FAMILYetAND
Sharpe
al. / FULL-TIME
CONSUMERWORK
SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
Gender Differences in Use of
Alternative Full-Time Work Arrangements
by Married Workers
Deanna L. Sharpe
Joan M. Hermsen
Jodi Billings
University of Missouri–Columbia
Many firms now offer alternative work arrangements to help full-time employees resolve time
conflicts between work and family. The 1997 Current Population Survey supplement on work
schedules is used to investigate gender differences in personal, family, and work factors associated with flextime use among married full-time workers. Data collected from a local firm are also
used to explore gender differences in flextime and other alternative work arrangements, the reasons behind these choices, and the degree of satisfaction workers have with such schedules. Some
gender differences are found in the determinants of flextime use as well as in the reasons employees give for using other alternative work arrangements. Women are more likely to use alternative
work schedules to reduce work-family conflict, whereas men are more likely to use them to
enhance personal productivity.
Labor force participation rates of wives and mothers increased dramatically during the latter half of the 1900s. In 1960, 3 out of 10 wives
and 1 out of 4 married mothers of children under age 18 engaged in
paid employment (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). By 1997, 6 out of
10 wives and almost 3 out of 4 mothers of children under age 18 were
employed outside the home. The labor force participation rate for
mothers of preschoolers increased by 342% between 1960 and 1997
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).
The involvement in market work by wives and mothers was called
a “subtle revolution” (Smith, 1979) because it forced a rethinking of
societal norms regarding the division of work and family responsibilities and the role of employers in helping employees meet family time
demands. Initially, employed wives and mothers found themselves
working two shifts, one in the market and another in the home
(Hochschild, 1989). Considerable research has documented the disproportionate amount of time that employed married women, as
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, September 2002 78-111
© 2002 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
78
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
79
compared with their spouses, have devoted to household work (see,
e.g., Bryant & Zick, 1996; Fox & Nickols, 1983; Galinsky & Bond, 1998;
Hochschild, 1989; Nickols & Metzen, 1982; Sanik, 1981). In recent
years, however, there is some evidence that married men are beginning to devote less time to market work and more time to household
work. The labor force participation rate for married men older than
age 16 was about 11 percentage points lower in 1997 than it was in
1960 (77.7% versus 89.2%, respectively) (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1998). The 1997 National Survey of the Changing Workforce found
that, although married women still devote more time to household
tasks than married men do, the gap between their efforts has closed
somewhat during the past 20 years. In 1997, on a workday, men spent
2.1 hours on household tasks, whereas women spent 2.9 hours. These
figures represented an increase of nearly an hour per day for men and
a reduction of about half an hour per day for women compared with
1977 (Families and Work Institute, 1998). Employed married men
now report experiencing work-family conflict levels nearly equal to
those of their employed spouses, although the reasons given for the
conflict differ. Men cite excessive work hours, whereas women point
to incompatible work and family schedules (Milkie & Peltola, 1999;
Levine & Pittinsky, 1997; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980).
Many employers have implemented family-friendly workplace
policies designed to help harried workers meet conflicting work and
family demands. These workplace policy innovations often involve
alternative work arrangements that reconfigure the hours, place, and
schedule of employment. For example, in 1997, nearly 30% of
full-time workers older than age 16 reported being able to vary the
start and finish of their workday, an increase of 183% as compared
with 1991 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995, 1998).
Taking these trends together, it is clear that, contrary to historical
precedent, a larger proportion of married women, especially those
with preschool-age children, are entering and remaining in the labor
force. Married men, on the other hand, are increasing their daily
involvement with home and family. Employers are beginning to offer
their employees various options in setting a daily work schedule that
were not possible under a traditional work arrangement. What is not
known, however, is whether or not there are gender differences in
personal, family, and work characteristics that could motivate use of
an alternative work schedule. Also, it is not known if married men
and married women use alternative work schedules for the same purposes and if they are equally satisfied with such work arrangements.
80
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
No single data set addresses all of these issues. Therefore, this study
uses two data sources, complementary in their strengths and weaknesses, to examine gender differences in the use of alternative work
arrangements among married workers.
BACKGROUND
Employers seeking to recruit and retain employees are responding
to the work-family conflict that workers experience by instituting a
wide range of family-friendly workplace policies. Glass and Estes
(1997) define three types of “family responsive” workplace policies:
those that reduce work hours to provide more time for family responsibilities; those that allow flexibility in scheduling work hours, with
no reduction in the number of work hours; and those that provide
other resources to families (e.g., child care, elder care). This article
focuses on the first two of these policies, namely alternative work
arrangements.1
An alternative work arrangement is a permanent work arrangement that differs from the standard on-site, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 5-day-aweek schedule, with the exception of fixed-time, on-site shift work.
The alternative work arrangements considered in this study are job
sharing, flextime, compressed workweek, and flexiplace. These alternative work arrangements reconfigure the hours, place, or schedule
of employment. Because these arrangements can be viewed as familyfriendly benefits that are offered by the employer, we assume that an
employee makes a deliberate choice to participate (or not) in the
benefit.
Job sharing is a work arrangement that reduces work hours (policy
option 1). Two workers may share responsibility for one full-time job,
or two workers may share a job that has unrelated assignments for the
workers but the same budget for one full-time position (U.S. Department of Labor, 1989). Although recent estimates of job sharing are
lacking, Solomon (1994) reports that in the early 1990s, at least 30% of
large firms offered job sharing.
Flextime, compressed workweek, and flexiplace are alternative
work arrangements that maintain full-time hours but allow flexibility
in hours or location of work (policy option 2). Flextime or a flexible
schedule allows employees to choose their arrival and departure
times while being on the job during a core time set by the employer. In
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
81
1998, 27.6% of full-time employees worked a flexible schedule (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1998). A compressed workweek condenses the
traditional 5-day, 40-hour week into fewer days with longer work
hours per day. The most frequently used compressed work schedule
is the 12-hour day, where 3 days on the job are followed by 3 days off.
Other variations include working four 10-hour days or alternating
day and night shifts. Maiwald, Pierce, Newstrom, and Sunoo (1997)
report 20% of American workers use some form of compressed workweek. Flexiplace is working somewhere besides the office; most often
it is working at home. About 18% of the labor force does some jobrelated work at home (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Although this
is not a precise measure of flexiplace, the American Telecommuting
Association reports that about 10 million employees now communicate with their place of employment via phone, fax, Internet, or e-mail
(Williams, 1996).
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Job sharing, compressed workweeks, and flexiplace are relatively
new work arrangements, so less is known about their uses and outcomes. Flextime has been the focus of relatively more research than
other types of alternative work arrangements. Thus, the literature
review focuses on the consequences of flextime use and the characteristics of workers who use flextime.
