Improving Employee Productivity through Flexitime: The Role of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Encouraging a Higher Adoption of Flexible Working Arrangements
Abstract
This research paper investigates and presents the relationship between employee productivity and work arrangements. It builds on this to determine the connection between the events of the Covid-19 pandemic and the possibility of an increased adoption of flexitime by businesses across the globe. Using a probability sampling technique, the data was collected from internet users who are currently employed, either by an organisation or themselves. To test the hypotheses, the data was analysed based on the research questions, within Minitab and Microsoft Excel. The results of the study strongly support previous research as well as presents that employee productivity levels are influenced by work arrangements. It finds that the lockdown across the globe goes to prove that productivity is still achievable even with employees less restricted to work location and time. The result however does not support the transportation, health, etc. employees whose physical presence are required for the job to be done. While there is extensive literature available on the link between employee productivity and flexitime, these are restricted to white-collar and service-based organisations. Moreover, the sample data used was limited and therefore, additional research may be required to support the study. The ?ndings of this study can be useful for managers and policy makers who are considering the adoption of flexitime work arrangements.
1 Introduction
Employee productivity is as paramount to management as efficient management is to a successful strategy. The Oxford English Dictionary (2020) defines productivity as the effectiveness of certain input in achieving a particular output. Given that there are numerous factors which inevitably influence effectiveness, there is a link between the freedom in the way people work and how productive they are at the end of the day. This brings on the discussion of the concept of Flexitime which according to HRZONE (2020), refers to “working arrangements that take into account an individual’s personal needs, often involving some degree of working from home”. Although technology giants such as Microsoft have come to normalise the flexitime trend (Microsoft, 2007), there was still a hesitation in the adoption of flexible working arrangements prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Following the advent of the novel Covid-19 virus in November 2019 (WHO, 2020), organisations across the world had to assume the unprecedented lockdown measures (Velavan and Meyer, 2020). This research paper builds on previous literature as well as an empirical study to portray the relationship between employee productivity and work arrangements. Developing this, the paper proceeds to determine the impact of the lockdown in convincing a higher adoption of flexible work arrangements.
At the conclusion of the study, the following research questions will be answered: Is there a correlation between employee productivity and flexitime? Has the Covid-19 Pandemic proved that it is possible to have full employee productivity even with flexitime? Does the Pandemic increase the possibility of a permanently reshaped working model for businesses?
2 Literature Review
2.1 Employee Productivity
Employee productivity is an area which is primary to attaining effective management, therefore, significant literature emphasising several factors that enable or deter productivity exist. Literature shows that achieving efficient management has evolved from adopting the classical and scientific models of a transactional leadership (Mahmood and Basharat, 2012), to adapting the social psychological models which centred management around optimizing the human experience (Cole, 2004). Meanwhile business consultants such as Sibson (1994) focused on increasing employee productivity by outlining twelve steps managers can adopt for improving and maintain productivity within a firm.
In supporting productivity, Human Resource Experts suggest initiatives which impact growth and consequently, improved work output and job satisfaction. For instance, ensuring that an employee finds enthusiasm, commitment to the job success and has keenness for the job can drive work engagement which results in increased productivity (Hanaysha, 2016; Okazaki et al., 2019). Although Mokhniuk and Yushchyshyna (2018) suggest that monetary factors significantly motivate an individual’s productivity, other factors such as recognition alongside, can improve commitment to the job. Moreover, Mohammad et al. (2019) indicate that psychological factors such as internet leisure and autonomy coordination encourage happiness in employees. Furthermore, Morosini, Shane and Singh (1988) propose that company involvements in cross-border transfers can enhance innovativeness in their staff. This however, may be counterproductive for firms located is culturally-diverse countries (Ataullah, Le and Sahota, 2014), since a drop in communication could create some ambiguity amongst co-workers and cause the feeling of alienation. In addition to the discussed factors, the use of productivity management tools could support managers’ efforts in enabling employee productivity (Nedelko and Potocan, 2017).
Several factors that deter productivity have been considered by scholars and used in research to enable the knowledge in this area. Diving into these factors, it is important to note that at the forefront of enabling productivity is a firm’s structure to support its employees (Jehanzeb, 2020). While it can be argued that it is both the responsibility of the individual and that of the superiors to ensure optimal productivity, it is essential that managers have human resource management competencies to foster productivity (Suryanarayana, 2017). Poor communication and alienation in the workplace plays a significant role in deterring productivity, also minimal job training plays on an individual’s performance as well as self-efficacy (Honeycutt, 1989). In the United Kingdom, Haskel and Martin (1993) in their research argue that the primary reason for poor productivity is a lack of the required skill(s). This indicates that, to address productivity, the place to start would be ensuring the employee has had effective education and training, which Robert Sibson (1994) proposes in his guide to be the job of the firm to ensure its fulfilment (HRFocus, 1994).
