787628

research-article2018
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484318787628Human Resource Development ReviewBeigi et al.

Integrative Literature Review

Human Resource Development Review
2018, Vol. 17(3) 314­–336
Flexible Work Arrangements © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
and Work–Family Conflict: A sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1534484318787628
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318787628
Metasynthesis of Qualitative journals.sagepub.com/home/hrd

Studies Among Academics

Mina Beigi1, Melika Shirmohammadi2,

and Jim Stewart3

Abstract
Quantitative research has reported variable and inconsistent findings regarding the
relationship between flexible work arrangements (FWA) and work–family conflict
(WFC). In this article, we address this inconsistency through the lens of qualitative
research. We synthesize the findings of 45 qualitative studies from a variety of
disciplines that have explored work–family interface (WFI) among academics whose
profession offers high levels of FWA by nature. Analyzing the findings of these
qualitative studies, we developed six themes of which five could be translated to
moderators of the relationship between FWA and WFC. These moderator variables
are boundary management preferences, time management skills and approach, career/
family stage, nature of an academic job, and workplace culture. Our findings have
theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for work–family and human
resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners motivated to improve the
quality of employees’ work–life through initiation of FWA interventions.

Keywords
work–family, flexible work arrangements, flextime, flexplace, academics

1University of Southampton, UK
2Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
3Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Corresponding Author:
Mina Beigi, University of Southampton, Building 2, 12 University Road, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ,
UK.
Email: [email protected]
Beigi et al. 315

Introduction
It’s a real privilege that higher education has for all of us, in general. No matter what you
choose to do with your time as parents, you can work at night after the children go to bed,
at the computer, or like I do on the weekends. It’s a privilege. . . . [But] it’s not a privilege
to work the long hours that we do and to have the stress that we do, so it’s push-pull.

—Quoted in Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2004, p. 244)

Flexible work arrangements (FWA) have gained prominence as interventions, pre-

ferred or prescribed, to alleviate work–family conflict (WFC) of employees (e.g.,
Kelly & Moen, 2007; Kirkwood & Tootell, 2008; Madsen, 2003; Secret & Swanberg,
2008). More and more companies are moving toward adopting one or multiple forms
of FWA. The World at Work (2015) reported that almost 80% of organizations interna-
tionally offer some kind of FWA with the most prevalent programs being telework,
flextime, and part-time schedules. However, the question of how FWA might reduce
employees’ WFC remains unanswered (e.g., Kelly et al., 2008), which might affect
employers’ decisions on continuing to provide such interventions.
We begin by defining the concept of WFC and FWA. WFC, defined as “a form of
interrole conflict in which the role pressures from work and family domains are mutu-
ally incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77), relies on the
theoretical assumption that multiple roles generate strain and incompatibility (Goode,
1960; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). WFC can occur in two direc-
tions often referred to as work-to-family interference and family-to-work conflict
interference (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Initially, the concept of FWA was used
without a unified definition; overlapping terms referred to different forms of FWA
such as flexible work hours and teleworking (Hill et al., 2008). More recently, FWA is
used as an overarching term to encompass “work options that permit flexibility in
terms of ‘where’ work is completed (often referred to as telecommuting or flexplace)
and/or ‘when’ work is completed (often referred to as flextime or scheduling flexibil-
ity)” (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013, p. 345).
Empirical research has reported variable and inconsistent findings regarding the rela-
tionship between FWA and WFC (Allen et al., 2013). Five meta-analyses have reported
varied magnitudes of effects ranging from medium to nonsignificant (Allen et al., 2013;
Byron, 2005; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006;
Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes, 2011). Inconsistency regarding the rela-
tionship between FWA and WFC was fueled by differences in how FWA was conceptu-
alized (Allen & Shockly, 2009) and unexplored moderators of the relationship between
reports of FWA and WFC (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006).
The meta-analyses that have examined the relationships of FWA and WFC offer
limited insight into moderators of the relationship between FWA and WFC. The mod-
erators tested in quantitative reviews primarily comprised demographic variables (i.e.,
gender, parental status, and marital status; Allen et al., 2013; Byron, 2005; Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007; Michel et al., 2011). As information about other potential moderators is
often not included in the sample or FWA description of the reviewed quantitative
316 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

studies, authors were limited to testing few moderation mechanisms (Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007). Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran (2006) invited future studies to
investigate other moderators of the relationship between perceptions of an FWA and
reports of WFC to provide a clearer picture of the true potential of these FWA programs
to assist workers who are struggling with balancing work and family lives.
In this article, we address the inconsistent findings of meta-analyses on FWA and
WFC and the call for exploring variables that moderate the relationship between FWA
and WFC through the lens of qualitative research. Therefore, we generate qualitative
findings comparable to the results of meta-analyses that examined the relationship
between FWA and WFC. To that aim, we adopt qualitative metasynthesis methodol-
ogy, which has been developed to equate to meta-analyses for qualitative research
(Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). Qualitative research is common among human
resource development (HRD) researchers; however, HRD’s neighboring scholarly
fields such as management and organization studies have recently started to realize the
distinctive contribution that reviews of qualitative studies can make to our understand-
ing of certain topics (see Bryman, 2004; Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016). Qualitative
metasynthesis method emerged in response to an increasing use of meta-analyses and
exclusion of qualitative findings from major quantitative reviews (Sandelowski &
Barroso, 2007; Zimmer, 2006). This method has been widely used and advanced by
health and medical disciplines (see Walsh & Downe, 2005, for a review), but HRD
scholars have yet to put the potential of this approach into practice.
We argue that findings of qualitative studies can contribute to the debate on the rela-
tionship between FWA and WFC. In line with this argument, Kossek and Lautsch (2017)
identified exclusion of “non-quantitative studies” as a major shortcoming of prior
reviews concerning effects of FWA. Qualitative researchers strive to understand how
people interpret their experiences and what meaning they attribute to those experiences
(Merriam, 2009). The emphasis on meaning of a phenomenon enables qualitative stud-
ies to “provide insights that are difficult to produce with quantitative research” (Gephart,
2004, p. 455). In addition to generating theory, producing new constructs, and inducing
researchable propositions from data (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999), qualitative
research can elaborate on or test relationships that have been subject to prior theorizing
(Lee et al., 1999). A study of trends of theoretical contribution in management field
revealed that qualitative research has contributed to theory building in part by introduc-
ing new mediators or moderators of existing relationships or processes (Colquitt &
Zapata-Phelan, 2007), which is aligned with what we present in the current study.
To match the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis studies that reported on connec-
tions between FWA and WFC, we focus on a group of qualitative studies that describe
WFC among employees of one profession who could be considered as a representative
example of the FWA experience, namely, faculty members. Therefore, our review syn-
thesizes findings of qualitative studies that have explored WFC among academics
whose work offers a high level of FWA in terms of where and when to complete work.
Despite the differences between academic job descriptions in different institutions
in various countries, they include the common responsibilities of teaching, research,
and service (Austin, 2003; Finkelstein, 1984). Different higher education institutions
Beigi et al. 317

might put various levels of emphasis on each of these responsibilities, but in almost all
cases, the job descriptions allow for multiple levels of FWA, especially in terms of
“where” and “when” work is completed. Academics can fulfill part of their profes-
sional responsibilities at home or anywhere off campus (Heijstra & Rafnsdóttir, 2010).
For example, academics have discretion in deciding when (and where) to conduct their
research, prepare for their classes, mark student assignments, and meet their students.
Due to this flexibility, scholars across multiple disciplines have shown interest in how
academic staff combine their personal and professional lives (e.g., academic medicine,
Brown, Fluit, Lent, & Herbert, 2011; family studies, Baker, 2010; higher education,
Bentley & Kyvik, 2012; and management, Santos & Cabral-Cardoso, 2008).
We seek to answer the following questions in this review:

