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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Putnam, Linda L, Myers, Karen K, Gailliard, Bernadette M·2014·Human Relations
DOI 10.1177/0018726713495704
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. *Bohen HH, 1981, Balancing Jobs and Family Life: Do Flexible Working Schedules Help?
  2. *Buzzanell PM, 2007, Human Relations, 60, 453
  3. Deetz S, 1992, Democracy in the Age of Corporate Colonization
  4. *Deloitte (2010) Deloitte achieves 100 percent rating on human rights campaign’s 2011 corporate equality index (CEI) for fifth consecutive year. Available at: http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Press-Releases/ab3736c825bcc210VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm.
  5. *Golden AG, Geisler C (2006) Flexible work, time, and technology: Ideological dilemmas of managing work-life interrelationships using personal digital assistants. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication 16(3–4). Available at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/016/3/01633.HTML.
  6. Hopson MC, 2007, The Harvard Journal of Communication, 18, 69
  7. *Hylmö A, 2004, Gender in Applied Communication Contexts, 47
  8. *Kirby EL (2000) Should I do as you say or do as you do? Mixed messages about work and family. The Electronic Journal of Communication/Le Review de electronique de Communication 10(3–4). Available at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/010/3/010313.html.
  9. *Kirby EL, 2006, The SAGE Handbook of Conflict and Communication, 327
  10. *Kossek EE, 2005, Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives, 243
  11. 10.2307/259204 · DOI
  12. *Miller VD, 1996, Journal of Managerial Issues, 8, 286
  13. *Moe K, 2010, Glass Ceilings & 100-Hour Couples: What the Opt-Out Phenomenon Can Teach Us about Work and Family
  14. *Society of Human Resource Management, 2011, 2011 Employee Benefits Report: Examining Employee Benefits Amidst Uncertainty
  15. *Surman E, 2002, Ephemera, 2, 209
  16. *Trethewey A, Tracy SJ, Alberts JK (2006) Crystallizing frames for work-life. Electronic Journal of Communication/Le Review de electronique de Communication, 16. Available at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/016/3/01636.HTML.
  17. Wendt RF, 1998, Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 209

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 341

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Human Relations
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-10-08
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
413-440
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
DOI
10.1177/0018726713495704
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
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Human Relations (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › 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