The progressiveness of the workforce composition brings on considerations about the role that the balance between work and personal life plays in an employee’s productivity. In the Australian context in particular, Pocock (2005) addresses the implication for women in the workforce as work intensifies within firms, suggesting that there is an increased difficulty in balancing work and family life. Nonetheless, employees strive to make sacrifices in personal life to meet work demands, including senior staff who tend to enjoy more autonomy (Burchielli, Bartram and Thanacoody, 2020). This compromise could lead to reduced organisational performance over time (Collewet and Sauermann, 2017; Wong, Chan and Teh, 2020). Moreover, while an overtime work culture can enable firm-level productivity, research shows that overtime plays a negative role in employee work satisfaction (Ko and Choi, 2019), this inevitably affects productivity.
2.2 Flexitime
Scholarly works focused on improving productivity indicate that balancing work-life for employees is a growing area of interest. The subject has encouraged government and organisation policies across the world to facilitate the adoption of work arrangements which are alternative to the traditional fixed work schedules (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
Certain areas that affect workforce productivity have encouraged the continuous review of working arrangements by employers. For instance, employee stress levels can be linked to the level of flexibility and autonomy of their working arrangements (Wittmer and Martin, 2010; Kelly, Moen and Tranby, 2011; Lee, Magnini and Kim, 2011). Health considerations such as obesity and other health risks are considered also, to be results of work arrangements that do not consider life obligations (Nigatu et al., 2016; Brauner et al., 2019). Moreover, employers are providing the ability to support and manage family demands by employees by adjusting working arrangements (Kelly, Moen and Tranby, 2011; Fusso, 2013), particularly for mothers in the workplace (Wadsworth and Facer, 2016). Nonetheless, the satisfaction employees find in fixed work arrangements may be as a result of some psychological aspects (Lee, Magnini and Kim, 2011).
The aforementioned considerations and more, have attracted the adoption of the flexible working arrangement by human resource managers, often referred to as flexitime (Been et al., 2017; HRZONE, 2020). Kim and Lee (2020) categorise this initiative in two ways – one which is focused on enabling employees to remain productive while they joggle other life matters and another which is focused on enabling employees with caregiving responsibilities. These flexible arrangements are understood using the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), since they essentially are a result of a psychological contract between employee and employer (Haar, 2007; De Menezes and Kelliher, 2011; Lee, Magnini and Kim, 2011; Kim and Lee, 2020). Although some national policies have put forward flexitime (Ierodiakonou and Stavrou, 2017) to enable special employee groups, it is up to the organisations that fall outside such constituencies to adopt flexitime. Senior managers support flexible arrangements when there is a certainty that it positively benefits their organisations (Been et al., 2017). However, empirical evidence indicates that managers can be made to see the benefits of flexible arrangements (Sweet, Pitt-Catsouphes and James, 2017), especially in white-collar jobs.
The benefits of adopting flexitime exist for both employer and employee. Flexitime may be beneficial in attracting qualified talents (Nadler et al., 2010; Chung and van der Horst, 2018) since it promises the capacity to balance work and other responsibilities (Haar, 2007; Eldridge and Nisar, 2011). Though, employees require predictability to enable them enjoy the benefits of working in flexitime (Lott, 2018; Lambert et al., 2019). Flexitime plays a significant role in enabling productivity in workers who rely on innovativeness to support their organisations (Hazak, M?nnasoo and Virkebau, 2017). Although basic face-to-face contact may be necessary (Coenen and Kok, 2014). Furthermore, flexitime can reduce the drop in female workforce numbers due to childbirth (Heywood and Miller, 2015; Chung and van der Horst, 2018), particularly for new mothers. Hopkins and Mckay (2019) propose flexitime as a means to reduce road congestion in Australia, this could be effective in other densely populated cities across the world.
Conversely, various downsides to adopting flexitime have also been identified. It has been found to give counterproductive results in workers if ambiguity exists due to poor communication and predictability in the work hours (Wittmer and Martin, 2010). Business goals can be compromised in cases where employees prioritise family goals (Eldridge and Nisar, 2011) and in situations where flexitime have been implemented for the sake of cost reduction (Lee and Voe, 2012). Managers may also find it difficult to maintain productivity, particularly where terms of the flexitime arrangements are not understood by employees (Downes and Koekemoer, 2011). For employees, poorly implemented flexitime may result in emotional exhaustion and self-imposed job intensification due to the need to reciprocate the flexibility of work arrangements to their employers (Kelliher, 2010; Wittmer and Martin, 2010; Ca?ibano, 2019)
2.3 The Impact from Covid-19
It was observed that the literature in this area is limited, taking into consideration that the events surrounding the Covid-19 is quite fresh. The dawn of the 2020 pandemic introduced, and in many cases, forced a ‘new normal’ for organisations globally. In December 2019, the Chinese Health Commission reported a cluster pneumonia cases and eventually, the unique coronavirus was identified (Song and Zhou, 2020). By March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) made the assessment that COVID-19 could be characterized as a pandemic (WHO, 2020). At this point, enormous work was being put in to identify a cure for the virus, given the ease with which it spreads (Velavan and Meyer, 2020).
