [0.07;0.03]	PFR – task→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.05 [0.07; 0.03].03 [0.02; 0.01]	2.671.83	8.79 (β^c = .16)7.09 (β = –.15)
PFR – career→ Time pressure	.12* [0.08;0.03]	Time pressure→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.22** [0.25;0.05].11* [0.07;0.03]	PFR: Career→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.03 [0.02; 0.01].01 [0.01;0.00]	2.321.69	0.95 n.s. (β = .04)1.29 n.s. (β = –.04)
PFR – time→ Time pressure	.35** [0.40;0.05]	Time pressure→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.22** [0.25;0.05].11* [0.07;0.03]	PFR – Time→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.08 [0.10; 0.02].04[0.03;0.01]	4.222.22	1.96 n.s. (β = .06)5.97* (β = –.11*)
PFR – time → Work–family conflict	.43** [0.41; 0.05]	Work–family conflict→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.42 [0.56;0.06].31 [0.24;0.03]	PFR – time→ Cognitive irritation→ Emotional irritation	.18 [0.23;0.04].13 [0.10;0.02]	6.145.70	1.96 n.s. (β = .06)5.97* (β = –.11*)
PFR – task→ Personal initiative	.29** [0.21;0.05]	Personal initiative→ Emotional irritation	−.10* [–0.11;0.04]	PFR – Task→ Emotional irritation	−.03** [–0.02; 0.01]	−2.26	7.09 (β = –.15)

Notes: Aroian version of the Sobel test; β = standardized regression weights; B = unstandardized regression weights; SE = standard error of measurement; ^asignificance level based on revised critical z-values (p’ < .01 for z > 1.10, p’ < .05 for z > 0.97; MacKinnon et al., 2002); ^bchange in model chi-square when adding an additional path from independent variable (A) on outcome variable (C); **p < .01, *p < .05; ^cstandardized regression weight of the direct effect A → C.

As hypothesized PFR - task had positive indirect effects on cognitive (β = .05, p < .01) and emotional irritation (β = .03, p < .01), mediated via time pressure and negative indirect effects on emotional irritation mediated via personal initiative (β = –.03, p < .01). PFR – career had a positive indirect effects on cognitive (β = .03, p < .01 and emotional irritation (β = .01, p < .01), mediated through time pressure. Finally, positive relationships between PFR – time and cognitive and emotional irritation were mediated by time pressure (β = .08, p < .01 and β = .04, p < .01) and work–family conflict (β = .13, p < .01 and β = .09, p < .01). As shown in Table 5, including direct paths of PFR on cognitive and emotional irritation, in addition to the mediated effects, improved model fit in five of the nine cases. Accordingly, for these five relations only partial mediation was established (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The direction of the direct effects tended to be consistently positive for cognitive irritation and negative for emotional irritation – a finding we discuss further below.

Additional analyses

As all our variables are measured by self-reports we assessed the potential extent of common method variance by re-estimating our model after inclusion of an unmeasured latent common method factor loading on all manifest indicator variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fit of the resulting model (Table 2) was slightly better. For the most part, path coefficients in the common method factor model remained stable. Only one path estimate that was significant in the initial model became non-significant: from time pressure to emotional irritation (β = .02, p > .05). While this result may be an indication that common method bias is present in the above relationships, it should be interpreted with great caution. Although the inclusion of an unmeasured latent factor is a frequently recommended statistical remedy for controlling for common method variance in SEM, this approach has recently been subject to criticism (Conway and Lance, 2010). In fact, a simulation study by Richardson et al. (2009) showed that controlling for a common method factor produced more biased parameter estimates than an uncontrolled estimation, even when common method variance was present.

Discussion

Against the background of frequently stated changes towards increased flexibility, self-directedness and subjectification, as well as decreased external regulation and routinization in contemporary working life, the main objective of the reported study was to explore possible positive and negative effects of perceived flexibility requirements (PRF) on worker well-being. In contrast to other conceptualizations of workplace flexibility (e.g. Hill et al., 2008) which frame flexibility as a resource concerning autonomy in deciding on the time and place of one’s work, the multidimensional concept of PFR focuses on work behavior-related requirements for workers grounded in organizational practices to increase organizational flexibility and efficiency.

Work intensification (i.e., time pressure) and extensification (i.e., work–family conflict) as well as the degree to which the work stimulates proactive employee behavior (i.e., personal initiative) were hypothesized as mediating mechanisms for the postulated positive and negative relationships between PFR and psychological work strain (i.e., cognitive and emotional irritation). Because PFR is a comparatively novel construct, our study was exploratory in that we only specified global hypotheses that did not differentiate between the four dimensions of task fulfillment, career development, learning, and working time.

