This chapter reviews the available literature related to the research topic and questions.
First, the chapter presents the definitions of each variable; second, it introduces the different theories linked to each variable and, lastly, it explores the relationship among variables and discusses the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between flexible work arrangements and job satisfaction, and the relationship between flexible work arrangements and occupational commitment.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to the general attitude of an employee towards his organization (Chen & Fulmer, 2017), and is an important indicator of employee affection, and a powerful predictor of an employee’s commitment to employment. Hence, obtaining job satisfaction is very important for most people (Bücker, Furrer, Poutsma, & Buyens, 2014). However, job satisfaction may be subject to fluctuating loyalty declining even faster than it has been established. Organizations and supervisors need to pay attention to factors that may influence employee attitudes. Job satisfaction can extend to become part of life satisfaction. The nature of a workplace affects how employees feel about their job. If an individual values the job as an important part of his/her life, then his/her job satisfaction will influence his/her overall life satisfaction (Singh & Sinha, 2013).
The definition of job satisfaction can be interpreted differently according to different research purposes. Years ago, job satisfaction was thought as a kind of subjective feeling toward a job from individuals, but there was no explanation as to how the sense was transferred.
Hoppock (1935) defined it as “any combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say I am satisfied with my job”
(p. 47). Vroom (1964) defined job satisfaction as “affective orientations on the part of individuals toward work roles which they are presently occupying” (p.99). However, the most common definition in organizational research is Locke’s (1976), who defines job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state derived from the appraisal of one's work or work experiences” (p. 1304). In general, job satisfaction refers to an individual's overall emotional orientation towards the current job role (Kalleberg, 1977), and is a measure of how satisfied employees are with their jobs, whether they like their jobs or the personal aspects or aspects of their jobs, such as the nature of their work or their supervision.
In the development of organizational psychology, researchers kept examining the factors that can influence and trigger job satisfaction. Taber and Alliger (1995) explained that “how much employees enjoyed individual tasks within their role, their scores were moderately correlated to satisfaction with the work itself, and associated (although weakly) with global job satisfaction” (p. 101). Spector (1997) stated that job satisfaction was “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (p. 2). From a global perspective, he thought job satisfaction could be illustrated in different ways, such as by the feelings and emotions of an employee based on work experiences or work relationships, and listedcommon factors that could influence job satisfaction. This was conducive to exploring and studying employees' attitudes towards various sides (aspects) through a one-aspect approach (Sellgren, Ekvall, & Tomson, 2008). Statt (2004) defined job satisfaction as “the degree to which employees were satisfied with the rewards they received from their work, especially regarding hypostatic motivation” (p. 78). Kaliski’s (2007) definition was that it was the critical factor in achieving recognition, income, promotion, and other goals that bring a sense of accomplishment” (p. 446).
Related Theories of Job Satisfaction
There is a strong overlap between theories of job satisfaction and theories of human
motivation. The most universal and salient theories in this area include Locke’s Range of Affect Theory and Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory. These theories are described and discussed below.
Locke’s range of affect theory. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory is discussed as the most
extensive model of job satisfaction. The main precondition of this theory is that satisfaction is predicated by the difference between a person's expectation of the job and what he has in the job (Locke, 1976). According to this theory, when a person's expectations are met or not met, the degree to which he attaches importance to a certain aspect of his work (e.g., work autonomy) can moderate his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his work. If a person values one aspect of their job, his satisfaction will be more affected than when he doesn’t. The satisfaction will be influenced positively when his expectations are met, and negatively when they are not.
Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory. Studies of job satisfaction often draw on
Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory. The theory, also known as the two-factor theory or dual-factor theory, attempts to elaborate the relationship between satisfaction and motivation in the workplace that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are derived from various motivation and hygiene factors (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). According to the theory, motivation factors are intrinsic to the job, such as challenging or stimulating work, recognition, a sense of personal achievement, opportunity for advancement, and personal growth. All such factors affect job satisfaction. Extrinsic factors to the job, such as wages and benefits, company policies and administration, good interpersonal relations, and social status, will induce dissatisfaction (Holmberg, Caro, & Sobis, 2017). In order to reduce dissatisfaction among employees, hygiene factors in the work environment must be evaluated, as they are the causes of dissatisfaction. Eradicating dissatisfaction, however, is one of the tasks of the two-factor theory; the other one is to increase satisfaction. Hence, motivation factors play an essential role in motivating employee performance and providing them with satisfaction (Singh & Sinha,
2013).