To inhibit the spread, pending when solutions are available, businesses had to shut down on-site activities leading to a global lockdown. Across the world, the effects of this new way of survival took hold in several ways. Although it was being successfully contained in the country of origin, China, the virus caused a grave increase in mortality particularly in Italy around the same time (Remuzzi and Remuzzi, 2020). In the United States, interrupted airline activities due to the pandemic affected health activities as well (Strauss et al., 2020). In Australia and other major economies, the impact was felt in the labour market where a population of the workforce were retrenched from work to manage cash flows (Borland and Charlton, 2020; Doarest and Kamphuis, 2020). Even in households, the implications of the pandemic are evident in the decline of welfare (World Bank, 2020a). A second wave of the pandemic hit between September and October which hit businesses while they tried to recuperate from the recession caused by the first lockdown (World Bank, 2020b). The health, agriculture and airline industries were affected to an incredible level (Alves et al., 2020; Coghlan et al., 2020; Kumar, 2020; Strauss et al., 2020; World Bank, 2020a). Productivity has been however, the opposite for the IT Services Industry (Shankar, 2020), since the ‘work from home’ (WFH) era increased the need for technology services for businesses.
Literature reveals certain implications the pandemic holds for businesses, particularly in the areas of service delivery and the workforce administration. Strategy for doing business as well as structure is seen to be changing for good (Lawton et al., 2020). Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) in Africa which were just starting to take off at the brink of the pandemic were halted and may struggle to get back (Nyanga and Zirima, 2020). The restrictions on international travels created a disruption to international recruitments (Cho, 2020). In the workforce of organisations which are new to WFH, certain drawbacks have been identified, for instance, the perception of home is causing decreased motivation, distractions and blurred communications (Kotera and Vione, 2020; Mustajab et al., 2020). Moreover, research also point to the implication of WFH for women who have to cater for their families (Milliken, Kneeland and Flynn, 2020; Parry and Gordon, 2020). Although Khanna et al. (2020) suggests that effective team leaders can overcome these setbacks by engaging in video communications, promoting transparency and shying from micromanagement behaviours. However, research indicates benefits such as increased flexibility, efficient time management and multitasking particularly for employees with families (Beck, Hensher and Wei, 2020; Kotera and Vione, 2020; Mustajab et al., 2020).
3 Research Design and Methodology
This study aims to identify the viability of adopting flexitime given employees’ experiences with the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly in organisations that were initially hesitant towards flexitime. To this end, the paper adopts primary data from an online survey distributed randomly to internet users across the world.
3.1 Data Collection
The collection of data occurred between November and December among internet users who are currently employed across the globe. The process was done applying a Simple Random Sampling (SRS) technique (Iarossi, 2006) accommodating some sampling error of 9.68%. An online survey link was made available to internet users on LinkedIn, Twitter and WhatsApp to ensure representativeness of currently or formally employed individuals.
Table 1: Sample Size Estimation (Calculated in Minitab)
3.2 Survey Design
To appraise people’s attitudes, towards their working arrangements given the recent pandemic, a cross-sectional survey was considered a useful means of gathering the required data (Fink, 2011). Due to cost considerations, the survey was dispensed through Google Forms, a web-based provider of questionnaire construction and management tools. To aid the analysis, the survey comprised of closed questions which started out by collecting demographic information which get more specific to the cause as they proceed (Iarossi, 2006). The survey (see Appendix for questions) covers the relationship between working arrangements and productivity, the relationship between flexitime and productivity and the influence of Covid-19 on the inclination to embrace more flexible modes of working in organisations. To gather a higher response distribution for these areas, I adopted the Likert Scale (Murray, 2014) from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
3.3 Methods of Analysis
The survey data delivers descriptive experiences of 184 individuals with regards to their productivity levels while working during the lockdown, working in flexitime and their viewpoints, given the chances of a permanent change in working arrangements post-lockdown.
To answer the research questions, the responses from the main survey questions were broken into three sections, each representing each research question. First, to answer the question of productivity and working styles, I analysed the relationship between respondents’ working arrangements and how they described their productivity levels. Secondly, to answer the question of whether Covid-19 proves the ability to have full employee productivity given flexible work arrangements, an analysis of respondents’ productivity levels during the lockdown was done, given their work styles prior to the pandemic. Finally, to answer the question of the possibility of a permanently reshaped work style for organisations, I appraised respondents’ attitudes towards continuing with working in flexitime given the ease of the lockdown procedures. Each stage considered the respondent’s industry for each analysis. Table 2 summarises the sample structure by age, gender, industry, and region. Figure 1 shows the industries of respondents by their current work arrangements.