Research Question 1: What do we know about the WFC experiences of academics

whose profession offers a high level of FWA by nature?
Research Question 2: What are the theoretical implications of the reviewed stud-
ies for the association between FWA and WFC and for the HRD field?

Our review uncovers five moderator variables that are specifically important in our
understanding of the relationship between FWA and WFC (see Gajendran & Harrison,
2007). We rationalize our focus on a single occupation by following the argument that
occupational characteristics play an important role in how workers benefit from FWA
(e.g., Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2009;
Kossek & Lautsch, 2017). Also, it seems that work–family scholars in different deci-
plines, due to their common access to academics for data collection, have generated an
adequate number of articles on this population to enable a qualitative metasynthesis.
Coducting this review is significant for HRD research and scholarship because one
of the main purposes of the field has been to identify factors that help develop and
unleash human expertise for improved performance of employees and organizations
(Morris, 2012; Swanson & Holton, 2001). Although more and more individuals and
organizations grapple with issues of WFC, it appears that HRD’s involvement in WFC
reduction and the provision of FWA has remained modest (Kahnweiler, 2008). Initiation
of flexible work options and reduction of WFC can be two possible venues to achieve
such goals (Madsen, 2003; Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & MacDermid, 2007; Rogier
& Padgett, 2004). We hope that by examining the link between WFC and FWA, this
review paves the way for future HRD scholars and practitioners who want to contribute
to reducing employees’ WFC and improve the effectiveness of FWA.

Method
We adopted a qualitative metasynthesis approach to conduct our review (Sandelowski &
Barroso, 2007). Qualitative metasynthesis begins with “a systematic and comprehensive
retrieval of all of the relevant reports of completed qualitative studies in a target domain
of empirical inquiry” (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007, p. 22). This step is similar to the
search process of a systematic literature review (e.g., Higgins & Green, 2008) and
318 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

integrative literature review (Callahan, 2010, 2014), but solely focuses on short-listing
and including qualitative studies (see Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007 for full comparison
with different types of reviews). The second step in conducting a qualitative metasynthe-
sis involves a process of comparing and contrasting findings across qualitative studies and
generating a new integrative interpretation of the phenomenon (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012).
We started with conducting a broad multidisciplinary search in the fields of education
(including HRD), psychology, sociology, and management. The databases we used
included Education Resources Information Center (ERIC; via EBSCO), PsychInfo,
Academic Search Premier (via EBSCO), Sociological Abstracts (via CSA), and Business
Search Complete (via EBSCO). The following keywords were used independently and
combined to generate as many publications as possible: work-family/life combined with
conflict, interface, balance, integration, enrichment, spillover, boundary, stress, and rela-
tionship; and responsibility combined with faculty, professor, university teacher, acade-
mician, academia, and academic. Despite our focus on WFC, we decided to include
several work–family conceptualizations, mainly due to the qualitative nature of the stud-
ies we included in the review. In other words, qualitative scholars explored the interface
of work and family from multiple perspectives and did not feel a need to confine them-
selves to using the term WFC. The search, which was completed in April 2017, gener-
ated 375 publications. After screening the search results to make sure they report a
qualitative study, include discussion of WFC, work–family imbalance or issues, and
have participants selected from 4-year university faculty members (not college or high
school), a total of 45 publications met all the criteria to be included in the review.
To compare and contrast findings across studies and to generate a new integrative
interpretation of the phenomenon (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012), we read all the short-
listed 45 articles and extracted the findings that focused on academics’ WFC with
regard to FWA (flexibility in terms of where and when to complete work). Then, we
used thematic analysis to synthesize the qualitative findings; this method enables find-
ing emergent themes and categories across studies (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012). We read
findings of each article line by line and coded concepts; afterward, we compared,
contrasted, and translated concepts into themes across studies. Themes include com-
mon elements and content in the findings across studies. Our analysis progressed until
the point of redundancy in emerging themes has been reached. A sample of the 45
articles was cross-checked for consistency of interpretation by at least two researchers.
This process led to the identification of six themes, described below.

Synthesis of Qualitative Findings

Our review comprises accounts of academics from a wide range of disciplines—
including HRD and higher education, management, medicine, family studies, and
engineering—published in 33 journals, encompassing 13 different countries. The first
11 studies in our data set of 45 publications were published from 1991 to 2008, and
had solely female research participants. It might be that the issues female academics
struggled with during the late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century outnum-
bered those of their male counterparts. However, six of the more recent studies in the
Beigi et al. 319

Figure 1. Moderators of the relationship between FWA and the WFC.

Note. FWA = flexible work arrangements; WFC = work–family conflict.

data set—published from 2012 to 2014—had male-only participants, which might

demonstrate that currently both genders have issues balancing work and family. The
qualitative studies were conducted in the United states (31 studies), Canada (10 stud-
ies), Australia and New Zealand (three studies), and Finland (one study).
Below, we present our findings associated with FWA with regard to academics’
WFC. Five of the six themes we present can be translated to moderators that might
affect how FWA is associated with WFC (see Figure 1).
As illustrated in the six themes discussed below, the first theme is concerned with
our general focus regarding FWA and WFC. The next three themes are mainly relevant
to individual differences and how FWA and WFC might be different based on individ-
ual-level differences. The two final themes were associated with the nature of the job
and organizational culture, which were typically beyond individual differences.