Consequences of Flextime Use
The consensus of numerous studies conducted in both the private
and public sector and in a variety of occupational settings is that flexible schedules decrease absenteeism, reduce tardiness, decrease commuting time, and increase productivity (see Glass & Estes, 1997 for a
review; McGuire & Liro, 1986; Petersen, 1980; Ralston, 1990; Ronen &
Primps, 1980). Flexible schedules also improve worker morale and
increase job satisfaction (McGuire & Liro, 1986; Ralston, 1989; Ronen,
1984; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and
Neuman (1999), in a meta-analysis of flextime and work outcomes
research, found that although flextime leads to positive work-related
outcomes, effect size depends on the outcome in question and the
group analyzed. For example, flextime has a greater impact on
82
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
reducing absenteeism than on increasing productivity; and flextime
use affects work outcomes of blue-collar, service, and administrative
support workers but not of managers and professionals.
Flextime benefits extend beyond the workplace in the form of
increased family time, greater household production time, and
decreased work-family conflict (for a review, see Christensen &
Staines, 1990; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Ralston, 1990). Winett and
Neale (1980) found that flextime allowed federal government
employees to increase time spent with their families and lowered perceived difficulty in accomplishing family activities and household
chores. Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) compared levels of
work-family stress and family time for workers with a flextime schedule and workers with a standard schedule; workers on flextime experienced less work-family stress than standard-time employees did,
and 33% of flextime respondents reported spending more time with
family. Ralston (1990) interviewed 115 women 10 months after flextime was introduced in two workplaces in a southern state. More than
three fourths of the women on flextime schedules reported easier
coordination of work and family responsibilities. More than 60% of
flextime workers reported decreased absenteeism, and 40.5% indicated an increase in their work productivity due to flextime. Ezra and
Deckman (1996) found that among federal employees, parents with
flexible work schedules were more satisfied with their work-family
balance than were parents with standard work schedules.
Not all researchers would agree with these findings, however.
After analyzing data gathered from a nationally representative sample of workers, Galinsky, Bond, and Friedman (1996) concluded that
flextime policies did little to reduce work-family conflict for
employed parents. Wharton (1994) reached a similar conclusion in
her qualitative study of real estate agents, in which she argued that
“flexibility itself is not adequate for accommodating the demand of
families and wage work” (p. 189).
Characteristics of Flextime Workers
Although the benefits of flextime use have been well researched,
relatively little is known about which workers use flextime. Presser
(1989) and Mellor (1986) both used the Current Population Survey
(CPS), May 1985 supplement on work schedules, to assess characteristics of workers who have a flexible work schedule. Presser (1989)
found that among employed women, married women were more
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
83
likely to have flexible work schedules as compared with unmarried
women; mothers of school-age children were more likely than mothers of preschool-age children to use flexible work schedules. A
slightly higher percentage of men used flextime as compared with
women. However, a smaller proportion of men with children under
age 14 used flextime as compared with women with children under
age 14. These findings suggest that employed married men may use
flextime more than employed married women, but working mothers
will use flextime more than working fathers. Mellor (1986) also notes
that men were more likely to use flexible schedules, as were Whites
(as compared with Blacks and Hispanics) and those ages 35 to 55 or
older than 64. Finally, flexible schedules were used primarily by
employees in nonmanufacturing industries (Baltes et al., 1999).
An intriguing finding in the research on the characteristics of flextime users is the persistence of gender differences. Family-responsive
workplace policies have developed to a great degree in response to
women’s increased presence in the labor force (Armstrong-Stassen,
1998). Given the impetus for such policies, along with women’s continuing disproportionate share of domestic labor, one would expect
employed women to be more likely than employed men to use flextime. This is not the case. Research has consistently documented
men’s greater use of flextime (Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Mellor, 1986;
Presser, 1989). This gender difference exists across occupations,
industries, and the public and private sectors (“Flexible Work Schedules,” 1998).
The greater use of flextime by men is less surprising when one considers that men are more likely to be in jobs that afford greater autonomy (Adler, 1993). This autonomy may translate into an increased
ability to set their own hours. Gender differences in flextime use may
also reflect women’s perceptions (whether accurate or not) of
employers’ responses. Thompson, Beauvais, and Lyness (1999) report
that employees who perceive the organizational culture of their
workplace as family friendly and who have the support of managers
are more likely to use family-supportive programs. These findings
imply the converse may also be true. Women may be unwilling to ask
supervisors for permission to use flextime in unsupportive environments for fear that such a request will be interpreted as demonstrating
a lack of work commitment. Gender differences in flextime use may
also reflect unmeasured differences in the sorting of women and men
into firms that allow flextime use. Flextime policies are more likely to
be formalized in large organizations. Because women are more likely
84
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
to be employed by small firms, they may have less access to flextime
policies (Glass & Estes, 1997).
Many aspects of employment are gendered, including earnings
(England & Browne, 1992), authority (Wright, Baxter, & Birkelund,
1995), and work-related travel (Presser & Hermsen, 1996). Flextime
use may represent yet another dimension of the gendered workplace.
To the degree that flexibility in work hours is a desirable job characteristic, gender differences in flextime use may represent a continuing
gap in the quality of women’s and men’s employment and in the
chances that women can reduce work-family imbalance. This study
uses national survey data to compare the factors associated with married women’s and men’s use of flextime, augmenting and updating
the limited existing literature on flextime use and users. Data from a
local survey are then used to further explore gender differences in
flextime as well as other forms of alternative work arrangements.
Gender differences in uses for and satisfaction with those alternative
work arrangements are examined.
METHODS
No theory or conceptual framework was found in the literature
that explained the factors associated with use of alternative work
schedules. Consequently, in framing this study, it was reasoned that
employee decisions to participate in an alternative work schedule
would be influenced by factors in their personal and family life and in
their employment situation.
Two sets of data are used in this study. The 1997 CPS supplement
on work schedules provides information on the socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics of a representative sample of workers
across the United States. Although these data offer the advantages of
a national sample and generalizability, three major limitations are
present for this study. One, data are available on flexible schedules
but not on other alternative work arrangements. Two, no report of
reasons why an employee used a flexible schedule is given. Three,
workers using flextime do not evaluate that experience. To address
these issues, an exploratory survey of employees of a midwestern service industry was conducted. Although findings of this local survey
cannot be generalized to a larger population of workers, they provide
insight into reasons why employees use an alternative work schedule
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
85
and how employees evaluate such a schedule—issues that the CPS
does not address. Given the differences in the two surveys, the details
on the data, sample, and variables are reported separately for each
survey. The empirical analysis is then described.
CPS SUPPLEMENT ON WORK SCHEDULES
Data
Data from the CPS, May 1997 supplement on work schedules, are
used to address the question: What factors are associated with
employed married women’s and men’s use of flextime? The CPS is a
household sample survey of the noninstitutionalized civilian population of the United States (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998). Data
on work schedules were obtained from each person 15 years old or
older in the household who was currently employed.
Sample
Individuals are included in the analysis if they are married and
employed full-time but not self-employed. Research indicates that the
largest gender difference in flextime use exists among married people
(“Flexible Work Schedules,” 1998); it is also reasonable to expect that
the needs and resources of single individuals differ from those of married individuals. It is important to note that the individuals selected
were not married to each other.