This explanation of the diversity in job satisfaction can be characterized as a “structural”
one, since worker attitudes are seen as a direct, one-to-one reflection of workplace structure.
This theory has a great practical value, because it provides employers with ways to improve workers’ satisfaction by manipulating the characteristics of jobs they often control (Kalleberg, 1977).
Table 2.1.
Dimensions of Motivation Factors and Hygiene Factors Motivation factors • Responsibilities
• Challenging or stimulating work
• Work autonomy
• Sense of personal achievements and growth
• Opportunity for advancements Hygiene factors • Salaries and benefits
• Organization policy and administration
• Interpersonal relationships
• Work status
• Working conditions
Note. Adapted from “Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory,” by F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B. B. Snyderman. 1959, The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.), p. 102. Copyright by Oxford, England. John Wiley & Sons.
Occupational Commitment
Besides job satisfaction, this researcher explores the relationship between FWA and occupational commitment. Findings from related studies indicate that occupational
commitment extends from organizational commitment and usually comes with job satisfaction.
In the field of organizational behavior or industrial and organizational psychology, occupational commitment refers to the psychological attachment of employees to their jobs.
Mindful of dynamic changes and a reassessment of the workplace and the work mindset, many of studies have been based on finding ways to improve worker’s feelings about their work in order to make them more committed to their careers and organizations. Notably, scholars have indicated that employee commitment may shift from an organization to one’s occupation (Johnson, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Yousaf, Sanders, & Abbas, 2015). However, younger generations tend to present themselves as less loyal than the Baby Boomers, who tended to stay with a company longer (Choo et al., 2016). Generation Y, growing up in the era with advanced technology and Internet, has meant that their social skills and emotional expressions are shaped by different lifestyles. This growing background leads to a diminished sense of commitment and loyalty to their organizations and their occupations (Lyons, 2011). The biggest challenge for Taiwan organizations today is to be able to inspire and employees and to maintain their commitment and loyalty.
Work/organizational commitment is multifaceted and has been conceptualized and measured in various ways by researchers and practitioners. Scholars have conducted extensive research on organizational commitment in the field of management, and the early work developed differing definitions of commitment. Generally, organizational commitment refers that an individual’s emotional and functional orientation to the organization in which he or she works (Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001). After long-term exploration and research, modern studies show more complex and multi-dimensional characteristics of organizational commitment.
According to Salancik (1977), organizational commitment is “a psychological state, which explains the relationship between employees and the organization, and the meaning of the decision to stay in the organization” (p. 22). Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979) defined
organizational commitment as “a strong belief and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, with a willingness to put considerable efforts into representing the organization, and a strong desire to stay in the organization.” Additionally, occupational commitment is conceptualized as one of the components of work commitment, and refers to an individual’s identification to his/her occupation and his/her desire to keep it after an assessment of viable alternatives (Blau, 1985; Kanste, 2011).
Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) theory is the most widespread theory about organizational commitment. They defined commitment as “a force to connect an individual to the behavior or relevance of one or more goals” (p. 67), and assumed the structure of organizational commitment as consisting of three discrete components: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. The concept of the triple component model is that when an employee is committed to an organization, these three different mindsets will construct an outcome. In addition, it has been noted that “the three ways a person commits to the organization should be viewed as components rather than types, because a person can use these three ways to develop commitments of the same type but with varying degrees of commitment” (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 13). It means that these three components do not have the nature of exclusivities, that is, they do not overlap and can coexist at the same time (Fang
& Jaw, 2014).
Affective commitment. Affective commitment means that an employee shows a positive
emotional attachment to an organization and this represents the “desire” component of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). An employee has affective commitment because he/she “wants to.” More specifically, when employees have a strong affective commitment, they tend to identify with the vision and goals of the organization and want to be
a part of that organization.