Valuing FWA While Experiencing WFC

Regardless of their field of study, academics found it challenging to make decisions
about the interface of professional and personal lives and found this process to be
cyclical and dynamic (Brown et al., 2011). It seems as if the greedy nature of work
320 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

and family (Takahashi, Lourenço, Sander, & Souza, 2014) and the unique character-
istics of the academic profession lead to this ongoing challenge. Therefore, academ-
ics needed to make trade-offs to manage the interface of the two domains; some
perceived “balance” to be a “myth” and suggested sustainability to be a more accu-
rate term (Perrakis & Martinez, 2012).
Almost all academics valued the flexible nature of their jobs (e.g., Rafnsdóttir &
Heijstra, 2013; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004; Wilton & Ross, 2017; Wolf-Wendel &
Ward, 2015) and were not willing to give up the autonomy and flexibility provided by
the academic environment to switch to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work hours (e.g., Heijstra
& Rafnsdóttir, 2010). Many respondents mentioned that they entered academia due to
its flexible nature (e.g., Eddy & Gaston-Gayles, 2008; Penney et al., 2015; Sallee &
Pascale, 2012; Trepal & Stinchfield, 2012).
Academics also believed that flexibility played a positive role in how they managed
their WFC (e.g., Damiano-Teixeira, 2006; Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Santos &
Cabral-Cardoso, 2008; Wilton & Ross, 2017). Many studies showed that the flexible
nature of the academic job was advantageous to family life and to parenting (e.g.,
Nikunen, 2012; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016). This flexibility allowed academics to spend
time with their children (e.g., Eddy & Gaston-Gayles, 2008; Sallee & Pascale, 2012), to
take their children to school and support their activities (e.g., Perrakis & Martinez, 2012;
Raiden & Räisänen, 2013), and to attend to their sick children (e.g., Damiano-Teixeira,
2006; Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Sallee & Pascale, 2012; Weigt & Solomon, 2008).
Despite all the abovementioned benefits of flexible work hours, there were also
disadvantages. These included an overlap of work and hobbies (e.g., Heijstra &
Rafnsdóttir, 2010), feelings of working all the time (e.g., O’Meara & Campbell, 2011),
and difficulty in distinguishing between work life and family life (Penney et al., 2015;
Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013). In addition, although studies showed that academics put
a high value on flexibility and believed that it had helped them manage their WFC,
almost all studies included in this study confirmed that participants experienced high
levels of WFC (e.g., Cherkowski & Bosetti, 2014; Eddy & Gaston-Gayles, 2008;
Oates, Hall, & Anderson, 2005; Reddick, Rochlen, Grasso, Reilly, & Spikes, 2012;
Skachkova, 2007; Thanacoody, Bartram, Barker, & Jacobs, 2006). The conflict was
reported by both genders, but it was more evident in women’s and mothers’ accounts
(e.g., Baker, 2010; Perrakis & Martinez, 2012; Santos & Cabral-Cardoso, 2008).
Among the manifestations of the academics’ WFC were unusually long and late-night
work hours—including weekends and holidays (e.g., Hall, Anderson, & Willingham,
2004; Raiden & Räisänen, 2013; Solomon, 2011; Takahashi et al., 2014), a lack of sleep
(e.g., Damiano-Teixeira, 2006), the inability to disengage from work when they wished
to do so (e.g., Santos, 2014), feeling guilty about failing to fulfill both personal and pro-
fessional responsibilities (e.g., Sallee, Ward, & Wolf-Wendel, 2016); and mental absence
when at home (e.g., Reddick et al., 2012; Takahashi et al., 2014). Such conflict could be
partially attributed to the demanding nature of the academic job that will be discussed
later in the findings. In other words, academics argued that flexibility by itself did not
address all their WFC issues and they needed other types of support to help them main-
tain a sustainable WFC (e.g., Heijstra & Rafnsdóttir, 2010).
Beigi et al. 321

Moderator 1: Boundary Management Preferences

Academics had different preferences for managing boundaries between their work and
family, and that affected how they perceived their WFC. One group preferred to draw
a sharp line between their work and family and avoided working at home or leaving
work to take care of family responsibilities (e.g., Hall et al., 2004; Poronsky, Doering,
Mkandawire-Valhmu, & Rice, 2012); this group is referred to as separators (Ashforth,
Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009). The other group pre-
ferred permeable work–family boundaries, brought work home, and tried to fit work
and family together (e.g., Sallee & Hart, 2015), which has been conceptualized as
integrators (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kreiner et al., 2009). The degree to which one pre-
fers to separate or integrate work and family roles represents their boundary manage-
ment preferences (Allen, 2012). The two work–family boundary management
preferences among academics are evident in the following quotations:

I try to avoid everything work-related when I’m at home. I try to work as efficiently as I
can while I’m at work. But I have to protect that time. (Brown et al., 2011, p. 1290)

I like waking up early on Saturdays and Sundays, then the kids want to watch TV. So
maybe I will just take my computer and sit with them for 2 or 3 hours. I get a lot of work
done and they are just . . . watching television. (Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013, p. 290)

Individuals who adopted each of the two strategies had justifications that made
sense with regard to their preferences or work/family stage. In some cases, findings
suggested that men preferred, and successfully managed, to separate work and family
lives (e.g., Damaske, Ecklund, Lincoln, & White, 2014; Reddick et al., 2012), while
women, specifically those who had young children, preferred or had to cross work–
family boundaries (Heijstra & Rafnsdóttir, 2010). However, this was not true in all
studies (Trepal & Stinchfield, 2012), and both men and women reported adopting both
strategies (e.g., Hall et al., 2004; Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Solomon, 2011).
It is noteworthy that some individuals switched from having no boundaries to having
a clear boundary or vice versa depending on their career or family stage (Brown et al.,
2011). Some participants believed that the only way they could handle work and family
responsibilities, especially after their children were born, was by spending fewer hours
at work and working at home instead, including late-night or weekend work (O’Meara
& Campbell, 2011). Others believed that working at home reduces quality time with
their family and children, so they made the most of their time at work (Solomon, 2011).
Based on the narratives shared by academics, we speculate that boundary manage-
ment preferences moderate the relationship between FWA and WFC. Integrators are
more prone to find FWA helpful in alleviating WFC, whereas separators might per-
ceive that FWA contributes to their WFC. One justification can be that FWA generate
psychological perceptions of autonomy and control over when and where work can be
completed (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). A person preferring a rigid boundary
between work and family domains might not enjoy the extensive autonomy associated
with FWA and may perceive that the permeable boundary increases her WFC. On the
322 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

contrary, for those with a low preference for separating work and family domains,
FWA may solve many of the problems associated with fixed work hours, enable them
to take care of family-related and work-related tasks simultaneously, and perceive
reduced work-to-family and/or family-to-work conflict.

Proposition 1: Individual boundary management preferences moderate the relation

of FWA and WFC such that the higher the preference for integrating work and fam-
ily, the stronger the positive effects of the FWA on lowering WFC.

