Reducing Work-Life Conflict: What Works? What Doesn't?

3.3.3.2 Impact of the Different Forms of Flexibility on Work-Life Conflict

The measure of perceived flexibility included in this analysis includes 10 ways in which organizations can increase the amount of control their employees have over their work schedule. To help employers evaluate which of these strategies would have the most positive impact in their organization, we examined the extent to which each of these 10 flexibility strategies helped employees cope with each of the four types of work-life conflict considered in this study. Furthermore, to help employers target their interventions appropriately we looked at whether or not the employee's gender, job type and dependent care status have an impact on the extent to which the various forms of flexibility helped employees cope with work-life conflict.

The discussion in the section below focuses only on those forms of flexibility that substantively impact an employee's ability to cope with work-life conflict. Substantiveness was determined by first looking at the R² of the ANOVA and identifying forms of flexibility that explained approximately 4% of the variance in work-life conflict. We then calculated the difference between the level of work-life conflict experienced by someone who has high levels of this form of flexibility and someone who has moderate and low levels. Strategies with little to no association with work-life conflict (defined as non-significant finding and/or a difference of less than 0.3) are not mentioned in the discussion below. The interested reader can, however, find the complete set of data on which this section is based in Appendix C or consult Table 4 (summarizes key findings from gender by dependent care analyses) and Table 5 (summarizes key findings from gender by job type analysis).

Table 4: Impact of Dimensions of Perceived Flexibility on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Dependent Care Analysis
a. Significant Interactions

Individual Coping Strategy	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Total measure	F = 3.4, α = .003 R2 = .123	ns	ns	ns
Vary working hours	ns	ns	F = 3.2, α = .004 R2 = .051	ns
Take holidays when want	F = 604.2, α = .002 R2 = .088	ns	ns	ns
Take time off for course/conference	F = 3.5, α = .002 R2 = .110	F = 3.2, α = .003 R2 = .111	ns	ns
Take paid day off when child is sick	F = 4.8, α = .000 R2 = .073	F = 4.5, α = .003 R2 = .088	ns	ns
Arrange work schedule to meet personal/family commitments	ns	ns	F = 3.6, α = .001 R2 = .051	ns

Table 4: Impact of Dimensions of Perceived Flexibility on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Dependent Care Analysis
b. Main Effects

Measure of Perceived Flexibility	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Total measure	Interaction	F = 2280.5, α = .000 R2 = .177, Δ = - 0.9	F = 207.4, α = .000 R2 = .057, Δ = - 0.4	F = 15.5, α = .000 R2 = .048, Δ = - 0.3
Vary working hours	F = 335.6, α = .000 R2 = .066, Δ = - 0.4	F =675.8, α = .000 R2 = .077, Δ = - 0.6	Interaction	F = 9.6, α = .000 R2 = .051, Δ = - 0.3
Vary work location (i.e. tele-work)	F = 109.1, α = .000 R2 = .049, Δ = - 0.3	R2 = .024	R2 = .042 *	R2 = .042 **
Take holidays when want	Interaction	F = 1273.5, α = .000 R2 = .113, Δ = - 0.8	F = 69.4, α = .000 R2 = .048, Δ = - 0.3	R2 = .045 *
Take time off for course/conference	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .052 **	R2 = .050 **
Interrupt work day for family reasons and return	F = 666.3, α = .000 R2 = .095, Δ = - 0.6	F = 1233.2 α = .000 R2 = .114, Δ = - 0.8	R2 = .005	F = 16.1 α = .000 R2 = .048, Δ = - 0.3
Take paid day off when child is sick	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .018	R2 = .039
Take paid day off for elder dependent	F = 326.3, α = .000 R2 = .082, Δ = - 0.6	F = 590.3, α = .000 R2 = .094, Δ = - 1.0	F = 118.2, α = .000 R2 = .043, Δ = - 0.3	R2 = .047 **
Have meals with family	F = 608.5, α = .000 R2 = .088, Δ = - 0.6	F = 1479.4, α = .000 R2 = .135, Δ = - 0.9	F = 89.3, α = .000 R2 = .042, Δ = - 0.3	F = 21.5, α = .000 R2 = .048, Δ = - 0.3
Be home when children get home from school	R2 = .067 **	F = 257.9, α = .000 R2 = .054, Δ = - 0.7	R2 = .023	R2 = .031
Arrange work schedule to meet personal/family commitments	F = 862.2, α = .000 R2 = .116, Δ = - 0.7	F = 1863.9, α = .000 R2 = .135, Δ = - 0.9	Interaction	F = 24.8, α = .000 R2 = .051, Δ = - 0.3

