Workplace Flexibiltiy and Marital Wellbeing

Purpose. Accompanied with the rapid increase of dual earner families, workplace flexibility have become a crucial support for employees to manage work and family responsibilities, promoting workplace and family wellbeing. Although abundant research indicates the benefits of workplace flexibility on employment outcomes and work family balance (Hill et al., 2001; Richman et al, 2008), a few studies and boundary suggest possible disadvantage of using flexibility arrangements by blurring the boundary between work and home (Kossek et al., 2006). Moreover, limited research has investigated the extent to which workplace flexibility is associated with marital quality. Drawing from a concept of boundary spanning resource and boundary theory (Ashforth et al, 2000; Voydanoff, 2005), the study 1) examines the association between two forms of workplace flexibility (flexible schedule and place) and marital wellbeing (partner interactions and martial happiness) and 2) tests whether the association between flexibility and martial happiness, if any, is explained by partner interactions.

Methods. Data comes from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 79 (NLSY79). The sample consists of employed women from eleven waves of biannual survey between 1992 and 2012, resulting in an average sample of 1,544 individuals with 16, 985 person-year observations. Flexible schedule is a dichotomous indicator of whether employers make available to flexible hours or work schedules. Use of flexible place is measured with the duration of working hours at home (0=0 hours, 1=1~20 hours, 2=more than 20 hours per week). Dependent variables include: marital happiness (0=not too happy/fairly happy, 1=very happy), a scale of positive partner interaction (calmly discuss something, laugh together, and tell each other about day, α= .75), and a negative interaction scale (argue about house chores, leisure time, and affection, α= .61). Control variables include demographic characteristics and employment factors, such as duration of work hours, work schedule, and worker’s wage. The study conducts a serious of pooled regression models, OLS for partner interaction scales and logistic regression for marital happiness. The standard error was adjusted for the non-independence observations. Mediating role of partner interactions is also examined.

Results. Descriptively, 58 and 19 percent of sample reported having flexible schedule and using flexible place, respectively. Multivariate results show that availability of flexible schedule is associated with greater marital happiness (OR=1.10, p<.05), higher positive interaction (Coef=0.02, p<.01), and higher negative interaction (Coef=0.03, p<.05). Flexible place is associated with greater martial happiness (OR=1.16, p<.01) and higher positive interaction (Coef=0.03, p<.001), but not significantly related to negative partner-interaction. The result also finds that the association between flexibility and martial happiness is partially explained by positive partner-interaction.

Implication. Overall, the study finds that workplace flexibility contributes to employed women’s marital wellbeing and the association is explained by positive interaction. Moreover, flexible schedule may facilitate both positive and negative partner-interactions, partially supporting mixed findings from prior research. The author will discuss the implications of findings to promote workplace flexibility in the context of work-family policy. Also, the implication of unanticipated consequences of flexibility on marital wellbeing will be discussed.