Eventually, all hypotheses only received partial support for specific dimensions. Hypotheses 1 and 2, which postulated that PFR would relate positively to time pressure and work–family conflict, which, in turn, would mediate positive relationships between PFR and irritation, were fully supported only for PFR regarding working time. Specifically, workers who perceived that the duration and distribution of their work hours are determined largely by organizational needs, experienced higher time pressure on the job as well as more conflicts at the work–family interface, which, in turn, resulted in elevated levels of both cognitive and emotional irritation. For the other dimensions these hypotheses received only partial support. PFR with regard to career development also had positive indirect effects on cognitive and emotional irritation, however these effects were considerably weaker than those of working time flexibility requirements and limited to time pressure as mediator. For PFR with regard to learning we found no mediation effects on well-being via personal initiative, time pressure or work–family conflict. We conclude that the weak role that PFR –career and PFR – learning played in our analyses may indicate their relatively lower importance compared to working time and task-related aspects.

The hypothesized simultaneous negative and positive effects were found only for PFR regarding task fulfillment. In partial support of our first two hypotheses, workers who reported that they were expected to show a high degree of self-directedness in attaining work goals, experienced greater time pressure, thus leading to higher psychological work strain. Our third and fourth hypotheses suggested PFR would stimulate workers’ personal initiative, which, in turn, would mediate a negative effect of PFR on irritation. With respect to PFR regarding work tasks this was limited only to the emotional dimension of irritation.

In our additional analyses for proofing whether the mediations are full or only partial (Table 5, last column), we identified a remaining positive direct effect of PFR regarding task fulfillment on cognitive irritation as well as negative direct effects of PFR regarding task fulfillment and working time on emotional irritation, when the respective indirect effects via time pressure, work–family conflict, and personal initiative were controlled for. First, these findings indicate that the positive (i.e., detrimental) indirect effects of PFR – task on cognitive irritation are only partially mediated by time pressure and work–family conflicts. Second, negative implications of PFR – task and PFR – time for the emotional aspect of irritation are fully explicable by time pressure and work – family conflicts. In the (theoretical) absence of these negative implications, PFR – although increasing cognitive irritation and therefore impairing detachment – could even have a positive influence on emotional well-being, beyond the mediating effects of proactive work behavior. Future research should consider additional potential mediators, such as, for example, increased self-esteem, because employees may tend to interpret PFRs under certain conditions as indicators that the employer attributes the competence to cope with requirements for increased flexibility and self-direction at work, which in turn may increase their occupational self-esteem.

Our study has several limitations which should be kept in mind in interpreting its results. In addition to its partly exploratory nature, the design of our study was cross-sectional and therefore does not allow strong inferences regarding the causal relationships underlying the observed correlational pattern. To address this issue, we tested alternative structural models representing other causal relationships between the variables. The alternative models displayed slightly worse fit than our theorized model, thus not contradicting our causal assumptions.

Another limitation of the employed cross-section single-source study design is that common method variance could have inflated the observed correlations. However, if common method bias in organizational research indeed poses as much of a problem as frequently assumed is subject to an ongoing debate (Conway and Lance, 2010; Spector, 2006). Nonetheless, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we tried to address this potential concern by recalculating our model after the inclusion of an unmeasured latent common methods factor. Although some path estimates were slightly lower and three paths lost their statistical significance, this inclusion did not change our overall results substantially.

A further limitation may be seen in the study’s sampling procedure. Our analyses are based on a convenience rather than a stratified sample, which might call into question the generalizability of our results. Although additional research suggests that our sample is representative for the Austrian workforce with respect to many of the included demographic characteristics (Statistik Austria, 2010), employees with university degrees and temporary contracts as well as those working in health care, social work, and education were over-represented.

One implication of our heterogeneous sample is that the specific organizational context cannot be taken into account. As PFR were defined and operationalized as individual perceptions regarding work role expectations by the organization, this study does not provide answers to the question of how these worker perceptions are related to specific and ‘objective’ organizational conditions and processes (e.g. management and human resource practices and strategies). The same applies for relationships between PFR and actual flexible behavior of workers. Future studies employing the concept of PFR should investigate these links, preferably by using multiple data sources, such as archival data on human resource practices and supervisor and/or peer ratings of the focal employees’ behavior. Another opportunity for further study is the identification of potential moderators of the relationship between the different forms PFR and employees’ well-being. For instance, it would seem likely that the implications of PFR for worker well-being partly depend on the presence or absence of organizational resources like managerial and/or organizational support as well as personal resources like self-management skills. Moreover, it could be assumed that further variables concerning the interface between life domains, like family involvement, boundary flexibility, and individual differences in the willingness for boundary flexibility (Matthew and Barnes-Farrell, 2010) may influence the effects, especially of time-related PFR on work–family conflict and well-being. As such, future studies could build on the present research to investigate boundary conditions that intensify, attenuate, or even reverse the observed relationships with worker well-being.