Table 5: Impact of Dimensions of Perceived Flexibility on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Job Type Analysis
a. Significant Interactions

Individual Coping Strategy	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Total measure	F = 4.4, α = .000 R2 = .117	F = 7.3, α = .000 R2 = .195	ns	ns
Vary working hours	ns	F = 4.1, α = .001 R2 = .091	R2 = .008	ns
Take holidays when want	F = 582.1, α = .000 R2 = .071	F = 1246.9, α = .000 R2 = .126	R2 = .007	ns
Take time off for course/conference	F = 4.8, α = .000 R2 = .126	F = 7.4, α = .000 R2 = .128	R2 = .012	ns
Interrupt work day for family reasons and return	F = 4.8, α = .000 R2 = .095	F = 4.3, α = .000 R2 = .126	R2 = .012	ns
Take paid day off when child is sick	F = 6.1, α = .000 R2 = .075	F = 9.1, α = .000 R2 = .113	R2 = .015	ns
Take paid day off when elder dependent needs care	F = 4.5, α = .000 R2 = .087	F = 9.4, α = .000 R2 = .111	ns	ns
Be home when children get home from school	ns	ns	R2 = .022	ns
Arrange work schedule to meet personal/family commitments	F = 3.9, α = .000 R2 = .112	F = 3.7, α = .000 R2 = .175	R2 = .022	ns

Table 5: Impact of Dimensions of Perceived Flexibility on Work-Life Conflict: Gender by Job Type Analysis
b. Main effects

Measure of Perceived Flexibility	Overload	Work to Family	Family to Work	Caregiver Strain
Total measure	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .036
Vary working hours	F = 348.8, α = .000 R2 = .055, Δ = 0.4	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .037
Vary work location (i.e. tele-work)	R2 = .036	R2 = .037	R2 = .001	R2 = .028
Take holidays when want	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .033
Take time off for course/conference	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .037
Interrupt work day for family reasons and return	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .037
Take paid day off when child is sick	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .032
Take paid day off for elder dependent	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .018	R2 = .035
Have meals with family	F = 618.2, α = .000 R2 = .078, Δ = - 0.6	F = 1525.7, α = .000 R2 = .155, Δ = - 0.9	Interaction	R2 = .048 **
Be home when children get home from school	F = 195.9, α = .000 R2 = .066, Δ = - 0.4	F = 326.1, α = .000 R2 = .076, Δ = - 1.0	Interaction	R2 = .024
Arrange work schedule to meet personal/family commitments	Interaction	Interaction	Interaction	R2 = .035

Schedule flexibility effective at reducing role overload

With one exception,²⁷ increased levels of all forms of schedule flexibility examined in this analysis were associated with lower levels of role overload, suggesting that increased flexibility does help employees cope with the demand element of work-life conflict.

