Flexibility Stigma Research Articles

Organizational and individual determinants of using initiatives conducive to successful work-life balance

Appropriate distribution of time and energy between work and personal life poses a challenge to many working people. Unfortunately, many professionally active people experience work-family conflict. In order to minimize it, employees are offered various solutions aimed at reconciling professional and private spheres (work-life balance (WLB) initiatives). The authors attempt to answer what makes employees use WLB initiatives and what influences the decision to reject the available options. The review is based on the articles published after 2000, searched by Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge with use of the key words: work-life balance, work-family conflict, work-life balance initiatives, work-life balance initiatives use, use of WLB solutions. We focused on organizational and individual determinants of WLB initiatives use, such as organizational culture, stereotypes and values prevailing in the work environment that may result in stigmatization of workers - flexibility stigma. We discuss the reasons why supervisors and co-workers stigmatize their colleagues, and what are the consequences of experiencing such stigmatization. Among the individual determinants of WLB initiatives use, we have inter alia focused on the preference for integration vs. separation of the spheres of life. The presented material shows that social factors - cultural norms prevailing in a society, relationships in the workplace and individual factors, such as the level of self-control - are of equal importance for decisions of using WLB initiatives as their existence. Our conclusion is that little attention has been paid to the research on determinants of WLB initiatives use, especially to individual ones.

The Legal and Policy Implications of the “Flexibility Stigma”

American workplace law prohibits employment decisions based on gender stereotypes and forbids retaliation against employees who take certain job‐protected family leaves. Yet the studies in this Issue documenting the “flexibility stigma” indicate popular perceptions and attitudes that run counter to these legal proscriptions. Three key aspects of the flexibility stigma as documented suggest legal and policy implications. First, because the flexibility stigma is rooted in gender stereotypes, its effects may be litigable under federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. Second, workplace policies that provide leave or flexible scheduling must also recognize and address bias against those who use them or the policies risk being undermined by workers engaging in bias avoidance. Third, the flexibility stigma operates in workplaces across the class spectrum, indicating a greater urgency for public policy to counteract its effects.

Fathers and the Flexibility Stigma

Women face an earnings penalty associated with motherhood but researchers have paid scant attention to how fatherhood might influence men's long‐term earnings. Using multiple waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and employing ordinary least squares regression and fixed effects models we investigate what happens to men who modify their employment for family reasons. Previous research shows that men work longer hours and earn more after becoming fathers, but if men are unemployed or reduce work hours for family reasons, they could experience a “flexibility stigma” depressing earnings and limiting future career opportunities. We find strong support for the flexibility stigma hypothesis. Controlling for the effects of age, race, education, intelligence, occupation, job tenure, work hours, health limitations, marital status, and number of children, we find that men who ever quit work or are unemployed for family reasons earn significantly less than others in the future. Theoretical reasons for observed findings are discussed.

The All‐or‐Nothing Workplace: Flexibility Stigma and “Opting Out” Among Professional‐Managerial Women

Using a model of the stigmatization of flexible work based on status legitimation theory, we analyze the experiences of a sample of 54 mothers who “opted out” of professional jobs. Qualitative text analysis reveals that features of women's workplaces are conducive to the creation and maintenance of flexibility stigma and bias and that women working flexibly are subjected to various forms of stigmatizing treatment, which plays a role in their decision to suspend their careers. We find limited evidence, however, that women perceive high levels of stigma and differential treatment as reflecting bias or prejudice. Instead, the majority appears to accept the legitimacy of professional time norms and view their treatment as justifiable. We identify factors that moderate or inhibit their perception of flexibility bias, as distinct from stigma per se, and discuss the limitations of our research as well as its implications for future research and policy.

Cultural Schemas, Social Class, and the Flexibility Stigma

Flexibility programs have become widespread in the United States, but their use has not. According to a recent study, 79% of companies say they allow some of their employees, and 37% officially allow all or most of their employees, to periodically change starting or quitting times (Galinsky, Bond, & Sakai, 2008). Although researchers often regard the official availability of flexibility and other work–life policies as an indicator of an organization’s responsiveness to employees’ work–life concerns (Davis & Kalleberg, 2006), having policies on the books does not always mean that workers feel comfortable using these policies (Blair-Loy, Wharton, & Goodstein, 2011). Studies that have assessed usage rates generally find that usage rates are low. This has proved a remarkably resilient problem. The basic forms of workplace flexibility have been around for decades: flextime, part-time schedules, compressed workweeks, job shares (Friedman, n.d.). Yet usage of these programs