The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention
Abstract
This study examines the relationship of perceived workplace flexibility and supportive work–life policies to employee engagement and expectations to remain with the organization (expected retention). It also explores the association of formal and occasional (informal) use of flexibility with these outcomes. Data are from a multi-organization database created by WFD Consulting of studies conducted between 1996 and 2006. Results revealed that perceived flexibility and supportive work–life policies were related to greater employee engagement and longer than expected retention. Employee engagement fully mediated the relationship between perceived flexibility and expected retention and partially mediated the relationship between supportive work–life policies and expected retention. Both formal and occasional use of flexibility were positively associated with perceived flexibility, employee engagement, and expected retention. These analyses provide evidence that workplace flexibility may enhance employee engagement, which may in turn lead to longer job tenure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z · Cited by 11,049
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 · Cited by 4,623
Cited by
Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions.
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726713495704 · Cited by 341
Gamification and gigification: A multidimensional theoretical approach
Behl, A., Jayawardena, N., Ishizaka, A., Gupta, M., & Shankar, A. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.023 · Cited by 104
Eversole, B. A. W., Venneberg, D. L., & Crowder, C. L. (2012) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1523422312455612 · Cited by 104
A trend toward Work–Life Fusion: A multi-generational shift in technology use at work
Haeger, D. L., & Lingham, T. (2014) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.009 · Cited by 70
Ekowati, D., Abbas, A., Anwar, A., Suhariadi, F., & Fahlevi, M. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2196041 · Cited by 19
“That is possible with the perseverance and patience of construction-minded executives who value methodical engagement for workforce flexibility (Richman et al., 2008).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Richman, A. L., Civian, J. T., Shannon, L. L., Jeffrey Hill, E., & Brennan, R. T.
- Venue
- Community, Work & Family
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-197
- ISSN
- 1366-8803 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3615
- OpenAlex
- W1969613343
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