Ability to vary work hours helps all employees cope with role overload

We can identify three types of schedule flexibility that are negatively associated with role overload regardless of gender, dependent care status and job type:

• The ability to be home in time to have meals with family (Δ = -.6)
• The ability to vary work hours (i.e. arrival and departure times) (Δ = - .4)
• The ability to be home when children get home from school (Δ = - .4)

All three of these forms of flexibility make it easier for employees to be home in the 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. time frame -- a critical period for family activities and integration (i.e. help children with homework, have family meals together). It is hard to determine the direction of causality in these findings. It may be that employees with fewer demands are more able to vary their work hours and be home at a specific time. Alternatively, the ability to schedule hours to match a family routine may reduce demands associated with child care, meal preparation and travel. The fact that all employees, regardless of their demands, find such flexibility useful suggests that this type of flexibility does help them cope with role overload.

Figure 10: Relationship Between Take Holidays When Want and Role Overload
a. Gender by Job Type

Figure 10: Relationship Between Take Holidays When Want and Role Overload
b. Gender by Dependent Care

Figure 11: Relationship Between Take Time Off for Course and Role Overload
a. Gender by Job Type

Figure 11: Relationship Between Take Time Off for Course and Role Overload
b. Gender by Dependent Care

Ability to take holidays when one wants associated with lower role overload for those without dependent care

As can be seen in Figures 10a (gender by job type) and 10b (gender by dependent care), the ability to take holidays when one wants is associated with lower levels of role overload for both men and women, regardless of dependent care status or job type. Not all groups, however, benefit equally from this type of flexibility. Who realizes the greatest reductions in role overload from this type of flexibility?

• Men and women without dependent care responsibilities, regardless of their gender (Δ = -.6)
• Men with dependent care responsibilities (Δ = -.5)
• Men and women in the other job grouping (Δ = -.5)
• Men in managerial and professional positions (Δ = -.5)

Women with dependent care (Δ = -. 3) and females in managerial and professional positions (Δ = -.4), on the other hand, realize significantly smaller reductions in role overload due to this form of flexibility.

These data suggest that vacations can provide needed relief from heavy demands and overload if they can be scheduled as needed by the employee. The fact that this type of flexibility is more effective in reducing role overload for men and women without dependent care responsibilities and less so in reducing overload for women with dependent care suggests that vacations help relieve demands associated with work rather than family.

The ability to attend a conference or course associated with lower role overload

Employees who find it easy to take time off work to attend a course or a conference report substantially lower levels of role overload than those who find it hard. As can be seen by examining the relationships shown in Figures 11a (gender by job type) and 11b (gender by dependent care), the relationship is not straightforward; in many cases, employees realize a more significant drop in role overload when they move from low levels of this form of flexibility to moderate levels than they do when they move from moderate to high. It is also interesting to note that, similar to the findings with respect to flexibility around vacation time, this form of flexibility appears to have less of an impact on role overload for female managers and professionals (Δ = -. 4) than for other groups of employees.

It is hard to determine the direction of causality in these findings. It may be that employees with fewer demands are more able to engage in training and go to conferences. Alternatively, the ability to get away from the normal work and non-work routines may help employees put things into perspective and thus reduce overload.

Figure 12: Relationship Between Take Paid Day Off for Child Care and Role Overload
a. Gender by Job Type

Figure 12: Relationship Between Take Paid Day Off for Child Care and Role Overload
b. Gender by Dependent Care

Men who can take a paid day off to care for a sick child are more able to cope with role overload

While the ability to take a paid day off to look after a sick child is associated with lower levels of role overload for all employees, the data in Figures 12a (gender by job type) and 12b (gender by dependent care) indicate that this form of flexibility benefits men more than women. Women with dependent care responsibilities realize only a small decline in role overload (Δ = -.2) when they are at high levels of this flexibility. This compares unfavourably with the decline in role overload of -.6 reported by their male counterparts.

A similar finding can be observed when we look at the data through a job type lens. Male managers and professionals with high levels of this form of flexibility realize the greatest reductions in role overload (Δ = -.5). Men and women in other positions who feel that it is easy to take a paid day off if their child is sick also experience lower levels of role overload than their peers without such flexibility (Δ = -.4). Unfortunately, the ability to take paid time off to care for a sick child has little impact on role overload levels of female managers and professionals (Δ = -.2).