To conclude, our study has outlined some negative and positive pathways connecting PFR to work-related well-being or job strain. Nonetheless, still too little is known on how perceived flexibility requirements in different domains affect employees psychologically, especially in the longer term. Judging from our results, it appears that PFR regarding working time are experienced clearly as ‘hindrance-demand’ and most stressful, whereas for task-related PFR – as a specific form of a ‘challenge-demand’ – the positive effects seem to counterbalance or even outweigh their downsides. In order to sustain and develop their workforce, organizations and management practitioners are advised to keep in mind the potentially negative impact of overburdening workers with capacity-oriented demands for temporal flexibility. In contrast, emphasizing self-directed behavior in attaining task goals, in particular when implemented in ways that restrain tendencies of work intensification and self-exploitation of employees, may be a promising approach to developing a more proactive and resilient workforce better equipped to meet the performance requirements and challenges associated with contemporary changes in the nature of work and employment.

Footnotes

Appendix: Perceived flexibility requirements scales

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Thomas Höge is a Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychology of the University of Innsbruck (Austria). His research interests include workplace flexibility, life–domain balance, job and career insecurity, meaning at work, participation and organizational democracy, occupational health and well-being.

Severin Hornung is Assistant Professor at the Department of Management and Marketing of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (China). His research focuses on proactive work behavior, idiosyncratic deals, employment relationships, job design, and employee well-being.

References

Adams

King

(1996) Relationships of job and family involvement, family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 411–420.

Allvin

(2008) New rules of work: Exploring the boundaryless job. In: Näswall

Hellgren

Sverke

(eds) The Individual in the Changing Working Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–45.

Allvin

Aronsson

Hagström

. (2011) Work without Boundaries: Psychological Perspectives on the New Working Life. Chichester: Wiley.

Amstad

Meier

Fasel

. (2011) A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16: 151–169.

Antoncic

Hisrich

(2003) Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10: 7–24.

Aronsson

Gustafsson

Dallner

(2002) Work environment and health in different types of temporary jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11: 151–175.

Arthur

Rousseau

(eds) (1996) The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ashforth

Kreiner

Fugate

(2000) All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. The Academy of Management Review 25: 472–491.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.

10.

Bindl

Parker

(2010) Proactive work behavior: Forward thinking and change oriented action in organizations. In: Zedeck

(ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 567–598.

11.

Brannen

(2005) Time and the negotiation of work–family boundaries. Time and Society 14: 113–131.

12.

Brown

Hesketh

Williams

(2003) Employability in a knowledge-driven economy. Journal of Education and Work 16: 107–126.

13.

Burchell

Ladipo

Wilkinson

(eds) (2002) Job Insecurity and Work Intensification. London: Routledge.

14.

Burke

(2006) Research Companion to Working Time and Work Addiction: New Horizons in Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

15.

Burke

Cooper

(2008) The Long Work Hours Culture: Causes, Consequences and Choices. Bingley: Emerald.

16.

Byron

(2005) A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67: 169–198.

17.

Cavanaugh

Boswell

Roehling

Boudreau

(2000) An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 65–74.

18.

Cohen

(1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Connelly

Gallagher

(2004) Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal of Management 30: 959–983.

20.

Conway

Briner

(2005) Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 325–334.

22.

Costa

Sartori

Akerstedt

(2006) Influence of flexibility and variability of working hours on health and well-being. Chronobiology International 23: 1125–1137.

23.

Crant

(2000) Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management 26: 435–462.

24.

De Cuyper

De Jong

De Witte

. (2008) Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews 10: 25–51.

25.

Deery

Mahony

(1994) Temporal flexibility: Management strategies and employee preferences in the retail industry. Journal of Industrial Relations 3: 332–352.

26.

Demerouti

Bakker

Bulters

(2004) The loss spiral of work pressure, work home interference and exhaustion: Reciprocal relations in a three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64: 131–149.

27.

De Vos

Buyens

Schalk

(2003) Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 537–559.

28.

De Vos

Buyens

Schalk

(2005) Making sense of a new employment relationship: Psychological contract-related information seeking and the role of work values and locus of control. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 13: 41–52.