Continuance commitment. Continuance commitment refers to an employee’s
recognition of the costs associated with leaving the job. This represents the “need” component to stay with their jobs (Meyer & Allen, 1991). An employee has continuance commitment because he/she discerns that the cost or risk of leaving the organization is high. The fear of losing something valuable from the job could be the loss of financial benefits (good salary, employee benefits), social benefits (friendly colleagues), or professional benefits (desired job-positions, accumulated work experiences) (Fang & Jaw, 2014). However, employees must also consider the availability of alternatives, when they feel that the favorable costs are not good enough to keep them in the company.
Normative commitment. Normative commitment refers to an employee committing to
an organization and staying in that organization due to a sense of obligation. This is the last component of organizational commitment. An employee has normative commitment because he/she “ought to.” These feelings may come from personal pressure before and after joining the organization. A normative commitment could be triggered by many factors, such as an extensive amount of training organization invested in the employee, a financial bonus or advance received from the organization (Fang & Jaw, 2014). Normative commitment is higher in those organizations that value loyalty and systematically engage employees through rewards, incentives, and other strategies. Employees’ normative commitment can be improved through visible examples of employers’ commitment to employee welfare and benefits. The greater the employee’s commitment, the more significant is his/her contribution to the organization and the greater is his/her job satisfaction.
Based on a literature review, researchers have shown that organizational commitment reduces absenteeism and turnover, effectively improves employee job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational success (Currivan, 2000; Kim, 2005; Kim & Ryu, 2017;
Schmidt, 2007). Other factors, such as stress, empowerment, job insecurity and employability, and distribution of leadership, have also been proven to be associated with employees’ sense of commitment. Much of the literature on the relationship between work commitment and job satisfaction shows that employees develop a stronger commitment to their job if they are satisfied. Research on work attitudes in the US and Japan by Kalleberg and Lincoin (1990) showed that the correlation between organizational commitment and job satisfaction of Japanese workers was 0.73, while the correlation among Americans was higher at 0.81.
Another study by Dirani and Kuchinke (2011) has also shown that there is a strong correlation between work commitment and job satisfaction, claiming that job satisfaction could be seen as a reliable predictor of commitment.
In order to achieve greater organizational commitment among employees, employers must assist their employees to value and increase their organizational involvement. The more valued employees feel they are as part of the organization, the more likely they are to work with their employers (Choo et al., 2016). In particular, we all know that generation Y employees have less commitment and loyalty to their employers, but they dominate the labor force currently, so human resource managers should make more effort to retain a good quality workforce (Gratton, 2013). This study focuses on one aspect of occupational commitment, that is, an individual’s affective commitment to work. When an individual has a strong occupational commitment, it is harder for him/her to change jobs.
Flexible Work Arrangements
The development of the economy and the progress of society have inevitably caused changes to the business work model. When working hours become longer and longer, leading to increased workloads, job insecurity, personal stress and the rising cost of living (financial stress), people begin to perceive the balance between work and life (Lu, 2011). As a solution
to reduce work-life conflicts and improve work-life balance, FWA have become increasingly popular around the world (Joiner & Bakalis, 2006). The purpose of FWA aims to support workers in reconciling work with other aspects of their life (Dickens, 2006). According to the Families and Work Institute (FWI), workers expect to gain more flexibility in the workplace, and the requests for FWA increase each year (Galinsky & Backon, 2009). There is a recent FWI report from Galinsky and Backon (2009) indicating that approximately 86% of employees think that workplace flexibility is important in so far as it assists them in managing work and life demands. There is a growing recognition that FWA may support the extension of working lives (Atkinson & Sandiford, 2015; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CIPD], 2012; Loretto, Vickerstaff, & White, 2009). FWA can provide helpful assistance to a wide range of employees, not only those who have family responsibilities, such as caring for children or the elderly, but also those who have other non-work concerns, such as continuing education or participation in volunteer activities (Chen & Fulmer, 2017; Greenberg & Landry, 2011). FWA enable workers to determine the best way to allocate time, attention, and energy resources to various domains (Allen et al., 2012). As a consequence, employees with FWA can have personal control over the choice of working hours or places, thus able to balance work and non-work responsibilities.