Moderator 2: Time Management Skills

FWA provided academics with discretion over managing their time. Other than the fixed
time devoted to teaching and administrative meetings, other responsibilities could be
performed at times preferred by the individuals. It was evident that some participants
interviewed in the studies had a high level of control over managing their time (e.g.,
Kalet, Fletcher, Ferdman, & Bickell, 2006; Sallee & Hart, 2015), while others thought
they were working all the time (e.g., Solomon, 2011). In addition, some academics
asserted that they preferred to do one thing at a time—also referred to as monochronicity
(Kaufman-Scarborough, 2003), while others felt comfortable with doing multiple tasks
simultaneously—also referred to as polychronicity (Kaufman-Scarborough, 2003).
Having time management skills was perceived as an important contributor to man-
aging WFC (e.g., Kalet et al., 2006). Among the time management strategies that aca-
demics adopted were avoiding long commutes (Perrakis & Martinez, 2012), saying no
to unnecessary or unwanted projects (Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra, 2013; Reddick et al.,
2012), creating space (Ylijoki, 2013), limit-setting (e.g., Kalet et al., 2006), and care-
fully planning childbirth with regard to career stage (e.g., Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006).
The other aspect of this theme had to do with individuals’ responses to time demands
of their jobs—whether they followed what was expected of them or decided to let go
some of the benefits associated with certain activities. For instance, one participant
mentioned that “there are those who distance themselves from this ideal and the image
of a proper academic associated with it, perceiving these as some trap into which it is
easy to fall, but which must be resisted” (Ylijoki, 2013, p. 251). In the same vein, some
participants believed that their family came first in any situation, and made sure their
family demands were the major factor in all their life decisions (Santos, 2015).
Informed by qualitative accounts of academics, we argue that time management
skills moderate the relationship between FWA and WFC. FWA gives individuals auton-
omy and freedom in using their time and deciding when to accomplish their work
responsibilities. According to self-determination theory, the need for autonomy—con-
trol over the course of one’s life—is an underlying motivation for individuals seeking
freedom, a larger choice set, and optional functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However,
research based on this theory has shown that too many options often lead to choice
overload that subsequently makes choices less attractive (Allen & Shockly, 2009;
Clark, 2000). We believe that individuals who have multiple options for using their time
might or might not make effective use of it, which affects how they experience WFC.
Beigi et al. 323

Effective management of WFC is increasingly becoming a self-management compe-

tency (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012; Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012). Time
management skills are categorized under self-management (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte,
& Roe, 2007) and include setting goals and priorities, using mechanics of time manage-
ment to schedule and plan activities, and having a preference for organization (Fenner &
Renn, 2010). Therefore, those who are competent in using their time develop plans for
making the best of the time options provided by FWA, whereas those less competent in
time management might struggle with prioritizing and planning for such options. Success
or failure in managing time might contribute most to time-based conflict, which is one
of the three forms of WFC suggested by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985). Time-based
conflict denotes that the time requirements of one role limits the time available for ful-
filling the requirements of the other role. Having FWA require the individual to decide
when to devote time to work-related or family-related tasks, and a lack of time-manage-
ment competencies might make it difficult to make such decisions.

Proposition 2: Individual time management skills moderate the relation of FWA

and WFC such that the more skillful the individual is in managing the time allo-
cated to work and family demands, the stronger the positive effects of the FWA are
on lowering WFC.

Moderator 3: Career or Family Stage

Perceptions of academics’ WFC were not the same throughout their different career or
family stages. Marriage (e.g., Damiano-Teixeira, 2006; O’Meara & Campbell, 2011;
Schlehofer, 2012), childbirth, and having young children (e.g., Armenti, 2004; Heijstra
& Rafnsdóttir, 2010; Strong et al., 2013; Toren, 1991) were highlighted as WFC ante-
cedents among faculty members. Some participants clearly mentioned that their WFC
increased after childbirth (e.g., Hirakata & Daniluk, 2009) or parenting (Darcy,
McCarthy, Hill, & Grady, 2012). Family stage, especially parenting age, make a sig-
nificant difference in the experience of WFC (Darcy et al., 2012). Family-to-work
conflict has been found to be higher for parents with preschool children and lower
among groups with older children (Roehling, Moen, & Batt, 2003); WFC then declines
at later family stages (Moen & Yu, 2000).
Among different career stages, promotion for early career academics (e.g., Ward &
Wolf-Wendel, 2004), mainly those with young children (e.g., Acker, Webber, & Smyth,
2016; Armenti, 2004), contributed most to academics’ WFC. In the early stages of
their careers, individuals are more pressured to sacrifice personal/family lives in the
interest of career advancement (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Martins, Eddleston, &
Veiga, 2002). As individuals grow older (in midcareer and maturity stages) they place
a greater emphasis on balance between their work and family lives when assessing
their careers (Cohen, 1991).

Proposition 3: Individual’s career/family stage moderates the relation of FWA and

WFC such that during career/family stages with high demands, higher positive
effects of the FWA on lowering WFC can be expected.
324 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

Moderator 4: Nature of the Job

Findings from our analysis revealed the unique nature of academic work, creatively
described as “silver linings and dark clouds” by Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2004). On the
positive side, academic staff enjoy academia, appreciate the flexibility and autonomy
of their occupation, and have a sense of personal growth in their profession (e.g., Fox,
Fonseca, & Bao, 2011; Weigt & Solomon, 2008). On the negative side, they seem to
struggle with meeting multiple expectations, the burden of juggling teaching, research,
service, and mentoring, and the need to keep an eye on the clock (e.g., for tenure), as
well to produce tangible results (i.e., publications). As a result, most academics
extended work hours and nonstandard work days, as revealed by almost all the studies
we reviewed (e.g., Kachchaf, Ko, Hodari, & Ong, 2015).
Academics asserted that there is no typical day in academia (e.g., Rafnsdóttir &
Heijstra, 2013), no end to the academic job tasks (e.g., Trepal & Stinchfield, 2012),
and “there is always a manuscript to be written, an article to be read, a funding applica-
tion to work on” (Birmingham & Wasburn, 2008, p. 257). Due to ongoing grants and
to publications in the pipeline, academics could not take complete advantage of their
breaks (e.g., paternity leave), and many kept on working while they were on leave
(e.g., Craft & Maseberg-Tomlinson, 2015; Hirakata & Daniluk, 2009).
Another important aspect of the academic job involved changes brought about by
information technology. In many cases, the prevalence of the Internet and use of
email added to academic staff workloads (e.g., Reddick et al., 2012). Academics
praised wide access to the Internet and email and the possibility of working any-
where and anytime; however, these advantages sometimes made disengagement
from work difficult, caused expectations of having an around-the-clock work sched-
ule (e.g., Heijstra & Rafnsdóttir, 2010), and were perceived to accelerate the pace of
work (e.g., Ylijoki, 2013).
Job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) partially explains the
impact of the nature of the job on how individuals experiences FWA. Research sug-
gests that high-status workers such as managers and professionals—who often pos-
sess high levels of autonomy over their work schedules—are less positively affected
by flexible work options (Baltes et al., 1999) because of the high job demands they
face (Kelly & Moen, 2007). Also, professionals whose jobs’ heavy reliance on por-
table devices such as pagers, cell phones, and laptops reflects an on call work nature,
experienced higher flexibility in terms of coordinating schedules and saving time,
but greater stress (Chesley, Moen, & Shore, 2003; Desrochers & Sargent, 2004).
These paradoxical occupational characteristics (autonomous but high demand, and
mobile but constantly connected) increase the probability of working during per-
sonal/family time (Kossek, 2016), which may be reflected in the individuals’
accounts of WFC.