Part-time and self-employed workers were excluded to simplify
analysis. Reasons for selecting part-time or self-employment are not
known. Although some may opt for part-time work to gain schedule
flexibility, others may work part-time for substantially different reasons (e.g., desired full-time employment might not be available). The
same may be said for self-employment. Furthermore, the work-time
commitment of self-employment can vary widely, ranging from a few
hours to more than 40 hours per week. It did not seem reasonable to
presume that all part-time or self-employment reflected a decision to
increase schedule flexibility. The sample used in this study after all
selection rules were applied consisted of 7,837 women and
10,846 men.
86
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
Variables
The dependent variable is coded 1 if the respondent answered yes,
and 0 otherwise, to the question: Do you have flexible work hours that
allow you to vary or make changes in the time you begin and end
work? Several independent variables are included to account for variations in personal, family, and employment characteristics. Personal
characteristics include age, race, and education of the worker. Family
characteristics are measured as the number of household members,
presence and age of youngest child, and household income. Finally,
region, occupation, proportion of females in occupation, and public/private sector are the work characteristics. Measurement of these
variables is detailed in Table 1.
Age. Older workers generally have more work experience. Work
experience can translate into greater job autonomy, including the ability to set one’s own flexible work schedule. The relationship between
work experience and flextime use may be limited to men, however.
Older cohorts of women workers have typically encountered a
greater experience penalty than newer cohorts of workers; thus, older
women may in fact have less flexibility in setting their work schedules. Younger workers may be more likely to have young children and
hence have a greater need to use alternative work schedules to meet
work and family demands. When age of the youngest child is controlled, however, a positive association between age and flextime use
is expected.
Race. Non-Hispanic White women and men are probably more
likely to work a flexible work schedule, as non-Hispanic Whites generally have an advantaged position in the labor market. This advantage can translate into higher earnings, more authority, and perhaps
greater opportunity to work a flexible schedule.
Education. Workers with more education are expected to be more
likely to use flextime. Such workers may have greater knowledge of
flexible work arrangements, may be more effective in communicating
their need or desire to work such a schedule, and may be in authority
positions that give them the ability to set such a schedule.
Number of household members. Workers in larger households may
have more domestic time demands (e.g., child care, elder care) than
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
87
TABLE 1: Definition of Variables in the National Survey (CPS ) and the Local
Firm Survey
Variable
National Survey
Age
Continuous
Race and ethnicity
Education
Household size
Presence and
age of children
Annual household
income
Region of
residence
Occupation
Categorical
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Other
Hispanic
Categorical
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
College degree
Master’s or doctoral degree
Continuous
Categorical
No children under 18
Youngest child < 6
Youngest child 6 to 11
Youngest child 12 to 17
Categorical
< $10,000
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,000
$30,000 to $39,000
$40,000 to $49,000
$50,000 to $59,000
$60,000 to $74,999
> $75,000
Categorical
Northeast
South
West
Midwest
Categorical
Manager/Professional
Technical/Sales/
Administrative Support
Service
Operators/Fabricators/
Laborers
Local Survey
Categorical
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
—
Categorical
Less than high school
High school diploma
Some college
College degree
Master’s or doctoral degree
—
Categorical
No children under 18
Youngest child < 6
Youngest child 6 to 11
Youngest child 12 to 17
Categorical
< $10,000
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,000
$30,000 to $39,000
$40,000 to $49,000
$50,000 to $59,000
$60,000 to $74,999
> $75,000
—
Categorical
Professional
Management
Clerical Technical
Other
(continued)
88
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 1 Continued
Variable
Percentage female
in occupation
Class of worker
National Survey
Precision Production,
Craft, Repair
Continuous
Categorical
Federal government
worker
State or local
government worker
Private sector worker
Local Survey
—
—
other workers. Hence, both married men and women in larger households are expected to be more likely to use flextime.
Presence of child/age of youngest child. Parents with young children
rate flextime as an important family-supportive workplace policy
(Frone & Yardley, 1996) and are more likely to indicate they would
change jobs to have access to flextime (Galinsky et al., 1996). It is
hypothesized, therefore, that workers with young children will be
more likely to use flextime than workers with no children, as they will
have a greater need to balance work-family conflict through a flexible
schedule.
Annual household income. Annual household income is included to
account for a household’s ability to purchase labor and services to
replace own household production. Higher income households can
purchase labor and services that ease the double burdens of work and
family, reducing need for flextime schedules to meet family-related
demands. Lower income households, in contrast, may trade off
income in exchange for greater flexibility in work arrangements.
Region. Regional differences are hypothesized to exist in the type
and number of firms amenable to flexible work schedules. Glass and
Estes (1997) note that smaller firms are less likely to have formal policies for alternative work schedules. Because the South has smaller
average firm size as compared with other regions, it was expected that
firms in the South would be less likely to offer flextime. In contrast,
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
89
firms in the West are often perceived as relatively younger, more apt
to be innovative, risk-taking, and willing to offer employees alternative work schedules to attract the best and brightest workers.
Occupation. As the existing literature indicates, people employed in
managerial and professional occupations are expected to be more
likely to use flextime than will workers in manufacturing or service
jobs. Managerial and professional occupations provide more opportunities for worker autonomy and hence more opportunities to work
a flexible schedule.
Percentage female in occupation. This variable assesses the degree to
which women are overrepresented in a given occupation. Each occupation reported by survey respondents was assigned a number that
represented the percentage of women employed in that occupation.
The percentage figures corresponding to each occupation were calculated from the 1990 Census Equal Employment Opportunity file. For
example, 95% of registered nurses are female. Thus, for the registered
nurses in the sample, the variable percentage female in occupation
would be .95.
Previous research has demonstrated that female-dominated occupations offer lower wages, less prestige, and fewer opportunities for
workplace authority than do male-dominated occupations (Reskin &
Padavic, 1994). Although flextime is a policy that may disproportionately aid women as they balance work and family demands, workers
employed in female-dominated occupations may have less access to
flextime. That is, the gender composition of the occupation reflects the
supply of flextime. To the degree that flextime is an extra benefit or
reward provided by employers, it is likely that the occupations
women hold will not fall under the umbrella of such benefits, as
feminized occupations typically receive fewer extrinsic rewards.
Public/private sector. The Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1978 gave federal government
employees greater access to flexible work schedules as compared
with other government or private sector employees. Given the existence of federal legislation supporting the use of alternative work
schedules, federal public sector workers are expected to be more
likely to use flextime than other workers are.
90
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
LOCAL FIRM ALTERNATIVE WORK
ARRANGEMENTS SURVEY
Data
As noted, the CPS only provides information on flextime, which is
but one type of alternative work arrangement. To better understand
the reasons why workers use various alternative work arrangements
and their evaluations of such workplace policies, a survey was
developed and administered to employees of a large midwestern
service-based firm who currently use alternative work arrangements.2
Alternative work arrangements offered by this company include job
sharing, flextime, compressed workweek, and telecommuting (i.e.,
flexiplace). The survey obtained demographic information and asked
employees why they used an alternative work schedule and if the
experience had been positive or negative.