While there is no specific definition, the idea of FWA generally refers to giving employees work autonomy and personal control over their work, allowing them to decide when, where, or how much work they do (Glass & Estes, 1997; Kelly & Moen, 2007; Yaghi, 2016). More specifically, FWA imply work options that permit flexibility, including “where” to complete work (often referred to as telecommuting or flexplace) and/or “when” to complete work (often referred to as scheduling flexibility or flextime) (Rau & Hyland, 2002). Recently, telecommuting, flextime, and flexplace, have been implemented to help employees achieve a work-life balance (Lim & Teo, 2000). Employees with FWA may work irregular hours, have
different schedule, or work in various locations (Greenberg & Landry, 2011).
Situation in Asia
Dikkers, Geurts, den Dulk, Peper, & Kompier (2004) found that the pre-existing workplace culture may influence actual contact with, or use of FWA, because FWA is usually psychological in nature and informal in execution, and this may have nothing in common with official policies (Behson, 2005; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Timms et al., 2014). However, Asian companies may benefit from the implementation of FWA, as the culture in the region is relationship-oriented, and employees may be attracted to companies that have a caring organizational culture (Anell & Hartmann, 2007). The provision of autonomy and allowances in determining working hours and taking brief leaves for personal and family affairs can provide workers with a sense of autonomy and can also be interpreted as organizational or supervisory support, especially for Chinese workers who are generally unable to obtain work autonomy and personal control (Lu, Wu, & Cooper, 1999; Lu, Kao, Chang, Wu, & Cooper, 2008). If a company implements FWA as a job resource, in order to help employees coordinate their work and life obligations, then the company may be regarded as a caring and supportive employer, and this caring can increase the retention of employees and advertise the fact that a company trusts and respects its employees (Anell & Hatmann, 2007).
Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R Model)
The perspective that FWA effectively alleviates the conflict between individual work and life is based on the resource theory (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2012; Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Goode, 1960). Flexibility is considered as a valuable resource that allows employees to perceive personal control and autonomy at work. As a job resource, FWA represent an organizational strategy that benefit employees, and avoid work-life conflicts caused by the exhaustion of resources by employees in order to cope with multiple roles (Allen, 2001; Brough et al., 2005).
Initially, the JD-R model is a theoretical framework that specifies the interaction between requirements/demands and resources, and predicts organizational outcomes (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). It assumes that a healthy balance between positive (resource) and negative (demand) job characteristics impacts positively on employees’ health and well-being (Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006). Two different underlying psychological processes play essential roles in the development of job-related strain and motivation: one is the health impairment process, and the other is the motivational process (Albrecht & Anglim, 2017). The JD-R theory applies to various occupational environments under consideration compared to other theories, regardless of the specific needs and resources involved, because job demands and job resources constitute an overall model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014;
Demerouti & Bakker, 2011).
Job demand. Job demands are defined as “those physical, social, or organizational
aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 508). When employees receive heavy work demands, physical and psychological costs, such as fatigue and irritability, may result. According to meta-analytic results, job demands, such as work overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, and emotional demands, can have a negative impact on employees' health, well-being and performance (Alarcon, 2011; Albrecht & Anglim, 2017;
Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). However, employees can recover from the extra effort and costs associated with mobilizing job resources through taking breaks, changing tasks, engaging in less demanding activities, or gaining work flexibility (Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Job resource. Job resources are defined as “those physical, social or organizational
aspects of a job, such as feedback, social support, development opportunities, that can reduce job demands, help employees achieve work goals, and stimulate personal learning and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Personal resources are defined as the
positive self-evaluations related to resilience and refer to an individual’s sense of his/her ability to successfully control and influence his/her environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). When employees perceive themselves with sufficient resources and with work autonomy, they will produce positive personal and organizational outcomes, such as good work performance, job satisfaction, work engagement and work commitment (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014; Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, 2016). However, employees with limited resources manifest adverse outcomes, such as burnout, stress and depression, as well as turnover,
positive self-evaluations related to resilience and refer to an individual’s sense of his/her ability to successfully control and influence his/her environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). When employees perceive themselves with sufficient resources and with work autonomy, they will produce positive personal and organizational outcomes, such as good work performance, job satisfaction, work engagement and work commitment (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014; Knight, Patterson, & Dawson, 2016). However, employees with limited resources manifest adverse outcomes, such as burnout, stress and depression, as well as turnover,