It is hard to say why female managers and professionals with dependent care realize less of a benefit from paid time off to care for a sick child than their male counterparts or women in other positions. It may be that these women are more likely to try to maintain high levels of performance in both roles (i.e. try to get work done while caring for a sick child).

The ability to deal with family concerns during work hours is associated with lower overload

The results with respect to the final three types of schedule flexibility (arrange work day to meet family commitments, take a paid day off work for elder care, interrupt work day to deal with family issue and then return) are very interesting. In all three of these cases, increased flexibility is associated with lower levels of role overload. It can be argued that these three forms of flexibility all give employees the ability to deal with planned or unplanned family-role responsibilities during regular work hours. It is plausible that these types of flexibility make it possible for employees to deal with family concerns at their convenience rather than having to either expend effort to find someone else to do the task or deal with the personal or family issue at a time that is less convenient or during "downtime."

In the gender by dependent care analysis, the relationship between these forms of flexibility and overload is very straightforward: the more employees perceive that they can take a paid day off work to care for a sick child, the lower their role overload, regardless of gender or dependent care status.²⁸

These relationships are not, however, as straightforward when job type is taken into account. As can be seen in Figures 13, 14 and 15, the extent to which these forms of flexibility help employees cope with role overload depends on both gender and job type. The fact that the gender by job type interaction was significant while the gender by dependent care interaction was not suggests that job type, rather than family situation, influences how effective each of these forms of flexibility are at helping employees deal with role overload.

Figure 13: Relationship Between Paid Day for Elder Care and Role Overload
Gender by Job Type

Figure 14: Relationship Between Ability to Arrange Work Schedule and Role Overload
Gender by Job Type

Figure 15: Relationship Between Ability to Interrupt Work Day and Role Overload
Gender by Job Type

• The ability to arrange a work schedule to meet personal/family commitments and to interrupt a work day for personal/family reasons and then return are strongly associated with role overload. The association between taking a paid day off to care for an elderly dependent and role overload is also well above our 4% cut-off criteria.
• In all three cases, females in other positions realize the most benefit (i.e. greatest drop in role overload) from these types of flexibility, while female managers and professionals achieve the least.

These findings are similar to what was observed with respect to the ability to take holidays when one wants, attend a course and take a paid day off for child care. Future research needs to be done to identify why these forms of flexibility do not help high-achieving women cope with role overload to the same extent as they do other types of employees (including high-achieving men).

Schedule flexibility effective at reducing work-to-family interference

With one exception (tele-work), all of the forms of schedule flexibility examined in this analysis were associated with lower levels of work-to-family interference, suggesting that increased flexibility does help employees cope with the scheduling element of work-life conflict. In fact, the data indicate that perceived flexibility is more strongly associated with this form of work-life conflict than any of the other manifestations of work-life conflict considered in this study.

Ability to vary work hours helps all employees cope with work-to-family interference

Employers who are concerned about work-to-family interference need to do two things: make it easier for employees to be home in time to have meals with the family and/or when their children get home from school. The importance of these two forms of flexibility in helping employees cope with this form of work-life conflict can be illustrated by the following facts:

• The difference in interference levels between employees who perceive that it is easy for them to be home during the critical 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. time frame and those who find this action to be difficult is among the largest observed in this study (Δ = -.9 for being home for dinner and Δ = -1.0 for being home when children get home from school).

• The R² in these analyses are substantially higher than the cut-off of 4%.

• These two forms of flexibility are associated with substantively lower levels of this form of interference, regardless of gender, job type or dependent care status.

These findings make intuitive sense. Employees who are able to schedule their work hours to harmonize with their family routines (particularly eating dinner together, which has been identified as critical to effective functioning) are less likely to feel that their work interferes with the performance of critical family roles. Common sense does not, however, mean common practice, as only half the employees in our sample say they find it easy to be home in time for dinner with their family and 12% find it easy to be home when their children get home from school. Attention to these areas should yield huge dividends for both employers and employees, as focusing on increasing flexibility in these areas will have the added benefit of helping employees cope with role overload.