Sample
The survey was given only to those employees who, according to
human resources staff, were using an alternative work arrangement.
Of the 819 employees of the firm, 417 used an alternative work schedule. The response rate of 56% represented 235 usable surveys
returned. Results reported here focus on the 146 married participants
(111 women and 35 men). Because the business surveyed was predominately female, the relatively low number of men in the sample
was not a surprise. These individuals are not necessarily married to
someone in the sample.
Variables
Demographic questions regarding gender, education, and annual
household income were structured similar to those used in the CPS
(see Table 1). Age categories were used to protect employee anonymity and encourage report of the information. To indicate occupation,
employees were asked to check which category best described their
job: professional, management, clerical/technical, or other. These
occupational categories reflect the nature of the business surveyed.
Consequently, they are narrower in scope than the occupations
reported in the national CPS data.
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
91
Questions about race, ethnicity, and household size were excluded
to help protect respondent anonymity. The business surveyed was
not racially or ethnically diverse. Because virtually all respondents
were White, those who indicated a different race or ethnicity could be
easily identified. Similarly, knowledge of household size, when coupled with knowledge of other demographic characteristics, might
identify some respondents, especially those who had larger than
average households.
Employees were asked to indicate which alternative work arrangement they used: job sharing, flextime, compressed workweek, or
flexiplace. At this firm, job sharing occurs when two employees fill
one full-time position. Flextime refers to working hours other than the
firm’s traditional schedule while still covering a basic core time. Compressed workweek means employees work four 10-hour days or nine
days with one day off in a 2-week time period. Telecommuting
involved connecting to work from home via computer.
A list of reasons why an alternative work arrangement would be
chosen was developed based on existing research and the nature of
the business being surveyed. This list included child care, elder care,
children’s school schedule, exercise/recreation, commuting, I work
better in the morning, I work better later in the day, family obligations,
continuing education, health/medical appointments, employer
needs, personal needs, and other. Employees were asked to check all
items that applied and to specify items classified as “other.” 3
Several open-ended questions were asked to obtain more detail
about employee evaluations of such schedules. These questions were:
What is it about an alternative work schedule that you like better than
a traditional work schedule? Has the use of an alternative work
schedule been a positive or negative experience? What other comment do you have to add about your alternative work schedule?
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
To obtain a descriptive profile of employed married workers, the
sample drawn from the national CPS data was divided by gender into
those who did and did not work flextime. Within each gender group,
chi-square and t tests were used to identify significant differences in
the personal, family, and work characteristics of those who did and
did not use flextime.
92
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
The national CPS data were also used to examine gender differences in the factors associated with flextime. A logistic regression
model was used that included an indicator variable for gender (where
female = 1 and male = 0) and interacted gender with all other explanatory variables. Significant interaction effects indicated there were
gender differences in the determinants of flextime use. The log odds
coefficients, standard errors, and odds ratios are reported. The log
odds coefficients measure the change in the log odds given a one unit
change in the independent variable. Odds are easier to interpret than
log odds, however. To find the effect that personal, family, and work
characteristics had on the odds of flextime use, the exponent or antilogarithm of each logistic regression coefficient was computed. For
the exponentiated coefficients, a coefficient greater than 1 increases
the odds whereas a coefficient less than 1 decreases the odds. A coefficient equal to 1 leaves the odds unchanged. The distance of an
exponentiated coefficient from 1 indicates the size of the effect. Subtracting 1 from the exponentiated coefficient and multiplying the
result by 100 gives the percentage increase or decrease in the odds for
a unit change in the independent variable (DeMaris, 1992; Pampel,
2000).
The national CPS data focused flextime use, which is only one of a
number of possible alternative work schedules. Local survey data
were collected and examined to learn if there were gender differences
in the characteristics of married workers who used job sharing, compressed workweeks, or telecommuting in addition to flextime.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Descriptive Analysis of National CPS Data
on Flextime: Worker Profile
Table 2 reports differences by gender in the average personal, family, and work characteristics of those who worked a flexible schedule
and those who did not. For both married women and men, a significantly larger proportion of flextime workers were White, had relatively higher levels of education and income, smaller household size,
and residence in the Midwest or the West. Among employed married
women, a significantly larger proportion of those using a flextime
schedule had a preschool-age child and worked as a manager or professional or in technical, sales, or administrative support in either the
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
93
TABLE 2: Results of Bivariate Analysis of Differences, by Gender, in Characteristics of Employed Married Flextime Users
Women
Yes
Flextime
Personal characteristics
Age
Race and ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Other
Hispanic
Education
Less than high school
High school
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s or doctoral degree
Family characteristics
Household size
Presence and age of children
No child
Age of youngest child < 6
Age of youngest child 6 to 11
Age of youngest child 12 to 17
Annual household income
< $10,000
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
> $75,000
Work characteristics
Region of residence
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
Occupation
Manager/professional
Technical/sales/
administrative support
Service
39.94
Men
No
Flextime
Yes
Flextime
No
Flextime
40.81
41.38
41.15
.845
.056
.046
.051
.794*
.077*
.049
.078*
.855
.045
.045
.054
.786
.070*
.039
.104*
.035
.309
.312
.227
.115
.077*
.354*
.280*
.193*
.093*
.053
.238
.254
.275
.177
.124*
.368*
.273*
.150*
.082*
3.282
3.351*
3.464
3.592*
.518
.200
.156
.124
.542
.169*
.147
.141*
.462
.258
.154
.124
.453
.257
.155
.134
.008
.035
.079
.127
.137
.152
.163
.296
.017*
.049*
.117*
.150*
.143
.152
.149
.219*
.014
.038
.086
.117
.141
.147
.152
.300
.020*
.071*
.137*
.164*
.151
.150
.138
.164*
.283
.181
.290
.244
.341
.191
.243*
.224
.288
.196
.265
.249
.318
.207
.242*
.231*
.405
.342*
.407
.199*
.465
.095
.429*
.103
.284
.050
.185*
.102*
(continued)
94
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 2 Continued
Women
Yes
Flextime
Operator/fabricator/laborer
Precision production/craft/repair
Percentage female in occupation
Class of worker
Federal government worker
State/local government worker
Private sector worker
No
Flextime
Men
Yes
Flextime
No
Flextime
.024
.009
.625
.103*
.020*
.668*
.129
.128
.286
.263*
.248*
.254*
.049
.149
.801
.028*
.246*
.725*
.049
.099
.850
.042
.151*
.805*
SOURCE: 1997 Current Population Survey supplement on work schedules.
*p < .05.
federal government or private sector. In contrast, for employed married men neither presence of children nor federal government
employment made a significant difference in flextime use. Interestingly, work in a female-dominated occupation was less likely to be
associated with having a flexible work schedule for married women
but more likely to be associated with having a flexible work schedule
for married men.