Proposition 4: Nature of the job moderates the relation of FWA and WFC such that
individuals in jobs that allow for around-the-clock work schedules would benefit
less from the positive effects of the FWA on lowering WFC.
Beigi et al. 325

Moderator 5: Family-Friendly Organizational Culture

Several participants highlighted the key role of the organizational culture when telling
their stories regarding the applications of FWA in managing their WFC. This theme was
more evident in the narratives shared by women; however, recent studies described how
male academics perceived the role of organizational culture in their WFC. The most
emphasized aspects of the culture were supportive structures, leaders, colleagues, and
work environments in general (e.g., Baker, 2010; Hirakata & Daniluk, 2009; Lester, 2013;
Sallee, 2013). Participants expected to be understood by their employers when having
child care or family care responsibilities or issues (e.g., Hall et al., 2004). Academics also
expected their families to understand their work pressures (e.g., Rafnsdóttir & Heijstra,
2013), but this was less frequent than their demands for employer support.
One early career academic asserted,

I have a female dean who is a mother and was a professor while her children were at
home. So she knows exactly what I’m going through right now . . . and she is very quick
to protect my family. (Hall et al., 2004, p. 49)

Another senior male academic said, “It’s not that [universities are] gender blind it’s that
they’re family blind. The two go together of course, but I’m really quite struck and often
quite shocked by how invisible family is in a work setting” (Baker, 2010, p. 10). In cases
where the individuals’ work–family needs were supported by their workplaces, they
expressed more satisfaction with combining their work and family spheres (e.g., Trepal
& Stinchfield, 2012).

Proposition 5: Organizational culture moderates the relation of FWA and WFC

such that the more the family-friendly organizational culture, the stronger the posi-
tive effects of the FWA on lowering WFC.

Discussion
This review contributes to the scholarship concerning the relationship between FWA
and WFC by synthesizing the findings of qualitative inquiries exploring WFC among
academics, whose occupational nature offers high levels of FWA regarding where and
when to complete work. Analyzing these findings, we developed six themes, five of
which could be moderators in the relationship between FWA and WFC. Below, we will
discuss the theoretical contributions of our findings. We acknowledge that work–fam-
ily scholars have already discussed many of the themes that emerged from our review.
However, we clarify that our findings target the literature involving the relationship
between FWA and WFC. We address the gaps reported in meta-analytic reviews that
in part examined the effects of FWA on WFC, and we propose that future quantitative
researchers consider the recommended moderators.
Almost all studies included in the review revealed that although academics valued the
flexible nature of their job and that flexibility helped them manage their work–family
326 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

demands, they still experienced high levels of WFC, which is consistent with the findings
of quantitative studies confirming that faculty members’ WFC is relatively high (e.g.,
3.43 on a 5-point Likert-type scale; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). This demonstrates
that, based on the accounts shared by academics who participated in the qualitative stud-
ies, FWA help reduce WFC, but their effects might be contingent on some moderating
variables. As recommended by statisticians, when a study seeks to determine the degree
of effects between two variables, it is proper to investigate the impact of moderators
(Hayes, 2013). We propose that the themes identified in this review, and discussed below,
represent five potential moderator variables in the FWA-WFC relationship.
From quantitative reviews, we know that demographic characteristics—for exam-
ple, gender and parental status—moderate the impact of FWA on WFC. For example,
female workers, and participants with children, benefit more from flexible work
schedules than men or participants without children (Byron, 2005). In this review, we
propose three individual-level moderators. First, boundary management preferences
moderate the relationship between FWA and WFC. Specifically, given different pref-
erences for separating or integrating work and family domains, integrators may feel
less conflicted if they have highly FWA. Second, given that FWA provide individuals
with discretion in managing their time, better time management skills may increase
the chance of benefiting from FWA in alleviating WFC. Third, career and family
stages affect the amount of time and energy employees have to invest in career or fam-
ily activities. Thus, employees parenting young children and those in early career
stages are more likely to benefit from FWA to decrease their WFC.
Our findings regarding individual-level moderators (i.e., boundary management
preferences, time management skills, and career/family stage) contribute to the debate
about the role of individual differences in managing WFC. Work–family scholarship
has paid less attention to individual differences than to employer-centered and work-
place solutions for employees’ WFC (Allen, 2012). It seems that work–family scholars
have avoided looking into the role of individual differences as it would look like
“blaming the victim” (Allen, 2012, p. 1185). As a result, most of the recommendations
for managing WFC target organizations and governmental policies. Accounting for
individual differences has been called the “missing link” in FWA discourse (Shockley
& Allen, 2010, p. 131). Our findings draw attention to three individual difference vari-
ables essential to the study of the effects of FWA on individual’s experiences of WFC.
We invite future quantitative research to measure the degree to which individual dif-
ferences regarding boundary management preference, time management skills, and
family/career stage moderate the impact of FWA on employee WFC.
The individual-level moderator variables also contribute to the debate about FWA
availability and its actual use (Allen et al., 2013). A person with a strong preference for
integrating work and family roles or excellent time management skills may be more
likely to use FWA to avoid letting work overtake family roles. Parent workers with
young children may also be more likely to use and benefit from FWA.
An insufficient number of quantitative studies have included descriptions of partici-
pants’ job characteristics or the examined flexible work interventions to enable meta-
analyses to test the moderation effects of variables other than individual demographic
Beigi et al. 327

differences (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2006). The only nondemographic modera-