Table 2: Summary of Sample Structure
Figure 1: Distribution of Work Arrangements by Industry
4 Data Analysis and Result Discussion
4.1 Is there a correlation between employee productivity and flexitime?
In analysing the factors that impact work-life balance (Wittmer and Martin, 2010; Kelly, Moen and Tranby, 2011; Lee, Magnini and Kim, 2011), it was found that 82% of respondents who have the fixed work arrangements (45% of entire sample), struggle to get enough sleep, exercise, spend time with family, engage in hobbies/interests, prepare healthy food, attend to their health (e.g. dentist, doctor), look after their appearances and do chores. While 71% those who work remotely (22%) on a strict time schedule struggle with these and only 58% of flexitime respondents (33%) have these struggles.
Figure 2: Distribution of Factors by Work Arrangements
Meanwhile, respondents who admit to having a healthy work-life balance, willing to work beyond contracted hours and regularly socialise with colleagues outside of working hours are - 26% remote 9-to-5 workers, 37% flexitime workers and 37% 9-to-5 workers who have to be physically present. Furthermore, respondents who admit to often working when unwell, in a bad mood all day if things go badly at work, often check work email outside of work hours and sometimes do work when on holiday were - 23% remote 9-to-5 workers, 45% work in flexitime and 32% 9-to-5 workers who have to be physically present.
Given that certain sectors require physical presence to deliver, an analysis by sector was necessary. Professionals in service-based sectors (89%), finance (83%), construction (100%), telecommunications (100%), hospitality (100%) agreed that they will be more productive if their schedules moved to being more flexible. Although, when analysed according to gender, it was discovered that more females (1.4:1) believe they can work better in flexitime.
Figure 3: Distribution of respondents who agree to more flexible work arrangements by Sector
4.2 Has the Covid-19 Pandemic proved that it is possible to have full employee productivity even with flexitime?
In determining if the pandemic has impacted newer and less fixed working arrangements, it was realised that 62% of respondents indicate a change in their working arrangements post-lockdown. Also, 92% of the respondents believe that they can be productive at work given their experience of working from home during the pandemic. In view of the fact that it is up to management to decide how favourable the experience has been for their organisations (Been et al., 2017), it is noted that 79% of the respondents have the take that their employers can afford to adopt more flexible schedule arrangements.
Figure 4: Distribution of respondents whose work arrangements have remain more flexible post lockdown.
It is necessary to note that to deduce this aspect of the research problem with more practicality, work sectors have to be considered (Mustajab et al., 2020). Based on the collected data, respondents in professional services, finance, oil and gas, hospitality, energy, telecommunications and food sectors had a high degree of those accepting that their work schedules have become more flexible post-lockdown. Meanwhile, respondents in healthcare and transportation indicated the highest percentage of those who disagree with this notion.
Figure 5: Distribution of respondents whose work arrangements have become more flexible post lockdown by sector
Next, this research question was accessed by gender since previous research indicate a mixed acceptance of flexitime by men and women (Heywood and Miller, 2015; Lozano, Hamplová and Le Bourdais, 2016; Chung and van der Horst, 2018; Lott, 2018; van der Lippe and Lippényi, 2020). More female respondents (30% of total female sample) disagreed with being more productive or at their work-best during the enforced lockdown in comparison to the male respondents who disagree (21% of male sample).
4.3 Does the Pandemic increase the possibility of a permanently reshaped working model for businesses?
The research data indicates a high affirmative to this question. 80% of total respondents believe that the pandemic is a factor in convincing managers that it is possible to have full employee productivity with flexibility (Been et al., 2017; Sweet, Pitt-Catsouphes and James, 2017). Furthermore, 80% believe that the enforced lockdown could result in a permanent work style for organisations with a bulk of the affirmations coming from professionals in service-based sectors, energy, finance, construction and telecommunications.
Taking age as a factor of how respondents predict the permanent adoption of less strict work arrangements by employers given the pandemic, I find that averagely 56% of respondents who predict positively are aged 26-34 and 100% of the respondents who propose otherwise are aged 18-25. Meanwhile, averagely 57% of respondents who propose positively, given the success in maintaining productivity during the lockdown, are aged 26-34 and 100% of those who propose otherwise again are aged 18-25.
Figure 6: Distribution of respondents who suggest a permanent change, given the pandemic by age distribution.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
This research paper was aimed at presenting the relationship between employee productivity and work arrangements and then determine the impact of the lockdown in convincing a higher adoption of flexitime. It investigated literature on employee productivity and some of its factors; flexible working arrangements, particularly flexitime and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on aspects of the business climate, especially on workforce.
Based on results of the study performed, first, it is concluded that there is a clear impact of the kind of employee’s work arrangement on the employee’s productivity. Respondents in a fixed work arrangement portray the least balance between work obligations and life, which could explain the high proportion of those who believe that moving to flexitime can greatly impact their productivity. Second, the study concluded that work arrangements have eased up to be more flexible since the pandemic. This could be explained by the evidence of employees working in lockdown, while productivity levels remained quite unaffected. This can encourage the chances of permanently embracing flexible work arrangements by organisations.
