Flexible work self-efficacy is crucial for employees in addressing work challenges and maintaining their physical and mental well-being.
Objective
This study aims to reveal the joint effects of multiple interrelated flexible work characteristics on employee self-efficacy in flexible work.
Methods
Based on the data from 239 questionnaires, the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method was used for variable calibration, necessary conditions analysis and configuration analysis.
Results
No singular work characteristic emerged as an indispensable prerequisite for achieving high self-efficacy in flexible work environments. Instead, configurations such as the “low-strain unbalanced type” formed by coupling high resources with low demands and the “positive balanced type” formed by coupling high resources with high demands led to high self-efficacy in flexible work. Conversely, the configuration termed “high-strain unbalanced type,” resulting from coupling high demands with low resources, led to non-high self-efficacy in flexible work.
Conclusions
The collection of flexible work characteristics affects employee self-efficacy in multiple paths and alternative relationships, and companies can improve employee self-efficacy in flexible work through diversified flexible work design according to organizational development requirements and endowment differences.
SogaLRBolade-OgunfodunYMarianiM, et al.Unmasking the other face of flexible working practices: a systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research2022; 142: 648–662.
2.
WangBLiuYQianJ, et al.Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Applied Psychology2021; 70: 16–59.
3.
BattistiEAlfieroSLeonidouE. Remote working and digital transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic: economic–financial impacts and psychological drivers for employees. Journal of Business Research2022; 150: 38–50.
4.
NijpHHBeckersDGGeurtsSA, et al.Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work-non-work balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health2012; 38: 299–313.
5.
TaskinLParmentierMStinglhamberF. The dark side of office designs: towards de-humanization. Organization Science2019; 34: 262–284.
6.
BellmannLHüblerO. Working from home, job satisfaction and work–life balance–robust or heterogeneous links?International Journal of Manpower2021; 42: 424–441.
7.
CechEAO’ConnorLT. Like second-hand smoke’: the toxic effect of workplace flexibility bias for workers’ health. Community, Work & Family2017; 20: 543–572.
8.
KüçükkayaBKahyaoğlu SütH. The relationship between Turkish women’s self-efficacy for managing work-family conflict and depression, anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a web-based cross-sectional study. Work2022; 73: 1117–1124.
9.
StaplesDSHullandJSHigginsCA. A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science1999; 10: 758–776.
10.
RaghuramSWiesenfeldBGarudR. Technology enabled work: the role of self-efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior2003; 63: 180–198.
11.
LapierreLMVan SteenbergenEFPeetersMC, et al.Juggling work and family responsibilities when involuntarily working more from home: a multiwave study of financial sales professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior2016; 37: 804–822.
12.
KadukAGenadekKKellyEL, et al.Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work: insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community, Work & Family2019; 22: 412–442.
13.
SchulzeJKrummSEidM, et al.The relationship between telework and job characteristics: a latent change score analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Psychology2024; 73: 3–33.
14.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review1977; 84: 191–215.
15.
ShengZZhangYHanQ, et al.Job autonomy and employee well-being: the roles of sense of work meaning and self-efficacy. Journal of Human Resource Management2022; 10: 49–55.
16.
BanduraACioffiDTaylorCB, et al.Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1988; 55: 479–488.
17.
Van HootegemASverkeMDe WitteH. Does occupational self-efficacy mediate the relationships between job insecurity and work-related learning? A latent growth modelling approach. Work & Stress2022; 36: 229–250.
18.
CoffeePReesT. The main and interactive effects of immediate and reflective attributions upon subsequent self-efficacy. European Journal of Sport Science2009; 9: 41–52.
19.
EzellHFOdewahnCABeadlesNAIII. An analysis of perceived competence among managers in human service organizations. The Clinical Supervisor. 1993; 11: 189–201.
20.
DemeroutiEBakkerABNachreinerF, et al.The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology2001; 86: 499–512.
21.
SardeshmukhSRSharmaDGoldenTD. Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: a job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment2012; 27: 193–207.
22.
RihouxBRaginCC. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2008.
23.
RaginCC. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2014.
24.
FurnariSCrillyDMisangyiVF, et al.Capturing causal complexity: heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review2021; 46: 778–799.
25.
PutnamLLMyersKKGailliardBM. Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations2014; 67: 413–440.
26.
YunusSMostafaAMS. Flexible working practices and job-related anxiety: examining the roles of trust in management and job autonomy. Economic and Industrial Democracy2022; 43: 1340–1368.
27.
HeidenMWidarLWiitavaaraB, et al.Telework in academia: associations with health and well-being among staff. Higher Education2021; 81: 707–722.
28.
MüllerTNiessenC. Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking. Journal of Organizational Behavior2019; 40: 883–898.
29.
MazmanianMOrlikowskiWJYatesJ. The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science2013; 24: 1337–1357.
30.
ChesleyN. Technology use and employee assessments of work effectiveness, workload, and pace of life. Information, Communication & Society2010; 13: 485–514.
31.
MacheSServatyRHarthV. Flexible work arrangements in open workspaces and relations to occupational stress, need for recovery and psychological detachment from work. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology2020; 15: 1–11.
32.
KröllCNüeschSFoegeJN. Flexible work practices and organizational attractiveness in Germany: the mediating role of anticipated organizational support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management2021; 32: 543–572.
33.
AllenTDJohnsonRCKiburzKM, et al.Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology2013; 66: 345–376.
34.
ThomasGFKingCLBaroniB, et al.Reconceptualizing E-mail overload. Journal of Business and Technical Communication2016; 20: 252–287.
35.
SarbuM. The role of telecommuting for work-family conflict among German employees. Research in Transportation Economics2018; 70: 37–51.