tor examined in FWA meta-analyses has been telecommuting intensity. That study showed
FWA was more beneficial to high-intensity commuters (i.e., 2.5 or more days per week
working remotely) than to low-intensity commuters (i.e., less than 2.5 days; Gajendran &
Harrison, 2007). In our review, we propose that the nature of the job and family-friendly
organizational culture are moderators that explain effects beyond individual differences.
First, the nature of the job—specifically, a job that allows for an around-the-clock work
schedule—may diminish the positive effects of FWA on lowering WFC. Second, given
that a family-friendly organizational culture supports workers’ work–family needs, such
a culture improves the chance of alleviating WFC through FWA.
Our proposition regarding the nature of the job supports work–family scholars advo-
cating for an occupational perspective (see Kossek & Lautsch, 2017 for a review).
Proponents of this view urge work–family researchers to explore the range of work–
family experiences specific to particular occupations (Parasuraman & Greenhaus,
2002). In this review, we found that the occupational characteristics of academic jobs
partially account for how individuals interpret the effects of FWA on their WFC. An
academic job has a relatively unique characteristic of not only being accountable to the
immediate employing organization of the individual, but also the wider academic com-
munity (Baruch & Hall, 2004; Harley, Muller-Camen, & Collin, 2004). Therefore, there
might be no end to the number of scholarly publications and contributions that an indi-
vidual could produce (Neumann, 2009). The heavy burden of never-ending require-
ments to publish more might not have been viable had the nature of the job not been
flexible. That the majority of participants in the qualitative studies valued the flexible
nature of their jobs—and some had even selected their job because of its flexible
nature—might be valuable in this respect as well. Thus, the nature of the job moderator
raises the question of whether the flexible work arrangements induce excessively high
levels of work (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2014; Kelly & Moen, 2007). It calls attention to the
possibility that in jobs with high demands, especially those with around-the-clock char-
acteristics, where workers are able to work whenever and wherever, the effects of FWA
may not reduce WFC, but may actually increase it (Thomas, 2014).
We reviewed the FWA-WFC relationship among academics where the nature of the
job allows a significant amount of work to be performed at different hours, around-
the-clock, and even away from the office. The nature of the job moderator can apply
to occupations with similar characteristics such as an on call medical doctor in which
sustaining boundaries between work and family spheres is difficult because individu-
als have little control over the placement and transcendence of family boundaries
(Desrochers & Sargent, 2004). Other occupations might have additional specific char-
acteristics that modify how individuals interpret the impact of FWA on their WFC.
The broad literature on family-friendly benefits suggests that despite the availabil-
ity of work–family policies including FWA in many organizations, workers who can
significantly benefit from it avoid using it (Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011; Sweet,
Pitt-Catsouphes, & James, 2016). Using FWA is not a standard way of working in
many workplaces, and many employees still believe that using FWA signals to their
supervisor or manager that they are not committed to the organization (De Menezes &
328 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

Kelliher, 2017; Kelly & Moen, 2007; Rogier & Padgett, 2004). Our findings empha-
size the importance of an organizational culture that supports flexible workers and
their family-related issues. We suggest that future research on the relationship between
FWA and WFC should examine the extent of the moderation effect of an organiza-
tional culture that supports workers’ family-related responsibilities.
It is important to highlight that this review only included qualitative articles that
focused on academics employed at 4-year universities. Other occupations that include
other flexibility specificities would have added to the depth of our findings. Our find-
ings rely on the reported accounts of the qualitative data included in the studies, and
we could not access the actual data sets due to privacy and ethical considerations.
Finally, we only included the qualitative articles that studied academics and published
their articles in the English language. Adding languages other than English could have
enriched our findings.

Methodological Implications
In this article, we demonstrated that qualitative research can not only contribute to
building theories (Lee et al., 1999) that can be tested and extended by quantitative
research (Bansal & Corley, 2012), but also can be useful in contributing to understand-
ing some of the inconsistencies in quantitative findings. Rather than speculating about
the reasons for the inconsistencies, we might conduct qualitative inquiries or synthe-
size the findings of qualitative studies that target those inconsistencies. We argue that
the narratives shared by the participants of qualitative research provide researchers
with thick descriptions that have the potential to work hand-in-hand with quantitative
scholars’ endeavors in extending theories. We demonstrated that combining the find-
ings of qualitative studies can be more commonly used to bring qualitative research
into the mainstream of inquiry and further legitimize the use of qualitative approaches
(Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). Synthesizing qualitative research findings using a
metasynthesis approach will create an opportunity to use the available research evi-
dence without methodological prejudice (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). As qualita-
tive research is common in the field of HRD, we encourage future HRD scholars to
conduct qualitative metasynthesis to make theoretical contributions to our understand-
ing of topics dominantly studied through qualitative methods. We hope our review sets
an example of the benefits of using this approach in the field of HRD.

Practical Implications
Our findings have practical implications for HRD practitioners who need to design,
determine, or evaluate the provision of flexible work options. We demonstrated that
employees’ boundary preferences, time management skills, family and/or career stage,
nature of the job, and family-friendly organizational culture might be considered
before investing in one-size-fits-all FWA initiatives. To be satisfied with the introduc-
tion of their FWA (if their outcome criterion is WFC), organizations need to consider
individual differences between employees. Specifically, in the case of costly
Beigi et al. 329

interventions, we advise HRD practitioners to consider the variables suggested in this

review in their decisions about the type and length of flexible work interventions. For
example, costly FWA may be offered during the high-pressure early career or early
parenting stages of individual workers. In addition, HRD practitioners could usefully
take account of our findings in their wider work on designing career development
interventions, and in providing career support advice to individuals.
HRD practitioners may take a case-by-case approach instead of a generic one-size-
fits-all approach toward offering flexibility solutions to alleviate WFC. As discussed in
this article, integrators (employees who prefer to combine work and family) may wel-
come/use FWA more and benefit from it more than separators (employees who prefer
to maintain a boundary between work and family). HRD practitioners might offer rel-
evant workshops, for example work–home time management skills, to the integrators
to facilitate the ultimate goal of FWA, which is to improve work–life balance.
This review provided support that specific job and occupational characteristics can
determine how much FWA can influence WFC. When designing FWA solutions for
different groups of professionals, the specific characteristics of their jobs and occupa-
tions need to be taken into consideration. For example, additional components, such as
productivity training (Nippert-Eng, 2008), may be needed to ensure the effectiveness
of flexibility in reducing WFC. In cases of jobs that are heavily dependent on technol-
ogy, FWA may be more effective if accompanied by strategies such as forced quiet
hours (Perlow, 2012) that require employees to be disconnected from the digital
devices for certain hours of the day.
Organizational HRD units offering FWA as a work–family benefit, may find that their
employees experience greater reductions in WFC through a supportive culture for family
concerns. This culture could be enhanced through cultural change initiatives such as
“Results Only Work Environment” to encourage the notion that increased flexibility is
beneficial (Kelly & Moen, 2007, p. 496) and/or initiatives that communicate mindful-
ness about WFC such as “no meeting Mondays” (Kelly et al., 2008, p. 310). HRD inter-
ventions on leadership and management development can also focus on relevant
supportive leadership skills, as well as on building appropriate organizational cultures.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
References marked with an asterisk indicate the studies included in this review.
*Acker, S., Webber, M., & Smyth, E. (2016). Continuity or change? Gender, family, and aca-
demic work for junior faculty in Ontario universities. NASPA Journal About Women in
Higher Education, 9, 1-20.
330 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