However, the study learnt that productivity during the lockdown was not equal for both genders as more female disagree with the premise that productivity was better during the lockdown. Although, it is observed from respondents clamouring for more flexible work arrangements that the numbers are equally distributed between both genders. This can be explained by the fact that children were home and mothers may have taken the most responsibility in home-schooling and catering for the children (Lott, 2018).
5.1 Implications
The paper contributes to the knowledge on employee productivity and flexible work arrangements adopting the recent lockdown as a case study. It is intended to support business managers and policy makers who are possibly hesitant about adopting flexible work arrangements, especially in service-based sectors that do not require an employee’s physical presence every day of each week. As workforce compositions and the requirements of family dynamics continue to evolve, the need to have a balance between work and home becomes an area of concern which inevitably impact employee productivity.
5.2 Strengths and Limitations
The study employs an online survey which is optimal for improving randomness of data and collecting data from hard-to-reach audience (Murray, 2014). The data used, provides statistics of individuals across five continents.
The limitations of this study need to be mentioned which should further research in this particular area, given the recent pandemic. The data collected was quite limited, creating room for bias in interpretation due to the high sampling error (Fink, 2011). Also, since the study was so broad with examined sectors, future research could adopt sampling from sectors which can function even with flexitime, that way, the statistics on the sample can be more focused. Finally, considering the new knowledge revealed after the data analysis, the future studies can incorporate the marriage status of respondents to expand on the analysis of how different respondents perceived their productivity levels during the lockdown with or without a family to cater for.
6 References
Alves, F. A. et al. (2020) ‘Implication of COVID-19 in oral oncology practices in Brazil, Canada, and the United States’, Oral Diseases, pp. 1–3. doi: 10.1111/odi.13493.
Ataullah, A., Le, H. and Sahota, A. S. (2014) ‘Employee Productivity, Employment Growth, And The Cross-Border Acquisitions By Emerging Market Firms’, Human Resource Management, 53(6), pp. 987–1004. doi: 10.1002/hrm.
Beck, M. J., Hensher, D. A. and Wei, E. (2020) ‘Slowly coming out of COVID-19 restrictions in Australia: Implications for working from home and commuting trips by car and public transport’, Journal of Transport Geography, 88(August), p. 102846. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102846.
Been, W. M. et al. (2017) ‘European top managers’ support for work-life arrangements’, Social Science Research, 65, pp. 60–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.02.004.
Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Borland, J. and Charlton, A. (2020) ‘The Australian Labour Market and the Early Impact of COVID ‐ 19 : An Assessment’, The Australian Economic Review, 53(3), pp. 297–324. doi: 10.1111/1467-8462.12386.
Brauner, C. et al. (2019) ‘Health and work-life balance across types of work schedules : A latent class analysis’, Applied Ergonomics, 81(December 2018), p. 102906. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102906.
Burchielli, R., Bartram, T. and Thanacoody, R. (2020) ‘Work-Family Balance or Greedy Organizations?’, Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 63(1), pp. 108–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/018124ar.
Ca?ibano, A. (2019) ‘Workplace flexibility as a paradoxical phenomenon : Exploring employee experiences’. doi: 10.1177/0018726718769716.
Cho, E. (2020) ‘Examining boundaries to understand the impact of COVID-19 on vocational behaviors’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119(May), pp. 2011–2013. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103437.
Chung, H. and van der Horst, M. (2018) ‘Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking’, Human Relations, 71(1), pp. 47–72. doi: 10.1177/0018726717713828.
Coenen, M. and Kok, R. A. W. (2014) ‘Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules’, European Management Journal, 32(4), pp. 564–576. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.003.
Coghlan, N. et al. (2020) ‘COVID-19: legal implications for critical care’, Anaesthesia, 75(11), pp. 1517–1528. doi: 10.1111/anae.15147.
Cole, G. (2004) Management Theory and Practice. 6th edn. London: Geraldine Lyons.
Collewet, M. and Sauermann, J. (2017) ‘Working hours and productivity’, Labour Economics, 47(October 2016), pp. 96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2017.03.006.
Doarest, A. and Kamphuis, B. (2020) How COVID-19 is Affecting Firms in Indonesia : Results from the 1st Round of the COVID-19 Business Pulse Survey June 15, 2020 - June 23,2020. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Downes, C. and Koekemoer, E. (2011) ‘Work–life balance policies: Challenges and benefits associated with implementing flexitime’, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v9i1.382.
Eldridge, D. and Nisar, T. M. (2011) ‘Employee and Organizational Impacts of Flexitime Work Arrangements’, Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 66(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1006144ar.
Fink, A. (2011) How to Design Survey Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412984447.n1.
