The effectiveness of a flexi work culture is contingent upon organizational and contextual conditions, including work design, team dynamics, career concerns, and supervisory support. Prior research remains fragmented and context-dependent, frequently noting inconsistent policy utilization and variation in flexibility practices. In the insurance sector, robust empirical evidence linking flexible work culture to employee outcomes across sociodemographic contexts remains limited, underscoring the need for systematic investigation.
Objective
This study examines the impact of supervisor and career support within a flexi-work culture on job performance, while also investigating demographic variations in employees’ perceptions of support in India's insurance sector.
Method
An exploratory, cross-sectional quantitative design was employed. Data were collected from 283 employees of IRDA-listed insurance firms using a structured online questionnaire, which employed validated scales from1 and.2 Analyses were performed using SPSS v26 and SmartPLS 4, employing t-tests, ANOVA, MANOVA, and PLS-SEM to test hypotheses and validate the model.
Results
Supervisor support showed a strong positive impact on job performance (β = 0.66, p < 0.05), while career support exhibited a weak negative relationship (β = –0.054). Demographic analysis revealed significant variations in perceived support based on gender, marital status, age, experience, and family structure. Flexitime and co-working emerged as the most preferred flexible options.
Conclusion
Supervisor support is a critical determinant of job performance in flexible work settings, whereas career support plays a limited short-term role. The findings extend the Work–Home Culture Model and Stress-Buffering Theory by integrating both support types into a unified FWC framework. Practically, insurance organizations should prioritize supervisor-driven initiatives and tailor flexible options to workforce demographics to enhance performance and retention.
DikkersJSEGeurtsSAEden DulkL, et al.Dimensions of work-home culture and their relations with the use of work-home arrangements and work-home interaction. Work Stress2007; 21: 155–172.
2.
PradhanRKJenaLK. Employee performance at workplace: conceptual model and empirical validation. Bus Perspect Res2017; 5: 69–85.
3.
AllenTDGoldenTDShockleyKM. How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychol Sci Public Interest2015; 16: 40–68.
4.
HemavathiGP. Flexibility culture, person–job fit, and job benefits as predictors of eudaimonic workplace well-being and turnover intention of employees. Prabandhan Indian J Manage2023; 16: 46–60. DOI: 10.17010/pijom/2023/v16i10/171900
5.
HillEJFerrisMMärtinsonV. Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues influence aspects of work and personal/family life. J Vocat Behav2008; 73: 190–206.
6.
KossekEEPichlerSBodnerT, et al.Workplace social support and work–family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work-specific supervisor and organizational support. Pers Psychol2011; 64: 289–313.
7.
YadavPBagriK. Flexible work culture: prospects and trends through a bibliometric and systematic review. IIM Ranchi J Manage Stud2025; 4: 183–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IRJMS-10-2024-0126
8.
AllenTDJohnsonRCKiburzKM, et al.Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Pers Psychol2013; 66: 345–376.
9.
ÇivilidağADurmazŞ. Examining the relationship between flexible working arrangements and employee performance: A mini review. Front Psychol. 2024;15. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1398309.
10.
DavidescuAAMApostuSAPaulA, et al.Work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance among Romanian employees—Implications for sustainable human resource management. Sustainability2020; 12. Doi: 10.3390/su12156086
11.
BloomNLiangJRobertsJ, et al.Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ2015; 130: 165–218.
12.
FacerRLWadsworthL. Alternative work schedules and work–family balance: a research note. Rev Public Pers Adm2008; 28: 166–177.
13.
KröllCNüeschS. The effects of flexible work practices on employee attitudes: evidence from a large-scale panel study in Germany. Int J Hum Resour Manag2019; 30: 1505–1525.
14.
MasudaADPoelmansSAYAllenTD, et al.FWA Availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: a comparison of three country clusters. Appl Psychol2012; 61: 1–29.
15.
WangBLiuYQianJ, et al.Achieving effective remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective. Appl Psychol2020; 70: 16–59.
16.
WeedenKA. Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the United States. Soc Sci Res2005; 34: 454–482.