Allen, T. D., & Shockley, K. (2009). Flexible work arrangements: Help or hype. In D. Russell
Crane, Jeffrey E. Hill (Ed.), Handbook of families and work: Interdisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 265-284). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Allen, T. D. (2012). The work-family interface. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1163-1198). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict
and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66,
345-376. doi:10.1111/peps.12012
*Armenti, C. (2004). Women faculty seeking tenure and parenthood: Lessons from previous
generations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 65-83.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro
role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472-491. doi:10.2307/259305
Austin, A. E. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing
expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26, 119-144.
*Baker, M. (2010). Choices or constraints? Family responsibilities, gender and academic career.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 1-18.
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, 496-513.
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about qualitative
research? Academy of Management Journal, 55, 509-513.
Baruch, Y., & Hall, D. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sec-
tors? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 241-262.
Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2012). Academic work from a comparative perspective: A survey of
faculty working time across 13 countries. Higher Education, 63, 529-547.
Birmingham, S. G., & Wasburn, M. H. (2008). On or off the tenure track: The work lives
of women engineering and technology. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 14, 411-425.
*Brown, J. B., Fluit, M., Lent, B., & Herbert, C. (2011). Seeking balance: The complexity of
choice-making among academic surgeons. Academic Medicine, 86, 1288-1292.
Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 729-769.
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169-198.
Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews
and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.
Callahan, J. L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource
Development Review, 13, 271-275.
Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2014). Consequences of flexibility stigma among academic sci-
entists and engineers. Work and Occupations, 41, 86-110.
*Cherkowski, S., & Bosetti, L. (2014). Behind the veil: Academic women negotiating demands
of femininity. Women’s Studies International Forum, 45, 19-26.
Chesley, N., Moen, P., & Shore, R. P. (2003). The new technology climate work and family in
the information age. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couples’ career strains, strategies,
and successes (pp. 220-241). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Claessens, B. J., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time manage-
ment literature. Personnel Review, 36, 255-276.
Beigi et al. 331

Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human
Relations, 53, 747-770.
Cohen, A. (1991). Career stage as a moderator of the relationships between organizational commit-
ment and its outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 253-268.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing:
A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 1281-1303.
*Craft, C. M., & Maseberg-Tomlinson, J. (2015). Challenges experienced by one academic
mother transitioning from maternity leave back to academia. NASPA Journal About Women
in Higher Education, 8, 66-81.
*Damaske, S., Ecklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & White, V. J. (2014). Male scientists’ competing
devotions to work and family: Changing norms in a male-dominated profession. Work and
Occupations, 41, 477-507.
*Damiano-Teixeira, K. M. (2006). Managing conflicting roles: A qualitative study with female
faculty members. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 310-334.
Darcy, C., McCarthy, A., Hill, J., & Grady, G. (2012). Work–life balance: One size fits all?
An exploratory analysis of the differential effects of career stage. European Management
Journal, 30, 111-120.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2017). Flexible working, individual performance, and
employee attitudes: Comparing formal and informal arrangements. Human Resource
Management, 56, 1051-1070.
Desrochers, S., & Sargent, L. D. (2004). Boundary/border theory and work-family integration.
Organization Management Journal, 1, 40-48.
*Eddy, P. L., & Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2008). New faculty on the block: Issues of stress and sup-
port. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17, 89-106.
Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-to-
family conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations and time
management. Human Relations, 63, 63-82.
Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American academic profession. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Fox, M. F., Fonseca, C., & Bao, J. (2011). Work and family conflict in academic science:
Patterns and predictors among women and men in research universities. Social Studies of
Science, 41, 715-735.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecom-
muting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1524-1541.
Gephart, R. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the academy of management
journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 454-462.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483-496.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to
work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350-370. doi:10.1006/
jvbe.1998.1666
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88.
Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
332 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

*Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (2004). Diapers, dissertations, and other
holy things: The experiences of mothers working in Christian colleges and universities.
Christian Higher Education, 3, 41-60.
Harley, S., Muller-Camen, M., & Collin, A. (2004). From academic communities to managed
organizations: The implications for academic careers in U.K. and German universities.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 329-345.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
*Heijstra, T. M., & Rafnsdóttir, G. L. (2010). The Internet and academics’ workload and work–
family balance. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 158-163.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hill, E. J., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C., Shulkin, S., & Pitt-
Catsouphes, M. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community,
Work & Family, 11, 149-163.
*Hirakata, P. E., & Daniluk, J. C. (2009). Swimming upstream: The experience of academic
mothers of young children. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy/Revue
canadienne de counseling et de psychothérapie, 43, 284-293.
*Kachchaf, R., Ko, L., Hodari, A., & Ong, M. (2015). Career–life balance for women of
color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 8, 175-191.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Kahnweiler, W. M. (2008). The work-life conundrum: Will HRD become more involved?
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 75-83.
*Kalet, A. L., Fletcher, K. E., Ferdman, D. J., & Bickell, N. A. (2006). Defining, navigating, and
negotiating success: The experiences of mid-career Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
women. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 920-925.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2003). Two perspectives on the tyranny of time: Polychronicity
and monochronicity as depicted in cast away. The Journal of American Culture, 26, 87-95.
Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., . . . Kaskubar, D.
(2008). Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–
family conflict and business outcomes. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 305-349.
Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2007). Rethinking the clockwork of work: Why schedule control may
pay off at work and at home. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 487-506.
Kirkwood, J., & Tootell, B. (2008). Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-
family balance? Journal of Management & Organization, 14, 285-302. doi:10.1017/
S183336720000328X
Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age. Organizational
Dynamics, 45, 258-270.
Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How work–family research can finally
have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 352-369.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2012). Work-family boundary management styles in organiza-
tions: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 152-171.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2017). Work-life flexibility for whom? Occupational status
and work-life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of Management
Annals, 12, 5-36. doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0059
Beigi et al. 333