Fusso, N. (2013) ‘A systems thinking review for solving short-termism’, 36(8), pp. 805–822. doi: 10.1108/MRR-11-2012-0240.
Haar, J. M. (2007) ‘Exploring the benefits and use of flexitime: Similarities and differences’, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 4(1), pp. 69–82. doi: 10.1108/11766090710732514.
Hanaysha, J. (2016) ‘Improving employee productivity through work engagement: Evidence from higher education sector’, Management Science Letters, 6, pp. 61–70. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2015.11.006.
Haskel, J. and Martin, C. (1993) ‘Do Skill Shortages Reduce Productivity? Theory and Evidence from the United Kingdom’, The Economic Journal, 103(417), p. 386. doi: 10.2307/2234777.
Hazak, A., M?nnasoo, K. and Virkebau, M. (2017) ‘Effects of Work Arrangements on Creative R&D Work Outcomes’, Eastern European Economics, 55(6), pp. 500–521. doi: 10.1080/00128775.2017.1381567.
Heywood, J. S. and Miller, L. A. (2015) ‘Schedule Flexibility, Family Friendly Policies and Absence*’, Manchester School, 83(6), pp. 652–675. doi: 10.1111/manc.12079.
Honeycutt, A. (1989) ‘Maximising the employee productivity factor’, International Journal of Manpower, 10(4), pp. 24–27. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000000858.
Hopkins, J. L. and Mckay, J. (2019) ‘Technological Forecasting & Social Change Investigating “ anywhere working ” as a mechanism for alleviating tra ffi c congestion in smart cities’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 142(January 2018), pp. 258–272. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.032.
HRFocus (1994) ‘13 points on productivity management’, HRFocus, p. 21.
HRZONE (2020) What is flexible working?, Business and HR Glossary. Available at: https://www.hrzone.com/hr-glossary/what-is-flexible-working (Accessed: 29 November 2020).
Iarossi, G. (2006) Power of Survey Design : A User’s Guide for Managing Surveys, Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
Ierodiakonou, C. and Stavrou, E. (2017) ‘Flexitime and employee turnover: the polycontextuality of regulation as cross-national institutional contingency’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(21), pp. 3015–3038. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1362658.
Jehanzeb, K. (2020) ‘Does perceived organizational support and employee development influence organizational citizenship behavior?: Person–organization fit as moderator’, European Journal of Training and Development, 44(6), pp. 637–657. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0032.
Kelliher, C. (2010) ‘Doing more with less ? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work’. doi: 10.1177/0018726709349199.
Kelly, E. L., Moen, P. and Tranby, E. (2011) ‘Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: Schedule control in a white-collar organization’, American Sociological Review, 76(2), pp. 265–290. doi: 10.1177/0003122411400056.
Khanna, R. et al. (2020) ‘Making working from home work: reflections on adapting to change’, Australasian Psychiatry, 28(5), pp. 504–507. doi: 10.1177/1039856220953701.
Kim, S. Y. and Lee, D. (2020) ‘Work–Life Program Participation and Employee Work Attitudes: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis Using Matching Methods’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), pp. 468–490. doi: 10.1177/0734371X18823250.
Ko, Y. J. and Choi, J. N. (2019) ‘Overtime work as the antecedent of employee satisfaction, firm productivity, and innovation’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), pp. 282–295. doi: 10.1002/job.2328.
Kotera, Y. and Vione, K. C. (2020) ‘Psychological impacts of the new ways of working (NWW): A systematic review’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145080.
Kumar, D. (2020) ‘Implications of COVID‐19 in transplantation’, American Journal of Transplantation, (August), pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16346.
Lambert, S. J. et al. (2019) ‘Increasing Schedule Predictability in Hourly Jobs: Results From a Randomized Experiment in a U.S. Retail Firm’, Work and Occupations, 46(2), pp. 176–226. doi: 10.1177/0730888418823241.
Lawton, T. C. et al. (2020) ‘The Implications of COVID-19 for Nonmarket Strategy Research’, Journal of Management Studies. doi: 10.1111/joms.12627.
Lee, B. Y. and Voe, S. E. D. E. (2012) ‘Flextime and Profitability’, 51(2), pp. 298–316.
Lee, G., Magnini, V. P. and Kim, B. C. P. (2011) ‘Employee satisfaction with schedule flexibility: Psychological antecedents and consequences within the workplace’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), pp. 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.03.013.
van der Lippe, T. and Lippényi, Z. (2020) ‘Beyond Formal Access: Organizational Context, Working From Home, and Work–Family Conflict of Men and Women in European Workplaces’, Social Indicators Research, 151(2), pp. 383–402. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-1993-1.
Lott, Y. (2018) ‘Does Flexibility Help Employees Switch Off from Work ? Flexible Working ? Time Arrangements and Cognitive Work ? to ? Home Spillover for Women and Men in Germany’, (0123456789).