29.

Dormann

Zapf

(2002) Social stressors at work, irritation, and depression: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 33–58.

30.

Eby

Casper

Lockwood

. (2005) Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior 66: 124–197.

31.

Fay

Frese

(2001) The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance 14: 97–124.

32.

Fay

Sonnentag

(2002) Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7: 221–234.

33.

Felstead

Jewson

(1999) Global Trends in Flexible Labour. London: Macmillan.

34.

Foucault

(1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell

Gordon

Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 53–72.

35.

Frese

Fay

Hilburger

. (1997) The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70: 139–161.

36.

Frese

Garst

Fay

(2007) Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1084–1102.

37.

Frese

Kring

Soose

Zempel

(1996) Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal 39: 37–63.

38.

Fritz

Sonnentag

(2009) Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management 35: 94–111.

39.

Fugate

Kinicki

Ashforth

(2004) Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 14–38.

40.

Giddens

(1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

41.

Gilboa

Shirom

Fried

Cooper

(2008) A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology 61: 227–271.

42.

Grant

Ashford

(2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 3–34.

43.

Greenhaus

Beutell

(1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10: 76–88.

44.

Guest

(2004) Flexible employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee outcomes: An analysis and review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 5–6: 1–19.

45.

Hacker

(2003) Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 12: 105–130.

46.

Hackman

Oldham

(1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 250–279.

47.

Hall

(2004) The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 1–13.

48.

Hall

Mirvis

(1995) Careers as lifelong learning. In: Howard

(ed.) The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 323–361.

49.

Hall

Mirvis

(1996) The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart. In: Hall

(ed.) The Career is Dead – Long Live the Career: A Relational Approach to Careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 15–45.

50.

Hellgren

Sverke

Näswall

(2008) Changing work roles: New demands and challenges. In: Näswall

Hellgren

Sverke

(eds) The Individual in the Changing Working Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–66.

51.

Hill

Grzywacz

Allen

. (2008) Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work and Family 11: 149–163.

52.

Hochschild

(1997) Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Henry Holt.

53.

Höge

(2009) When work strain transcends psychological boundaries; An inquiry into the relationship between time pressure, irritation, work–family conflict and psychosomatic complaints. Stress and Health 25: 41–51.

54.

Höge

(2011) Perceived flexibility requirements at work and the entreployee-work-orientation: Concept and measurement. Journal Psychologie des Alltagshandelns / Psychology of Everyday Activity 4: 3–21.

55.

Hornung

Rousseau

Glaser

(2008) Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 655–664.

56.

Hudson

(2002) Flexibility and the reorganisation of work. In: Burchell

Lapido

Wilkinson

(eds) Job Insecurity and Work Intensification. London: Routledge, pp. 39–60.

57.

Jansen

NWH

Kant

Nijhuis

FJN

. (2004) Impact of worktime arrangements on work–home interference among Dutch employees. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 3: 139–148.

58.

Kalleberg

(2001) Organizing flexibility: The flexible firm in a new century. British Journal of Industrial Relations 39: 479–504.

59.

Kattenbach

Demerouti

Nachreiner

(2010) Flexible working times: Effects on employees’ exhaustion, work–nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Development International 15: 279–295.

60.

Katz

Kahn

(1978) The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

61.

Knights

Willmott

(2002) Autonomy as utopia and dystopia. In: Parker

(ed.) Utopia and Organization. London: Sage, pp. 59–81.

62.

Kossek

Ozeki

(1998) Work–family conflict, policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 139–149.

63.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Hoffman

. (2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7: 83–104.

64.

Manz

Sims

(1987) Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self- managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 106–129.

65.

Martens

MFJ

Nijhuis

FJN

Van Boxtel

MPJ

Knottnerus

(1999) Flexible work schedules and mental and physical health: A study of a working population with non-traditional working hours. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 35–46.

66.

Matthews

Barnes-Farrell

(2010) Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15: 330–346.

67.

Mohr

Müller

Rigotti

. (2006) The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts: Concerning the structural equivalency of nine language adaptations of the irritation scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 22: 198–206.

68.

Moldaschl

(2001) Herrschaft durch Autonomie - Dezentralisierung und widersprüchliche Arbeitsanforderungen [Governance by autonomy. Decentralization and contradictory work requirements]. In: Lutz

(ed.) Entwicklungsperspektiven von Arbeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 132–164.

69.

Müller

Mohr

Rigotti

(2004) Differentielle Aspekte psychischer Beanspruchung aus Sicht der Zielorientierung: Die Faktorstruktur der Irritations-Skala [Differential aspects of psychological strain with respect to goal orientation: The factor-structure of the Irritation Scale]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 25: 213–225.