Role of Characteristics in Use of
Alternative Work Schedules: Evidence
From the National and the Local Survey
Results of the logistic regression analysis of the national CPS data
on flextime use are reported in Table 3. A likelihood ratio test of the
restrictions supported use of the gender interaction model. Findings
from the local survey are reported in Tables 4 and 5. To facilitate
broader understanding of the relationship between personal, family,
and work characteristics and participation in an alternative work
schedule, this section details findings from both surveys.
Personal Characteristics
Personal characteristics consisted of age, race, and education. Age
was not a significant factor in use of an alternative work schedule. In
the national survey, the mean age of married workers was 41. In the
local survey, the modal age category for married women workers was
35 to 39, whereas for married male workers it was 30 to 34. Clearly,
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
95
TABLE 3: Logistic Regression of Flextime Use Among Employed Married
Workers
Main Effects
Coefficient
Intercept
Personal characteristics
Gender
Age
Race and ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (omitted)
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic other
Hispanic
Education
Less than high school
High school (omitted)
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s or Ph.D.
Family characteristics
Household size
Presence and age of children
No child (omitted)
Age of youngest child < 6
Age of youngest child 6 to 11
Age of youngest child 12 to 17
Annual household income
< $10,000
$10,000 to $19,999
Odds
Ratio
Interactive Effects
Coefficient
Odds
Ratio
.301
(.192)
–.255
(.306)
–.003
(.002)
.774
.997
.002
(.004)
1.002
–.202*
(.091)
.049
(.111)
–.303***
(.086)
.817
.041
(.140)
–.037
(.171)
.086
(.143)
1.043
–.153
(.095)
.153*
(.061)
.405***
(.073)
.449***
(.092)
1.050
.738
.964
.964
1.090
.858
–.082
(.171)
.921
1.166
–.039
(.093)
–.224*
(.112)
–.168
(.147)
.961
1.500
1.567
.799
.845
–.041*
(.020)
.960
.008
(.033)
1.008
.007
(.064)
–.011
(.072)
–.056
(.074)
1.007
.227*
(.107)
.165
(.114)
.004
(.117)
1.255
–.111
(.174)
–.407***
(.118)
.989
.946
.895
.665
–.627
(.333)
–.026
(.197)
1.180
1.004
.534
.974
(continued)
96
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 3 Continued
Main Effects
Coefficient
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
> $75,000 (omitted)
Work characteristics
Region of residence
South (omitted)
Northeast
Midwest
West
–.344***
(.089)
–.373***
(.082)
–.231**
(.077)
–.349***
(.074)
–.284***
(.072)
–.136*
(.064)
.067
(.058)
.124*
(.062)
Occupation
Manager/professional (omitted)
Technical/sales/
–.184**
administrative support
(.064)
Service
–1.034***
(.108)
Operator/fabricator/laborer
–1.353***
(.085)
Precision production, craft,
–1.533***
repair
(.088)
Percentage female in occupation –1.152***
(.124)
Class of worker
Federal government worker (omitted)
State/local government worker
–.444***
(.125)
Private sector worker
.338**
(.108)
Number of cases
18,683
Odds
Ratio
.709
.689
.793
.705
.753
.873
1.070
1.132
.832
.355
.258
.216
.316
.642
1.402
Interactive Effects
Coefficient
–.095
(.146)
.019
(.129)
.008
(.121)
.208
(.115)
.156
(.112)
.031
(.105)
.175
(.091)
.148
(.098)
.259**
(.094)
1.105***
(.154)
–.184
(.185)
–.024
(.323)
.226
(.170)
–.531**
(.201)
–.527**
(.178)
SOURCE: 1997 Current Population Survey supplement on work schedules.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Odds
Ratio
.909
1.019
1.008
1.231
1.170
1.031
1.192
1.160
1.297
3.021
.831
.976
1.254
.588
.591
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
97
both surveys captured a predominately midlife sample. Thus, it could
be assumed that the workers surveyed faced similar life-cycle events
and challenges.
Racial and ethnic differences were assessed only in the national
survey. As seen in Table 3, there was no significant gender difference
in the effects of race or ethnicity on flextime use. For either gender,
being Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black was associated with significantly lower odds of working a flexible schedule as compared to
being non-Hispanic White. Thus, the expectation that non-Hispanic
Whites would be significantly more likely to work a flextime schedule
was supported.
Overall, for both genders, higher education was systematically
related to greater use of flextime as expected (see Table 3).
Multivariate analysis of the national CPS data indicted that, for both
women and men, any level of education beyond high school results in
greater odds of flextime use. Gender differences in odds of flextime
use were noted only for workers with a bachelor’s degree. Men with a
bachelor’s degree were about 50% more likely to use flextime than
men with a high school degree. The odds of flextime use for women
with a bachelor’s degree were about 20% higher than those for
women with a high school degree.
Local survey results for education differed from those obtained in
the national survey, probably due to the nature of the business surveyed (see Table 4). Many of the women using an alternative work
schedule were employed in occupations that did not require education beyond high school. Many of the men who worked an alternative
work schedule, in contrast, were employed in occupations that
required a college degree. Thus, it was not surprising that significantly more married female workers had only a high school education, whereas significantly more married male workers had a college
degree. Taken together, results of both surveys suggest that, in some
settings, higher education levels may indeed be associated with
greater autonomy and ability to set one’s own schedule. But lower
levels of education may not always limit access to an alternative work
schedule.
Family Characteristics
Household size, presence and age of the youngest child, and
household income are family characteristics thought to influence use
of an alternative work schedule. Household size was assessed only in
98
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
TABLE 4: Characteristics of Employees Using an Alternative Work Schedule, by
Gender
Characteristic
Age
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
40 to 44
45 to 49
50 to 54
55 to 59
Education
High school
Some college
College degree
Master’s or doctoral degree
Income
$20,000 to $29,000
$30,000 to $39,000
$40,000 to $49,000
$50,000 to $59,000
$60,000 to $74,500
> $75,000
b
Children
No children
At least one child
Birth to age 5
Age 6 to 11
Age 12 to 17
Older than age 17
Occupation
Professional
Management/
Clerical/technical
Other
Type of alternative work arrangement
Flextime
Compressed workweek
Job sharing
Flexiplace or telecommuting
Percentage Female
(n = 111)
5
11
15
22
20
15
8
4
Percentage Male
(n = 35)
5
3
29
17
14
11
17
3
a
32
24
a
41
3
6
23
63
9
3
5
10
21
27
32
3
3
3
26
26
37
23
14
32
32
39
8
40
46
46
9
19
19
a
59
2
a
43
20
23
9
78
a
14
4
1
66
34
0
0
SOURCE: Local firm alternative work arrangements survey.
a. Significantly different at p < .05 or greater.
b. Can add to more than 100% due to nonexclusive categories.
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
99
the national survey. Results contrary to expectations were obtained.
Larger household size was associated with significantly lower not
higher odds of flextime use among employed married women and
men (see Table 3). It may be that in larger families, other family members besides the worker surveyed managed family demands.