Lozano, M., Hamplová, D. and Le Bourdais, C. (2016) ‘Non-standard work schedules, gender, and parental stress’, Demographic Research, 34(1), pp. 259–284. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2016.34.9.
Mahmood, Z. and Basharat, M. (2012) ‘Review of Classical Management Theories’, (January), pp. 512–522.
De Menezes, L. M. and Kelliher, C. (2011) ‘Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), pp. 452–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x.
Microsoft (2007) The new world of work: Evaluation of the UK workforce.
Milliken, F. J., Kneeland, M. K. and Flynn, E. (2020) ‘Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Gender Equity Issues at Work’, Journal of Management Studies, (December). doi: 10.1111/joms.12628.
Mohammad, J. et al. (2019) ‘Workplace internet leisure and employees’ productivity: The mediating role of employee satisfaction’, Internet Research, 29(4), pp. 725–748. doi: 10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0191.
Mokhniuk, A. and Yushchyshyna, L. (2018) ‘The Impact of Monetary and Non-Monetary Factors of Motivation on Employee Productivity’, Economic journal of Lesia Ukrainka Eastern European National University, 1(13), pp. 94–101.
Morosini, P., Shane, S. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29, pp. 137–158.
Murray, J. (2014) ‘Survey Design: Using Internet-Based Surveys for Hard-to-Reach Populations’, Survey Design: Using Internet-Based Surveys for Hard-to-Reach Populations. doi: 10.4135/978144627305013500198.
Mustajab, D. et al. (2020) ‘Working From Home Phenomenon As an Effort to Prevent COVID-19 Attacks and Its Impacts on Work Productivity’, TIJAB (The International Journal of Applied Business), 4(1), p. 13. doi: 10.20473/tijab.v4.i1.2020.13-21.
Nadler, J. T. et al. (2010) ‘Perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The differential relationships of various work schedule flexibility programs’, Management Research Review, 33(9), pp. 865–876. doi: 10.1108/01409171011070297.
Nedelko, Z. and Potocan, V. (2017) ‘Management tools for supporting productivity in organizations - empirical evidence from Slovenia’, in Productivity and Organizational Management, pp. 49–74. doi: 10.1515/9783110355796-003.
Nigatu, Y. T. et al. (2016) ‘Overweight, obesity and work functioning: The role of working-time arrangements’, Applied Ergonomics, 52, pp. 128–134. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.016.
Nyanga, T. and Zirima, H. (2020) ‘Reactions of Small To Medium Enterprises in Masvingo, Zimbabwe To Covid 19: Implications on Productivity’, Business Excelent and Management, 10(1), pp. 22–32.
Okazaki, E. et al. (2019) ‘Association between working hours, work engagement, and work productivity in employees: A cross-sectional study of the Japanese Study of Health, Occupation, and Psychosocial Factors Relates Equity’, Journal of Occupational Health, 61(2), pp. 182–188. doi: 10.1002/1348-9585.12023.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. et al. (2013) ‘Looking up to regulations out at peers or down at the bottom line: How institutional logics affect the prevalence of age-related HR practices’, Human Relations, 66(10), pp. 455–476.
Oxford English (2020) Definition of Productivity. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03zjIheOheaX8WWXxcAvPRpMhOl4w:1606409639135&q=Dictionary&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONQesSoyi3w8sc9YSmZSWtOXmMU4-LzL0jNc8lMLsnMz0ssqrRiUWJKzeNZxMqFEAMA7_QXqzcAAAA&zx=1606413392714#dobs=productivity (Accessed: 26 November 2020).
Parry, B. R. and Gordon, E. (2020) ‘The shadow pandemic: Inequitable gendered impacts of COVID-19 in South Africa’, Gender, Work and Organization, (August), pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12565.
Pocock, B. (2005) ‘Work-Life “Balance” in Australia: Limited Progress, Dim Prospects.’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), pp. 198–209.
Remuzzi, A. and Remuzzi, G. (2020) ‘COVID-19 and Italy: what next?’, The Lancet, 395(10231), pp. 1225–1228. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30627-9.
Shankar, K. (2020) ‘The Impact of COVID-19 on IT Services Industry - Expected Transformations’, British Journal of Management, 31(3), pp. 450–452. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12423.
Sibson, R. E. (1994) Maximizing Employee Productivity: A Manager’s Guide. New York: AMACOM: American Management.
Song, L. and Zhou, Y. (2020) ‘The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on the Global Economy: What Does It Take to Turn Crisis into Opportunity?’, China and World Economy, 28(4), pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1111/cwe.12349.
Strauss, A. T. et al. (2020) ‘Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on commercial airlines in the United States and implications for the kidney transplant community’, American Journal of Transplantation, 20(11), pp. 3123–3130. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16284.
Suryanarayana, A. (2017) ‘Critical role of managerial competencies in productivity enhancement interventions: A HRM perspective’, in Productivity and Organizational Management, pp. 131–147. doi: 10.1515/9783110355796-006.