70.

Näswall

Hellgren

Sverke

(2008) The Individual in the Changing Working Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Netemeyer

Boles

McMurrian

(1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 400–410.

72.

Nicol

A-M

Botterill

(2004) On-call work and health: A review. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 3: 15.

73.

Oeij

PRA

Wiezer

(2002) New Work Organisation, Working Conditions and Quality of Work: Towards the Flexible Firm? Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

74.

Ohly

Sonnentag

Pluntke

(2006) Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 257–279.

75.

Parker

(2000) From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49: 447–469.

76.

Parker

Bindl

Strauss

(2010) Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management 36: 827–856.

77.

Parker

Wall

Jackson

(1997) ‘That’s not my job’: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal 40: 899–929.

78.

Parker

Williams

Turner

(2006) Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 636–652.

79.

Pfeffer

(1994) Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

80.

Pinchot

(1985) Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper and Row.

81.

Podsakoff

LePine

(2007) Differential challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 438–454.

82.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

83.

Pongratz

Voß

(2003a). ‘ Arbeitskraftunternehmer’. Erwerbsorientierungen in entgrenzten Arbeitsformen [‘Entreployees’: Work orientations in boundaryless forms of labor]. Berlin: Sigma.

84.

Pongratz

Voß

(2003b) From employee to ‘entreployee’: Towards a ‘self-entrepreneurial’ work force? Concepts and Transformation 8: 239–254.

85.

Prümper

Hartmannsgruber

Frese

(1995) KFZA - Kurzfragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse [KFZA – A short questionnaire for work analysis]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 39: 125–132.

86.

Reilly

(1998) Balancing flexibility – meeting the interests of employer and employee. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 7: 7–22.

87.

Richardson

Simmering

Sturman

(2009) A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods 12: 762–800.

88.

Rizzo

House

Lirtzman

(1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 15: 150–163.

89.

Rose

(1991) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.

90.

Rose

(1992) Governing the enterprising self. In: Heelas

Morris

(eds) The Values of the Enterprise Culture: The Moral Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 141–164.

91.

Rousseau

(1995) Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

92.

Rousseau

(1997) Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 515–546.

93.

Seifert

(2003) Paradigm shift in working time policy through working time accounts: From standard working hours to controlled flexibility. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting 7(3): 27–37.

94.

Semmer

Zapf

Dunckel

(1995) Assessing stress at work: A framework and an instrument. In: Svane

Johansen

(eds) Work and Health: Scientific Basis of Progress in the Working Environment. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 105–113.

95.

Sennett

(1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.

96.

Shore

Tetrick

(1994) The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In: Cooper

Rousseau

(eds) Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol.1. New York: Wiley, pp. 91–109.

97.

Sims

Manz

(1996) Company of Heroes: Unleashing the Power of Self-leadership. New York: Wiley.

98.

Skorstad

(2009) The ambiguity of flexibility. In: Skorstad

Ramsdal

(eds) Flexible Organizations and the New Working Life: A European Perspective. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 17–42.

99.

Sobel

(1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Leinhart

(ed.) Sociological Methodology 1982. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 290–312.

100.

Sonnentag

(2003) Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 518–528.

101.

Spector

(2006) Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 9: 221–232.

102.

Speier

Frese

(1997) Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance 10: 171–192.

103.

Statistik Austria (2010) Statistisches Jahrbuch Österreichs 2011 [Statistical yearbook Austria 2011]. Wien: Statistik Austria.

104.

Staufenbiel

König

(2010) A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83: 101–117.

105.

Taris

Wielenga-Meier

EGA

(2010) Workers’ personal initiative as a moderator between job characteristics and well-being. Psychological Reports 107: 255–264.

106.

Van Dam

(2004) Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 13: 29–51.

107.

Voß

Pongratz

(1998) Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der ‘Ware Arbeitskraft’? [The entreployee: A new form of labor power]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 50: 131–158.

108.

Webster

Beehr

Christiansen

(2010) Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior 76: 68–77.

109.

Weigl

Hornung

Parker

. (2010) Work engagement and accumulation of task, social, and personal resources: A three-wave structural equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77: 140–153.

110.

Weiskopf

Loacker

(2006) ‘A snake’s coils are even more intricate than a mole’s burrow.’ Individualization and subjectification in post-disciplinary regimes of work. Management Review 17: 395–419.

111.

Widmer

Semmer

Kälin

. (2012) The ambivalence of challenge stressors: Time pressure associated with both negative and positive well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80: 422–433.