36.
BakkerABDemeroutiE. Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology2017; 22: 273–285.
37.
Ter HoevenCLVan ZoonenW. Flexible work designs and employee well-being: examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and Employment2015; 30: 237–255.
38.
GajendranRSHarrisonDA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology2007; 92: 1524–1541.
39.
KelliherCAndersonD. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations2010; 63: 83–106.
40.
RuitenburgMMFrings-DresenMHSluiterJK. The prevalence of common mental disorders among hospital physicians and their association with self-reported work ability: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research2012; 12: 1–7.
41.
MihalcaLLucia RatiuLBrendeaG, et al.Exhaustion while teleworking during COVID-19: a moderated-mediation model of role clarity, self-efficacy, and task interdependence. Oeconomia Copernicana2021; 12: 269–306.
42.
NordenmarkMVinbergS. Working from home, work/life conflict and mental wellbeing in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work2024; 78: 295–304.
43.
PeasleyMCHochsteinBBrittonBP, et al.Can’t leave it at home? The effects of personal stress on burnout and salesperson performance. Journal of Business Research2020; 117: 58–70.
44.
HokkeSBennettsSKCrawfordS, et al.Does flexible work ‘work’in Australia? A survey of employed mothers’ and fathers’ work, family and health. New Technology, Work and Employment2021; 24: 488–506.
45.
LapierreLMAllenTD. Control at work, control at home, and planning behavior: implications for work–family conflict. Journal of Management2012; 38: 1500–1516.
46.
DelanoeijeJVerbruggenMGermeysL. Boundary role transitions: a day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Human Relations2019; 72: 1843–1868.
47.
Van Dorssen-BoogPVan VuurenTDe JongJ, et al.Healthcare workers’ autonomy: testing the reciprocal relationship between job autonomy and self-leadership and moderating role of need for job autonomy. Journal of Health Organization and Management2022; 36: 212–231.
48.
ChenYFulmerIS. Fine-tuning what we know about employees’ experience with flexible work arrangements and their job attitudes. Human Resource Management2018; 57: 381–395.
49.
ThompsonRJPayneSCTaylorAB. Applicant attraction to flexible work arrangements: separating the influence of flextime and flexplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology2015; 88: 726–749.
50.
GalantiTGuidettiGMazzeiE, et al.Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine2021; 63: e426.
51.
WangPWalumbwaFO. Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: the moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology2007; 60: 397–427.
52.
YuYWangYZhangJ. Relationship between work–family balance and job satisfaction among employees in China: a moderated mediation model. PsyCh Journal2017; 6: 194–204.
53.
MasudaADPoelmansSAAllenTD, et al.Flexible work arrangements availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: a comparison of three country clusters. Applied Psychology2012; 61: 1–29.
54.
AzarSKhanAVan EerdeW. Modelling linkages between flexible work arrangements’ use and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research2018; 91: 134–143.
55.
BakkerABDemeroutiE. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology2007; 22: 309–328.
56.
KarasekRAJr. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979; 24: 285–308.
57.
SimsekZVeigaJF. A primer on internet organizational surveys. Organizational Research Methods2001; 4: 218–235.
58.
PetersonMFSmithPBAkandeA, et al.Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: a 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal1995; 38: 429–452.
59.
SinghJVerbekeWRhoadsGK. Do organizational practices matter in role stress processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing1996; 60: 69–86.
60.
GreenhausJHZiegertJCAllenTD. When family-supportive supervision matters: relations between multiple sources of support and work–family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior2012; 80: 266–275.
61.
SpreitzerGM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal1995; 38: 1442–1465.
62.
HoughtonJDDawleyDDiLielloTC. The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): a more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies2012; 7: 216–232.
63.
BledowR. Managing innovation successfully: the value of contextual fit. 2009.
64.
MatthewsRABarnes-FarrellJLBulgerCA. Advancing measurement of work and family domain boundary characteristics. Journal of Vocational Behavior2010; 77: 447–460.
65.
FissPC. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal2011; 54: 393–420.
66.
RaginCC. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2009.
67.
PodsakoffPMOrganDW. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management1986; 12: 531–544.
68.
VerhoefPCFransesPHHoekstraJC. The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: does age of relationship matter?Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science2002; 30: 202–216.
69.
DuYKimPH. One size does not fit all: strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research2021; 124: 272–285.
70.
SchneiderCQWagemannC. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
71.
CapatinaAMicuAMicuAE, et al.Country-based comparison of accommodation brands in social media: an fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research2018; 89: 235–242.
72.
PappasIOWoodsideAG. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management2021; 58: 102310.
73.
WhiteLLockettACurrieG, et al.Hybrid context, management practices and organizational performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Management Studies2021; 58: 718–748.
74.
ChenGGullySMEdenD. General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior2004; 25: 375–395.
75.
KimD-HWangCAhnHS, et al.English Language learners’ self-efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences2015; 38: 136–142.
76.
Puente-DíazR. Creative self-efficacy: an exploration of its antecedents, consequences, and applied implications. The Journal of Psychology2016; 150: 175–195.
77.
TengCCHuCMChangJH. Triggering creative self-efficacy to increase employee innovation behavior in the hospitality workplace. The Journal of Creative Behavior2020; 54: 912–925.
78.
AllenTDGoldenTDShockleyKM. How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the Status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest2015; 16: 40–68.
79.
OngWJJohnsonMD. Toward a configural theory of job demands and resources. Academy of Management Journal2023; 66: 195–221.
80.
LePineJAPodsakoffNPLePineMA. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal2005; 48: 764–75.