Sweet, S., Pitt-Catsouphes, M. and James, J. B. (2017) ‘Manager attitudes concerning flexible work arrangements: fixed or changeable?’, Community, Work and Family, 20(1), pp. 50–71. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2016.1271311.
Velavan, T. P. and Meyer, C. G. (2020) ‘The COVID-19 epidemic’, Tropical Medicine and International Health, pp. 278–280. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13383.
Wadsworth, L. L. and Facer, R. L. (2016) ‘Work-Family Balance and Alternative Work Schedules: Exploring the Impact of 4-Day Workweeks on State Employees’, Public Personnel Management, 45(4), pp. 382–404. doi: 10.1177/0091026016678856.
WHO (2020) Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/mers-cov/en/ (Accessed: 20 November 2020).
Wittmer, J. L. S. and Martin, J. E. (2010) ‘Emotional Exhaustion Among Employees Without Social or Client Contact: The Key Role of Nonstandard Work Schedules’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), pp. 607–623. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9153-x.
Wong, K., Chan, A. H. S. and Teh, P. L. (2020) ‘How is work–life balance arrangement associated with organisational performance? A meta-analysis’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), pp. 1–19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124446.
World Bank (2020a) Current Situation and Implications for Household Welfare. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2020b) The Firm-Level Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic : Summary of Results from Round 4. Washington, DC: World Bank.
7 Appendix
7.1 Survey Questions
jThank you for accepting to take this survey. This survey is part of an academic research on flexitime and is completely anonymous.
Please note that, “Flexible working, also known as flextime or flexitime, refers to non-traditional working arrangements that take into account an individual's personal needs, often involving some degree of working from home.” (HR Zone, 2020)
*Required
Preliminary Questions
1. What age are you? *
Mark only one oval.
18-25
26-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
2. What gender do you identify with? *
Mark only one oval.
Male
Female
Non-binary
Rather not say
3. Where are you responding from? *
Mark only one oval.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia (Includes Middle East)
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
4. Which one of these represents the highest level of qualification that you have received? *
Mark only one oval.
GCE/O-level or equivalent
Vocational qualification (e.g. NVQs, BTEC, etc.)
Further qualification (e.g. HNC, HND, etc)
University degree (incl. undergraduate and master's degrees)
Doctorate level or professional equivalent
No formal qualification
5. What is your employment type? *
Mark only one oval.
Full-time
Part-time
Self-employed with my own business
Self-employed working for another company (e.g. freelancer)
Not Applicable
6. What industry do you work in? *
Mark only one oval.
Aerospace
Agriculture
Construction
Education
Electronics
Energy
Entertainment
Finance
Food
Healthcare and Pharmaceutical
Hospitality
Manufacturing
News Media
Oil & Gas
Professional Services (e.g. Consulting, Audit, Law etc)
Technology/ICT
Telecommunications
Transportation
Other/Not Listed
7. How would you describe your work schedule? *
Mark only one oval.
Physical 9-5
Remote 9-5
Flexible: I can work anytime as long as I deliver.
8. How long does it usually take you to get to work? *
Mark only one oval.
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour
Over an hour to 2 hours
Over 2 hours
Not applicable to my job
Topline Questions
9. I would be more productive if my working schedule moves from being fixed to being flexible? *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10. On the days you work, which of these do you struggle to find the time to do? *
Tick all that apply.
Get enough sleep
Housework
Exercise
Spend time with family
Your hobbies/interests
Prepare healthy food
Grocery shopping
Visit health professionals (e.g. dentist, doctor)
Look after your appearance
None of these
11. Do the following apply to you? *
Mark only one oval per row.
Yes, No, Not applicable to my job
I have a healthy work-life balance
I often work when I am unwell
I am happy to work beyond my contracted hours
I am in a bad mood all day if things go badly at work
I often check my work email outside of work hours
I regularly socialise with my colleagues outside of working hours
I sometimes do work when on holiday
I have a healthy work-life balance
I often work when I am unwell
I am happy to work beyond my contracted hours
I am in a bad mood all day if things go badly at work
I often check my work email outside of work hours
I regularly socialise with my colleagues outside of working hours
I sometimes do work when on holiday
12. Post lockdown, my working arrangements have become more flexible in terms of worktimes and location *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13. I believe I was at my work-best during the enforced lockdown period *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
14.
I believe I can still deliver at work with a flexible work schedule *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15. I believe my employer can afford to have its employees work on a flexible schedule *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
16. I believe Covid-19 has shown that it is possible to maintain full employee productivity even with flexitime *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
17. I believe that the compulsory shift in working models for different business since the pandemic, could lead to a permanent change in how people work. *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
18. I believe the successful adoption of flexitime by different companies during the Pandemic, could cause a further/permanent adoption of less fixed work arrangements by employers. *
Mark only one oval.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree