Cited by 341Work-Family Balance ChallengesEmployment, Labor, and Gender StudiesEmployee Performance and Management

Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions.

Putnam, Linda L, Myers, Karen K, Gailliard, Bernadette M·2014·Human Relations

Abstract

Workplace flexibility initiatives as a potential remedy for work–life conflicts are the focus of a considerable number of investigations. Despite their contributions, research findings reveal tensions and contradictions in the ways that employees, managers and organizations develop, enact and respond to these flexibility initiatives. This critical review identifies three primary tensions (variable vs fixed arrangements, supportive vs unsupportive work climates and equitable vs inequitable implementation of policies) that reveal inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings. We tie these tensions, and the management of them, to an overarching dilemma in implementing workplace flexibility, the autonomy–control paradox. To develop alternatives for handling these tensions, we recommend reframing them through changing organizational cultures, adopting a philosophy of adaptability, customizing work and making workplace flexibility an employee right. We conclude by urging organizations and society to reframe the tensions between work and life, to treat them as enriching rather than competing with each other and to transcend these opposite poles through exploring third spaces.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018726713495704

Cites

128 of 128 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals who are grateful for the flexibility provided by teleworking make greater effort and achieve higher performance, ending up with a higher sacrifice than with traditional working methods.

    “Moreover, individuals who are grateful for the flexibility provided by teleworking make greater effort and achieve higher performance, ending up with a higher sacrifice than with traditional working methods (Putnam et al., 2014).”
  • Exposure to algorithmic control and incentivisation may cause tensions for content creators because they feel limited in their autonomy.

    “exposure to algorithmic control and incentivisation may cause tensions for content creators because they feel limited in their autonomy”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
  • Putnam, Linda L
  • Myers, Karen K
  • Gailliard, Bernadette M
Venue
Human Relations
Published
2013-10-08
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
413-440
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
OpenAlex
W2131299909
Cited by
341
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 2
FWCI
42.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Relations (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
Keywords
work flexibility, work-life balance, work-life conflict, organizational culture, adaptability, workers' rights, third space, work-life tensions

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