17.
StraubCVinkenburgCJvan KleefM, et al.Effective HR implementation: the impact of supervisor support for policy use on employee perceptions and attitudes. Int J Hum Resour Manag2018; 29: 3115–3135.
18.
ThomasLTGansterDC. Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. J Appl Psychol1995; 80: 6–15.
19.
MaunoSRuokolainenM. Does organizational work–family support benefit temporary and permanent employees equally in a work–family conflict situation in relation to job satisfaction and emotional energy at work and at home?J Fam Issues2017; 38: 124–148.
20.
SaleemFMateouS. How glass ceiling perceptions affect job performance: Finding the missing link through career satisfaction and work–life balance support. J Organ Eff People Perform2025; 12: 1031–1052.
21.
PeretzHFriedYLeviA. Flexible work arrangements, national culture, organisational characteristics, and organisational outcomes: a study across 21 countries. Hum Resour Manag J2018; 28: 182–200.
22.
BeigiMShirmohammadiMStewartJ. Flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Hum Resour Dev Rev2016; 15: 294–311.
SharmaPKMisraRKMishraP. Job satisfaction scale: adaptation and validation among Indian IT (information technology) employees. Glob Bus Rev2017; 18: 703–718.
25.
Cegarra-LeivaDSánchez-VidalMECegarra-NavarroJG. Understanding the link between work-life balance practices and organisational outcomes in SMEs: the mediating effect of a supportive culture. Pers Rev2012; 41: 359–379.
26.
EatonSC. If you can use them: flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Ind Relat Berkeley2003; 42: 145–167.
27.
AndersonSECoffeyBSByerlyRT. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. J Manage2002; 28: 787–810.
28.
CaponeVSchettinoGMarinoL, et al.The new normal of remote work: Exploring individual and organizational factors affecting work-related outcomes and well-being in academia. Front Psychol2024; 15. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1340094
29.
EshunENKSegbenyaM. Modelling the mediating role of work-life balance on the relationship between work arrangement and employee performance in higher education. SAGE Open2024; 14: 21582440241263447. DOI: 10.1177/21582440241263447
30.
PasBPetersPEisingaR, et al.Explaining career motivation among female doctors in The Netherlands: the effects of children, views on motherhood and work-home cultures. Work Employ Soc2011; 25: 487–505.
31.
NaqshbandiMMKabirIIshakNA, et al.The future of work: work engagement and job performance in the hybrid workplace. Learn Organ2024; 31: 5–26.
32.
WuLChenGHanP, et al.Your flexible work arrangements impacts my task performance: An attributional perspective. Pers Rev2025; 54: 1567–1582.
33.
Medina-GarridoJABiedma-FerrerJMRamos-RodríguezAR. Relación entre conciliación trabajo-familia, bienestar del empleado y desempeño laboral. Acad Rev Latinoam Adm2017; 30: 40–58.
34.
VirickMDaSilvaNArringtonK. Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: the role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Hum Relat2010; 63: 137–154.
35.
LottYAbendrothAK. The role of organizational family support and extended work–family policies in satisfaction with work–family balance. In: HirshIAbendrothAK (eds) Handbook on work–life balance and gender equality. Edward Elgar, 2020, pp.261–278. Doi: 10.4337/9781803929507.00020.
36.
MaunoSKinnunenURuokolainenM. Exploring work- and organization-based resources as moderators between work-family conflict, well-being, and job attitudes. Work Stress2006; 20: 210–233.
37.
ShockleyKMShenWDeNunzioMM, et al.Disentangling the relationship between gender and work–family conflict: an integration of theoretical perspectives using meta-analytic methods. J Appl Psychol2017; 102: 1601–1635.
38.
AjzenMTaskinL. The re-regulation of working communities and relationships in the context of flexwork: a spacing identity approach. Inf Organ2021; 31: 100364.
39.
GroenBAvan TriestSPCoersM, et al.Managing flexible work arrangements: teleworking and output controls. Eur Manag J2018; 36: 727–735.
40.