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effective-
ness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347-367.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). “Good teleworking”: Under what condi-
tions does teleworking enhance employees’ well-being? In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.),
Technology and psychological well-being (pp. 148-173). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work–nonwork
boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 81, 112-128.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges:
Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management
Journal, 52, 704-730.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and
vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.
*Lester, J. (2013). Work-life balance and cultural change: A narrative of eligibility. The Review
of Higher Education, 36, 463-488.
Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary orga-
nizations: A qualitative and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
37, S9-S29.
Madsen, S. R. (2003). The effects of home-based teleworking on work-family conflict. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 35-58.
Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship between
work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399-409.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environments
affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 27,
555-574.
Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents
of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
689-725.
Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work conditions,
gender, and life quality. Social Problems, 47, 291-326.
Morris, M. L. (2012). Unleashing human expertise through work/life initiatives. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 427-439.
Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American
research university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
*Nikunen, M. (2012). Changing university work, freedom, flexibility and family. Studies in
Higher Education, 37, 713-729.
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (2008). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
*Oates, K. L., Hall, M. E. L. H., & Anderson, T. L. (2005). Calling and conflict: A qualitative
exploration of interrole conflict and the sanctification of work in Christian mothers in aca-
demia. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 33, 210-223.
*O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2011). Faculty sense of agency in decisions about work and
family. The Review of Higher Education, 34, 447-476.
334 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–
family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299-312.
*Penney, S., Young, G., Badenhorst, C., Goodnough, K., Hesson, J., Joy, R., . . . Pelech, S.
(2015). Faculty writing groups: A support for women balancing family and career on the
academic tightrope. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45, 457-479.
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with my blackberry: How to break the 24/7 habit and change the
way you work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
*Perrakis, A., & Martinez, C. (2012). In pursuit of sustainable leadership: How female aca-
demic department chairs with children negotiate personal and professional roles. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 14, 205-220.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & MacDermid, S. M. (2007). HRD responses to work—
Family stressors. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 527-543.
*Poronsky, C. B., Doering, J. J., Mkandawire-Valhmu, L., & Rice, E. I. (2012). Transition to
the tenure track for nurse faculty with young children: A case study. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 33, 255-259.
*Rafnsdóttir, G. L., & Heijstra, T. M. (2013). Balancing work–family life in academia: The
power of time. Gender, Work & Organization, 20, 283-296.
*Raiden, A. B., & Räisänen, C. (2013). Striving to achieve it all: Men and work-family-life
balance in Sweden and the U.K. Construction Management and Economics, 31, 899-913.
*Reddick, R. J., Rochlen, A. B., Grasso, J. R., Reilly, E. D., & Spikes, D. D. (2012). Academic
fathers pursuing tenure: A qualitative study of work-family conflict, coping strategies, and
departmental culture. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 1-15.
Roehling, P. V., Moen, P., & Batt, R. M. (2003). Spillover. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time:
Couples’ career strains, strategies, and successes (pp. 101-121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Rogier, S. A., & Padgett, M. Y. (2004). The impact of utilizing a flexible work schedule on
the perceived career advancement potential of women. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 15, 89-106.
Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
*Sallee, M. W. (2013). Gender norms and institutional culture: The family-friendly versus the
father-friendly university. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 363-396.
*Sallee, M. W., & Hart, J. (2015). Cultural navigators: International faculty fathers in the U.S.
research university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8, 192-211.
*Sallee, M. W., & Pascale, A. B. (2012). Multiple roles, multiple burdens: The experiences
of female scientists with children. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 18, 135-152.
*Sallee, M. W., Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2016). Can anyone have it all? Gendered views
on parenting and academic careers. Innovative Higher Education, 41, 187-202.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New
York, NY: Springer.
Santos, G. G. (2014). Narratives about work and family life among Portuguese academics.
Gender, Work & Organization, 22(1), 1-15.
*Santos, G. G. (2015). Narratives about work and family life among Portuguese academics.
Gender, Work & Organization, 22, 1-15.
*Santos, G. G., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2008). Work-family culture in academia: A gen-
dered view of work-family conflict and coping strategies. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 23, 442-457.
Beigi et al. 335

*Schlehofer, M. (2012). Practicing what we teach? An autobiographical reflection on navigat-

ing academia as a single mother. Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 112-128.
Secret, M., & Swanberg, J. (2008). Work-family experiences and the insights of municipal gov-
ernment employees: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 37, 199-221.
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2010). Investigating the missing link in flexible work arrange-
ment utilization: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
76(1), 131-142.
*Skachkova, P. (2007). Academic careers of immigrant women professors in the U.S. Higher
Education, 53, 697-738.
*Solomon, C. R. (2011). “Sacrificing at the altar of tenure”: Assistant professors’ work/life
management. The Social Science Journal, 48, 335-344.
*Strong, E. A., De Castro, R., Sambuco, D., Stewart, A., Ubel, P. A., Griffith, K. A., & Jagsi, R.
(2013). Work–life balance in academic medicine: Narratives of physician-researchers and
their mentors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28, 1596-1603.
Swanson, R. A., Holton, E. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sweet, S., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & James, J. B. (2016). Successes in changing flexible work
arrangement use: Managers and work-unit variation in a financial services organization.
Work and Occupations, 43, 75-109.
*Takahashi, A. R. W., Lourenço, M. L., Sander, J. A., & Souza, C. P. D. S. (2014). Competence
development and work-family conflict: Professors and gender. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 29, 210-228.
*Thanacoody, P. R., Bartram, T., Barker, M., & Jacobs, K. (2006). Career progression among
female academics: A comparative study of Australia and Mauritius. Women in Management
Review, 21, 536-553.
Thomas, K. J. (2014). Workplace technology and the creation of boundaries: The role of VHRD
in a 24/7 work environment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, 281-295.
*Toffoletti, K., & Starr, K. (2016). Women academics and work–life balance: Gendered dis-
courses of work and care. Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 489-504.
*Toren, N. (1991). The nexus between family and work roles of academic women in Israel:
Reality and representation. Sex Roles, 24, 651-667.
*Trepal, H. C., & Stinchfield, T. A. (2012). Experiences of motherhood in counselor education.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 51, 112-126.
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50, 204-211.
*Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in
research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 233-257.
*Weigt, J. M., & Solomon, C. R. (2008). Work–family management among low-wage ser-
vice workers and assistant professors in the USA: A comparative intersectional analysis.
Gender, Work & Organization, 15, 621-649.
*Wilton, S., & Ross, L. (2017). Flexibility, sacrifice and insecurity: A Canadian study assess-
ing the challenges of balancing work and family in academia. Journal of Feminist Family
Therapy, 29, 66-87.
*Wolf-Wendel, L. E., & Ward, K. (2006). Academic life and motherhood: Variations by insti-
tutional type. Higher Education, 52, 487-521.
*Wolf-Wendel, L. E., & Ward, K. (2015). Academic mothers: Exploring disciplinary perspec-
tives. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 19-35.
336 Human Resource Development Review 17(3)

World at Work. (2015). Trends in workplace flexibility. Scottsdale, AZ: World at Work
Customer Relations.
*Ylijoki, O. H. (2013). Boundary-work between work and life in the high-speed university.
Studies in Higher Education, 38, 242-255.
Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 53, 311-318.

Author Biographies
Mina Beigi is a lecturer (assistant professor) of Organizational Behavior at Southampton
Business School, University of Southampton. Mina’s research interests include work-family
interface and success in contemporary careers. Mina’s work has been published in Human
Relations, Journal of avocational Behavior, and Applied Psychology: An International Review
among others. Mina serves as the associate editor of Human Resource Development Review
(HRDR) Journal (Impact factor 2.05).
Melika Shirmohammadi is a PhD research fellow of Human Resource Development at Texas
A&M University. Her research interests include immigrants’ career development and work-
family interface. She has published in a number of peer-reviewed journals including Journal of
Vocational Behavior and Applied Psychology: An International Review. Effective on August
13, 2018, Melika will start a faculty appointment as an assistant professor in the Organizational
Learning and Performance Department in the College of Education at Idaho State University.
Jim Stewart is professor of Human Resource Development in Liverpool Business School. He
is a former chair and currently president of the University Forum for HRD and was appointed
the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) chief examiner for Learning and
Development in 2008. Jim is author and co-editor of over 20 books on HRD as well as of numer-
ous articles in academic and professional journals.