Given the use of flextime as a way to negotiate competing work
and family demands, the presence of children was expected to be
associated with use of an alternative work schedule. Multivariate
analysis of the national data indicated that compared to married
women with no children, married women whose youngest child is
under age 6 have greater odds of working a flexible schedule. All else
being equal, having an older child does not significantly affect the
odds of flextime use for married women and having a child of any age
does not significantly affect the odds for married male employees (see
Table 3). In the local survey, no significant difference was found in the
presence or age of children for either gender among those who
worked a flexible or other alternative work schedule. Still, it is interesting to note that the married men in the local survey were slightly
more likely to have a child less than age 17 in the home (see Table 4).
Individuals residing in households with high income were
expected to be less likely to use flextime, all else being equal.
High-income households can purchase the time of other people to
care for children, run errands, and do household maintenance. However, contrary to expectations, individuals with household income
below $75,000 (except < $10,000) have significantly lower odds of flextime use compared with individuals with household income of
$75,000 and above. That is, those individuals in high-income households are more likely to use flextime (see Table 3). Perhaps the high
household income is positively correlated with high personal income
and therefore reflects the work position of the respondent. Thus, individuals with high income may have higher autonomy and control in
the workplace. In the local survey, no significant difference in annual
household income levels was found between female and male married workers who used an alternative work schedule (see Table 4).
Work Characteristics
It would be helpful to know if the employees in the national survey
had been offered an alternative work schedule and declined it or
wanted one when it was not offered. In the absence of this type of
information, information about occupation, public or private sector
100
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
employment, region, and percentage female in occupation was used
to control as best as possible for work-related differences in access to
flextime. Because the local data were obtained from one employer in a
female-dominated industry, only gender difference in occupation
was assessed among the workers who used flextime or other alternative work schedules at that workplace.
Analysis of national survey data indicated that for both men and
women, employment in labor or production occupations was associated with lower odds of flextime use as compared with employment
in managerial or professional occupations. Certainly, the demands of
the job would make it easier for managers or professionals to set their
own hours than, say, people who worked as laborers on an assembly
line or road crew. Gender differences were noted for the other two
large occupation groups. Men employed in technical, sales, or administrative support positions were 17% less likely to have a flexible
schedule as compared to men working in managerial or professional
occupations. Women employed in technical, sales, or administrative
support positions were about 8% more likely to work a flexible schedule as compared with women employed in managerial or professional occupations. Likewise, men employed in service occupations
were 65% less likely to have a flexible schedule as compared with men
in managerial or professional occupations. Women employed in service occupations were 7% more likely to work a flexible schedule as
compared with women employed in managerial or professional occupations (see Table 3). In the local survey of alternative work schedule
users, a greater proportion of women were employed in clerical or
technical occupations while a greater proportion of men were
employed in professional occupations (see Table 5). This finding generally supports the results from the national survey.
Given the federal legislation supporting flexible work schedules
for federal government workers, it was no surprise that state and local
government workers were less likely to have such schedules. Gender
differences were noted. Men who were state and local government
employees were 37% less likely use flextime than male federal government workers. Women employed by state and local government
were 97% less likely to use flextime as compared with women working for the federal government. Men employed in the private sector
were 40% more likely to work a flextime schedule as compared with
men employed by the federal government. Women employed in the
private sector were 67% less likely to use flextime as compared with
women employed by the federal government (see Table 3).
TABLE 5: Reasons Married Full-Time Workers Use Alternative Work Schedules and Evaluation of Such Schedules, by Gender
(percentage)
Specific Type of Alternative Work Schedule
101
Reason for alternative work schedule
Family schedule
Child care
Children’s school schedule
Elder care
Family obligations
Personal schedule
Personal needs
Continuing education
Health/medical appointments
Exercise/recreation
Work better in morning
Work better later in day
Commuting
Employer schedule
Employer needs
Evaluation of alternative work schedule
(percentage across type of
work schedule by gender)
Very positive
All Types of
Alternative Work
Schedules
Job Sharing
Compressed
Workweek
Flextime
Telecommuting
Female Male
Female Male
Female Male
Female Male
Female Male
22.2
25.0
6.0
22.0
14.3
17.1
0.0
11.0
0.9
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
2.7
3.7
3.7
5.7
0.0
0.0
5.7
17.6
20.3
1.8
15.7
8.6
17.4
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.8
5.0
8.3
15.0
14.8
5.5
10.0
34.2
0.0
2.6
28.5
22.8
5.7
8.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
1.8
2.7
1.8
0.0
1.8
0.9
17.1
0.0
2.6
8.5
11.4
5.7
8.5
27.7
3.7
5.5
12.9
14.8
3.7
7.4
17.1
0.0
0.0
20.0
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
29.5
0.9
0.0
0.9
5.7
32.4
22.8
0.0
0.0
12.8
12.1
1.1
—
3.2
3.0
7.5
9.1
0.0
—
(continued)
102
TABLE 5 Continued
Specific Type of Alternative Work Schedule
Positive
Mixed
Negative
Evaluation of alternative work schedule
(percentage within type of work
schedule, by gender)
Very positive
Positive
Mixed
Negative
All Types of
Alternative Work
Schedules
Job Sharing
Compressed
Workweek
Female Male
Female Male
Female Male
70.2
9.6
7.5
66.7
6.1
15.2
SOURCE: Local firm alternative work arrangements survey.
Flextime
Female Male
Telecommuting
Female Male
3.2
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
9.7
3.2
0.0
24.2
3.0
3.0
57.0
6.5
7.5
42.4
3.0
12.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
25.0
75.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
—
20.0
60.0
20.0
0.0
9.1
72.7
9.1
9.1
9.6
72.6
8.2
9.6
13.6
63.6
4.6
18.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
—
—
—
—
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
103
The hypothesis that regional differences in flextime use exist was
supported. For both genders, greater odds of flextime use were associated with living in the West as compared with the South, whereas
lower odds were associated with living in the Northeast (see Table 3).
The percentage female in an occupation was assessed only with the
national data. All else equal, the odds of working a flexible work
schedule decreased for both genders as the proportion of females in
the occupation increased (see Table 3). This result supports the suggestion made earlier that predominately female occupations may
offer fewer extrinsic rewards, including flextime.
In sum, some gender differences were found in the personal, family, and work characteristics associated with use of an alternative
work schedule. The national survey and the local survey gave slightly
different pictures, however. In the national survey, some aspect of
personal, family, and work characteristics mattered. Gender differences were noted for having a bachelor’s degree; having a young
child; and working in technical, sales, administrative support or service occupations; and for class of worker. In the local survey, the few
significant gender differences in characteristics of married workers
who had an alternative work schedule focused on personal and work
characteristics.
USE AND EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES REPORTED
IN THE LOCAL SURVEY
The local survey focused only on the workers at one serviceoriented business who had an alternative work schedule. Therefore, it
is not possible to compare characteristics of those who do and do not
have such schedules as was done with the data from the national survey. Gender differences in the use of alternative work schedules can
be examined from two vantage points, however. One, do married
women give different reasons for using an alternative work schedule
as compared with married men? Two, if various types of alternative
work schedules are viewed as strategies for meeting family, personal,
and work demands, do the strategies used by married women differ
from those used by married men? Gender differences in evaluation of
their alternative work schedules can also be examined.