WilliamsPCathcartAMcDonaldP. Signals of support: flexible work for mutual gain. Int J Hum Res Manage2021; 32: 738–762.
41.
CairnsS. Flexible working arrangements: The challenges and benefits for organisations. 2004. link: norma.ncirl.ie/415/4/Sandra_Caims.pdf.
42.
GhoshPGoelGDuttaT, et al.Turnover intention among liquid knowledge workers: a study of Indian insurance professionals. J Glob Oper Strateg Sourc2019; 12: 288–309.
43.
ChungHvan der LippeT. Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: introduction. Soc Indic Res2020; 151: 365–381.
44.
GajendranRSHarrisonDA. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. J Appl Psychol2007; 92: 1524–1541.
45.
ThompsonCAProttasDJ. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. J Occup Health Psychol2005; 10: 100–118.
46.
SmithKT. Work-life balance perspectives of marketing professionals in generation Y. Services Marketing Quarterly2010; 31: 434–447.
47.
CostaGSartoriSÅkerstedtT. Influence of flexibility and variability of working hours on health and well-being. Chronobiol Int2006; 23: 1125–1137.
48.
ThompsonRJShockleyKMAllenTD. Gender and the use of flexible work arrangements: current trends and future directions. J Vocat Behav2024; 145: 103845.
49.
FullerSHirshCE. ‘Family-friendly’ jobs and motherhood pay penalties: the impact of flexible work arrangements across the educational spectrum. Work Occup2019; 46: 3–44.
50.
ScholariosDVan der HeijdenB.Supervisor–subordinate age dissimilarity and its impact on supervisory ratings of employability: Does supportive learning context make a difference?Front Psychol2021; 12: 763746. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763746
51.
ZeffaneRMelhemSBBaguantP. The impact of job satisfaction, trust, gender and supervisor support on perceived organisational performance: an exploratory study in the UAE service sector. Int J Bus Excell2018; 14: 339–359.
52.
NaqshbandiMMIshakNAKabirI, et al.Thriving in the hybrid workspace: How task variety and self-control affect job performance. Manag Decis2025. DOI: 10.1108/MD-06-2024-1266
53.
BirdRC. Why don’t more employers adopt flexible working time?W Va L Rev2014; 118: 327. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2537988
54.
PetittaLGhezziV. Remote work and psychological distance: Organizational belongingness as a resource against work stressors and employee performance impairment and distress. Sustainability2025; 17: 1342. DOI: 10.3390/su17041342
55.
BerkeryEMorleyMJTiernanS, et al.On the uptake of flexible working arrangements and the association with human resource and organizational performance outcomes. Eur Manag Rev2017; 14: 165–183.
56.
SmitBWMaloneyPWMaertzCP, et al.Out of sight, out of mind? How and when cognitive role transition episodes influence employee performance. Hum Relat2016; 69: 2141–2168.
57.
HairJHollingsworthCLRandolphAB, et al.An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind Manag Data Syst2017; 117: 442–458.
58.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. UK: Pearson, 2014.
59.
EisingaRGrotenhuisMPelzerB. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, cronbach, or spearman-brown?Int J Public Health2013; 58: 637–642.
60.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
61.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci2015; 43: 115–135.
62.
HairJFHultGTMRingleC, et al.A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2019.
63.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMPodsakoffNP. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q2011; 35: 293–334.
64.
KellyELKalevA. Managing flexible work arrangements in US organizations: formalized discretion or ‘a right to ask’. Socio-Econ Rev2006; 4: 379–416.
65.
KossekEELautschBAEatonSC. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. J Vocat Behav2006; 68: 347–367.
66.
ChungHvan der HorstM. Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Hum Relat2018; 71: 47–72.
67.
ThompsonKHammondNLynchD, et al.Perceptions of gender equity among critical care and other health professionals: a cross-sectional survey. Aust Crit Care2024; 37: 265–272.
68.
BlauPM. Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inq1964; 34: 20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
69.
AllenTD. Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions. J Vocat Behav2001; 58: 414–435.
