Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) have long been heralded as antecedent to numerous positive organizational attitudes and outcomes. However, results on FWAs benefits are mixed which may be due to differences in employee characteristics. Not all individuals may desire such arrangements. This can confound group comparisons and may bias the results used in the development of human resource development (HRD) theory.
The Solution
Propensity score analysis is a statistical approach that utilizes covariates to match participants (e.g., FWAs vs. non-FWAs) on their likelihood of group assignment. Once matched, these differences are mitigated thus improving the ability to more precisely estimate program effects.
The Stakeholders
The intended audience for this article includes HRD scholars and scholar-practitioners interested in reducing non-equivalent group design bias in the context of flexible working arrangements and other HRD-related theory.
AlagarajaM. (2013). Mobilizing organizational alignment through strategic human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 16, 74-93.
2.
BattR.ValcourP. M. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family outcomes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 42, 189-220.
3.
BradfieldR. M. (2008). Cognitive barriers in the scenario development process. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 198-215.
4.
CadsbyC. B.SongF.TaponF. (2007). Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 387-405.
5.
CaliendoM.KopeinigS. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31-72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
6.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
7.
Den DulkL.GroeneveldS.Ollier-MalaterreA.ValcourM. (2013). National context in work-life research: A multi-level cross-national analysis of the adoption of workplace work-life arrangements in Europe. European Management Journal, 31, 478-494.
8.
DewettinckK.RemueJ. (2011). Contextualizing HRD in comparative research: The role of the Cranet network. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 37-49.
9.
DunnM. G.O’BrienK. M. (2013). Work–family enrichment among dual-earner couples: Can work improve our family life?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 634-640.
10.
FreedmanD. A.BerkR. A. (2008). Weighted regressions by propensity scores. Evaluation Review, 32, 392-409.
11.
FriedmanS. D.ChristensenP.DeGrootJ. (2000). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum gain. Harvard Business Review on work and life balance, 1, 1-30.
12.
FrinckeJ. (2007). 2007 Job satisfaction: A survey report by the Society for Human Resource Development. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
13.
GenzA.BretzF.MiwaT.MiX.LeischF.ScheiplF.HothornT. (2014). mvtnorm: Multivariate Normal and t Distributions [R package version 0.9-9997]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvtnorm
14.
GreenC.KlerP.LeevesG. (2010). Flexible contract workers in inferior jobs: Reappraising the evidence. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48, 605-629.
15.
GreenhausJ. H.PowellG. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
16.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
HoD.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199-236.
18.
HoltonE. F.III. (2002). The mandate for theory in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 3-8.
19.
KatouA. A.BudhwarP. S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRD policies and organisational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector. European Management Journal, 28, 25-39.
20.
McNallL. A.MasudaA. D.NicklinJ. M. (2009). Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. The Journal of Psychology, 144, 61-81.
21.
McNallL. A.NicklinJ. M.MasudaA. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 381-396.
22.
NeymanJ. S. (1923). Statistical problems in agricultural experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 2, 107-180.
23.
NimonK. (2015). Secondary Data Analyses From Published Descriptive Statistics: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17, 26-39.
24.
NimonK.OswaldF. L. (2013). Understanding the results of multiple linear regression: Beyond standardized regression coefficients. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 650-674.
25.
ParasuramanS.GreenhausJ. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well-being among two-career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 339-356.
26.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
27.
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [R Foundation for Statistical Computing]. Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-project.org
28.
ReioT. G.Jr. (2010a). The ongoing quest for theory-building research methods articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 223-225.
29.
ReioT. G.Jr. (2010b). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 405-411.
30.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
31.
RubinD. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 668-701.
32.
RubinD. B. (2002). The ethics of consulting for the tobacco industry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 11, 373-380.
33.
ShadishW. R.SteinerP. M. (2010). A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn & Infant Nursing Reviews, 10, 19-26.
34.
Ten BrummelhuisL. L.Van Der LippeT. (2010). Effective work-life balance support for various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49, 173-193.
35.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 90-118.
36.
TorracoR. J. (2004). Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 171-188.
37.
WestS. G.ThoemmesF. (2010). Campbell’s and Rubin’s perspectives on causal inference. Psychological Methods, 15, 18-37.
38.
WrightP. M.BoswellW. R. (2002). Desegregating HRD: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247-276.
39.
WrightP. M.GardnerT. (2003). The human resource-firm performance relationship: Methodological and theoretical challenges. In HolmanD.WallT. D.CleggC. W.SparrowP.HowardA. (Eds.), The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices (pp. 311-328). London, England: John Wiley.
40.
ZientekL. R.ThompsonB. (2009). Matrix summaries improve research reports: Secondary analyses using published literature. Educational Researcher, 38, 343-352.