104
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
Gender Differences in Reasons Given for
Working an Alternative Work Schedule
Married workers used alternative work schedules to meet a wide
variety of demands related to family, personal, and work life (see
Table 5 for specific reasons). Employees could choose to check more
than one reason, so total responses sum to more than 100%. Findings
conform to gender stereotypes to some extent. A larger proportion of
the women surveyed as compared with the men reported using an
alternative work schedule to accommodate family scheduling. The
men, in contrast, appeared more likely to use an alternative work
schedule to either find time for exercise and recreation or to take
advantage of peak productivity times. Thus, it appears that women
are more likely than men to use alternative work schedules to help
alleviate pressures resulting from incompatible work and family
demands, a main reason women cited for work-family conflict in a
broader study (Pleck et al., 1980). Having said that, however, it must
also be noted that a sizable portion of men cited family schedule
needs as a reason for using an alternative work schedule. Indeed, for
both genders, coordinating work with children’s school schedule was
the predominate reason among family schedule-related reasons that
an alternative schedule was used.
More than one third of married women and men employees use an
alternative work schedule to meet unspecified personal needs. Of the
remaining reasons related to personal schedule, the women were
slightly more likely to cite education, health, and commuting, whereas
the men were more likely to cite exercise and peak productivity times.
Here again, however, it is noteworthy that a sizable proportion of the
women also cited exercise and peak productivity times as reasons for
choosing an alternative work schedule. The 1997 National Study of
the Changing Workforce found that both men and women had less
personal and leisure time now as compared to 1977 (1.3 hours per day
for women and 1.6 hours per day for men). Alternative work arrangements can give employees an opportunity for more personal time
during the week. Being able to fulfill personal needs or engage in
exercise can help relieve stress and improve health and mental disposition, benefits that spill over to all arenas of life.
Reorganization within the company surveyed resulted in the sizable percentage of workers citing “employer need” as a reason for
working an alternative work schedule. To better serve customer
needs, a large department imposed flexible work scheduling on
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
105
existing employees. It could be argued that it is inappropriate to classify these workers as using a flexible work schedule because the
employees did not initiate choice of the work arrangement nor could
they set the beginning and ending time of their workday. However,
the hours worked differed from the traditional work schedule, and all
employees had to be present for the same core hours of employment.
Thus, for these employees, the structure of the work paralleled a flexible work schedule.
Gender Differences in Strategies Used
to Meet Family, Personal, and Work Demands
The women used a wide variety of alternative work schedules to
meet a multiplicity of demands. In that respect, these schedules gave
women flexibility in meeting both predictable and unpredictable or
nonroutine demands. Those who used job sharing to reduce work
hours reported using the time to meet family demands and unspecified personal needs. This strategy gave them the greatest versatility in
scheduling because work would require less than 40 hours per week.
The women who chose either flextime or compressed workweeks
used those alternative work schedules to meet a variety of demands
related to family, personal, and work life. Both of these strategies
work well for regularly scheduled events such as a child’s school
schedule, medical appointments, or an employee’s classes to further
education. It is interesting that only women reported either reducing
or reconfiguring work hours to take care of an elder. Most of these
women used a compressed workweek as their scheduling strategy,
although a few used flextime. This fact suggests that they may have
used their nonwork time to help an older family member shop or
meet doctor or other appointments rather than to give the elder daily
physical care. Telecommuting appeared to ease pressures from family
obligations, personal needs, and commuting.
The men were more selective in both the nonwork demands they
met and the strategies used to help meet those demands. Men
appeared to use their alternative work schedules to arrange a more
structured life rather than to introduce greater flexibility. The men
more than the women reported using an alternative work schedule to
meet regular and routine nonwork appointments. They also
appeared more selective in choosing an alternative work schedule. It
was as if an unspoken agenda of the men was to arrange both work
and nonwork life in systematic ways to help them maximize what
106
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
they could accomplish in a day. For example, all of the men who
reported children’s school schedule as a reason for working an alternative schedule used flextime. Because a flextime schedule typically
frees a morning or an afternoon, these men were probably responsible
during the week for either taking their children to school in the morning or picking them up in the afternoon. A flextime schedule also
works well for scheduling regular exercise, and a large percentage of
the men who reported exercise or recreation as a reason for their alternative work schedule used flextime. The men who did not use flextime used compressed workweeks. This strategy was apt to be used
for things that were more easily accomplished with a larger block of
time such as family obligations or personal needs.
Gender Differences in Evaluation of Alternative Work Schedule
The majority of both genders of married workers rated their use of
an alternative work arrangement as a positive (69.9% women, 66.7%
men) or very positive (12.9% women, 12.1% men) experience. None
viewed the experience as very negative. Interestingly, men were more
likely to voice a negative opinion (7.5% women, 15.2% men), but
women were more likely to recognize both positive and negative
aspects of alternative work schedules (9.7% women, 6.1% men).
In responding to the open-ended questions in the survey regarding
evaluation of their alternative work schedule, both married women
and men repeatedly commented that they liked their work schedule
because it gave them flexibility, made more time for various nonwork
activities, and allowed them to fit their work schedule around other
important activities such as care giving, education, or exercise. These
comments suggest other alternative work schedules share the same
benefits that other researchers have noted for flextime (Christensen &
Staines, 1990; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Glass & Estes, 1997; McGuire &
Liro, 1986; Petersen, 1980; Ralston, 1989, 1990; Ronen & Primps, 1980).
All of the employees who rated an alternative work schedule as a
negative experience had also cited employer need as a reason for
working that schedule. Some of the comments made by this group
were: terrible for family life, interferes with day care needs, and
inconvenient. These comments suggest that workers who do not prefer to work an alternative schedule (but must as a requirement of
employment) perceive that alternative schedule as causing problems
with work and family balance rather than offering solutions for work
and family time conflicts. Stated another way, having job autonomy
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
107
(the ability to decide which alternative schedule, if any, to work)
seems to be a major factor in influencing whether employees rate use
of an alternative schedule as a positive or negative experience.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
It could be argued that both surveys tell more about the supply of
alternative work schedules than the demand because data were
obtained from workers who already have such schedules. It is not
known if any worker desired such a schedule but was denied it or
declined it when offered. Despite this limitation, the two surveys
allowed the question of gender difference in use of alternative work
schedules to be approached from somewhat different perspectives.
The national survey allowed examination of which personal, family,
and work characteristics were significantly associated with use of a
flexible work schedule by married men and women. This survey also
permitted a comparison of characteristics of those who did or did not
use flextime within each gender. Although these data offered the
advantage of generalizability, only flextime use was measured. The
local survey explored the characteristics, motivations, and evaluations of married employees who shared a job, worked flextime,
worked a compressed workweek, or telecommuted to work using
computer technology. The local survey results lack generalizability
but allow a wider and richer picture of gender differences in the use
and evaluation of various types of alternative work schedules than
can be seen with the national survey.
Results of the national survey indicated that personal, family, and
work characteristics played a significant role in use of a flextime
schedule. Family and work characteristics typically motivated use of
an alternative work schedule among local survey respondents. Alternative work schedules are considered strategies for meeting a variety
of life demands and enhancing productivity; for married women,
they seemed to enhance schedule flexibility, whereas for married
men, they seemed to facilitate forming structure and routine. In terms
of the family-responsive workplace policies described by Glass and
Estes (1997), married women responded to those policies that either
reduced work hours (policy 1) or provided flexibility in the work
schedule with no reduction in hours (policy 2). Married men, in contrast, responded only to the latter policy (policy 2). For those interested in the development of workplace policies that enhance
108
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
individual and family quality of life, this finding suggests that a “one
policy fits all” approach is not likely to be effective. Rather, married
women and men appear to respond somewhat differently to opportunities to structure their days in ways that facilitate meeting a variety of
time demands.
Support was found in both the national and the local surveys for
the idea that married women bear greater responsibility for meeting
family demands. In that respect, alternative work schedules may help
married mothers reduce the pressure of the second shift (Hochschild,
1989). Evidence was also found, however, that alternative work
schedules allowed married men to take responsibility for meeting
family demands as well. Although the emphasis given to the various
reasons differed, both genders used their alternative work schedules
to carve out personal time or maximize productivity. Indeed, the gender differences in reasons given for working an alternative schedule
were relatively small. Of interest to family and consumer economists
is the fact that these findings may signal some changing trends in time
allocation among family care giving, household production, and paid
employment activities, especially among married-couple families.
Alternative work schedules are a specific example of a way in
which the “subtle revolution” continues to challenge and shape the
ways personal, family, and work responsibilities are managed. The
results of this study suggest that married men and women use alternative work schedules for somewhat different purposes and appear
to select the specific alternative work schedule that would allow them
to fulfill those purposes. Thus, when feasible, offering employees a
variety of alternative work schedules allows them to make reasoned
decisions about the demands they choose to meet and the strategies
used to meet them. With this choice, employees have the opportunity
to manage their life demands in ways that not only increase productivity at work and at home but can also enhance the overall quality of
individual and family life.
NOTES
1. The concept alternative work arrangement has also been used by others to describe
any nonstandard employer-employee relationship, including contingent, contract, and
temporary work (Polivka, 1996).
2. The firm that was approached welcomed the survey as a means of obtaining
information about employee use of and satisfaction with the various alternative work
schedules offered by the firm. For this reason, the study focused on those employees
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
109
with alternative work schedules instead of sampling all employees (i.e., those with and
without an alternative work schedule).
3. Only one married female employee specified an “other” item: volunteer activity.
Because it was only mentioned once, this use of an alternative work schedule was not
cited in the analysis of the local survey data.
REFERENCES
Adler, M. A. (1993). Gender differences in job autonomy: The consequences of occupational segregation and authority position. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 449-466.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). Alternative work arrangements: Meeting the challenges. Canadian Psychology, 39(1-2), 108-123.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and
compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related
criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496-513.
Bohen, H. H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work
schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bryant, K. W., & Zick, C. D. (1996). An examination of parent-child shared time. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58, 227-237.
Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work-family
conflict? Journal of Family Issues, 11, 455-476.
DeMaris, A. (1992). Logit modeling: Practical applications (Sage University Paper series on
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-086). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
England, P., & Browne, I. (1992). Trends in women’s economic status. Sociological Perspectives, 35, 17-51.
Ezra, M., & Deckman, M. (1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime
and child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56, 174-179.
Families and Work Institute. (1998). Web site http://www.familiesandwork.org
Flexible work schedules: A rapidly growing trend. (1998). Government Finance Review,
14(3), 68.
Fox, K. D., & Nickols, S. Y. (1983, March). The time crunch. Journal of Family Issues, 4,
61-82.
Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. R. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents’ importance ratings. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 69(4), 351-366.
Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. T. (1998). 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce.
Retrieved from http://www.familiesandwork.org
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1996). The role of employers in addressing
the needs of employed parents. Journal of Social Issues, 53(3), 111-136.
Glass, J. L., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289-314.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New
York: Penguin Books.
Levine, J. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (1997). Working fathers: New strategies for balancing work
and family. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Maiwald, C. R., Pierce, J. L., Newstrom, J. W., & Sunoo, B. P. (1997). Workin’ 8 p.m. to 8
a.m. and lovin’ every minute of it! Workforce, 76, 30-37.
110
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL
McGuire, J. B., & Liro, J. R. (1986). Flexible work schedules, work attitudes, and perceptions of productivity. Public Personnel Management, 15(1), 65-73.
Mellor, E. F. (1986, November). Shift work and flextime: How prevalent are they?
Monthly Labor Review, 109, 14-22.
Milkie, M. A., & Peltola, P. (1999, May). Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-family balancing act. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 476-504.
Nickols, S. Y., & Metzen, E. J. (1982). Impact of wife’s employment upon husband’s
housework. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 199-216.
Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-132), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petersen, D. J. (1980). Flexitime in the United States: The lessons of experience. Personnel, pp. 21-31.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.
Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-31.
Polivka, A. E. (1996, October). Into contingent and alternative employment: by choice?
Monthly Labor Review, pp. 55-74.
Presser, H. B. (1989). Some economic complexities of child care provided by grandmothers. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 51(3), 581-591.
Presser, H. B., & Hermsen, J. M. (1996). Gender differences in the determinants of overnight work-related travel among employed Americans. Work and Occupations, 23(1),
87-115.
Ralston, D. (1989). The benefits of flextime: Real or imagined? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 10, 369-373.
Ralston, D. (1990). How flexitime eases work-family tensions. Personnel, 67, 45-48.
Reskin, B. F., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ronen, S. (1984). Alternative work schedules: Selecting, implementing, and evaluating.
Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Ronen, S., & Primps, S. (1980). The impact of flexitime on performance and attitudes in
twenty-five public agencies. Public Personnel Management Journal, 9, 201-207.
Sanik, M. M. (1981, December). Division of household work: A decade comparison,
1967-1977. Home Economics Research Journal, 10, 175-180.
Smith, R. E. (1979). The subtle revolution. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Solomon, C. M. (1994, September). Job sharing: One job, double headache? Personnel
Journal, 73, 88-94.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 6-15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are
not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3)
392-415.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1995. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1998. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). Current population survey, May 1997: Work schedules. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1989). Alternative work schedules. In Work and family
resource kit. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary Women’s Bureau.
Sharpe et al. / FULL-TIME WORK
111
Wharton, C. S. (1994). Finding time for the “second shift”: The impact of flexible work
schedules on women’s double days. Gender & Society, 8(2), 189-205.
Williams, B. (1996, August). Trends in employment patterns and policies. Public Management, 78, 24-26.
Winett, R., & Neale, M. (1980, November). Results of experimental study on flextime
and family life. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-32.
Wright, E. O., Baxter, J., & Birkelund, G. E. (1995, June). The gender gap in workplace
authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 60, 407-435.