The effectiveness of many forms of schedule flexibility depends on the employee's job type

Five forms of flexibility can be seen to help men and women cope with work-to-family interference, regardless of their dependent care status:

• Take paid day off to care for an elderly relative (Δ = -1.0)
• Arrange work to meet personal/family commitments (Δ = -.9)
• Take holidays when you want (Δ = -.8)
• Interrupt work day then return (Δ = -.8)
• Vary work hours (Δ = -.6)

What can an employer do to help employees deal with work-to-family interference? The data suggest that strategies that make it easier for employees to coordinate work and non-work-role commitments and deal with planned or unplanned family-role responsibilities and commitments are effective at reducing work-to-family interference. The effectiveness of these forms of flexibility at reducing interference is reflected in the high R² (range from 8% to 14%) and high Δs (-.6 to -1.0).

The results with respect to these forms of flexibility are very similar to those observed with role overload. In both analyses, the extent to which three of the forms of flexibility (paid day off for elder care, arrange work day, and interrupt work and return) were associated with lower work-life conflict depended on both gender and job type. The work-to-family interference analysis identified two additional forms of schedule flexibility (vary work hours, take holidays when you want) that also follow this pattern. This pattern of findings reinforces our conclusion that it is job type rather than dependent care status that makes the difference in the effectiveness of the various forms of perceived flexibility at reducing work-life conflict.

Figure 16: Relationship Between Ability to Arrange Work Schedule and Work-to-Family Interference
Gender by Job Type

Figure 17: Relationship Between Take Holidays When Want and Work-to-Family Interference
Gender by Job Type

Figure 18: Relationship Between Ability to Interrupt Work Day and Work-to-Family Interference
Gender by Job Type

Figure 19: Relationship Between Paid Day Off for Elder Care and Work-to-Family Interference
Gender by Job Type

Figure 20: Relationship Between Ability to Vary Work Time and Work-to-Family Interference
Gender by Job Type

So what role do gender and job type play with respect to the relationship between these forms of flexibility and work-to-family interference? The answer to this question is found by examining the data in Table 5 and Figures 16 to 20. The following key observations can be drawn from these data:

• Higher levels of five forms of flexibility are associated with lower levels of work-to-family interference for both men and women when job type is taken into account.
• All five forms of flexibility are strongly associated with the amount of interference experienced by employees. The R²s are very high,²⁹ as is the difference in work-to-family interference experienced by those with high and low levels of each of these forms of flexibility.
• Females in other positions realize the most benefit (i.e. greatest drop in work-to-family interference) from four out of five of these types of flexibility:
  • Arrange work to meet personal/family commitments (Δ = -1.0)
  • Take holidays when you want (Δ = -.9)
  • Interrupt work day then return (Δ = -1.0)
  • Vary work hours (Δ = -1.0)
• Female managers and professionals are significantly less likely than any other group examined in this study to experience a substantive drop in work-to-family interference at higher levels of the following forms of flexibility:
  • Interrupt work day then return (Δ = -.6)
  • Vary work hours (Δ = -.5)
  • Take paid day off to care for an elderly relative (Δ = -.4)
  • Take holidays when you want (Δ = -.4)
• Men and women in other positions within the organization are more likely than their counterparts in managerial and professional positions to experience lower levels of work-to-family interference for the following four types of flexibility: vary work hours, interrupt work day then return, arrange work day to meet personal family commitments, and take paid day off to care for an elderly dependent. The level of flexibility required to realize these benefits varies with the form of flexibility being considered.
  • Moderate levels of two forms of flexibility, ability to arrange one's work day (Figure 16) and ability to take a paid day off to care for an elderly dependent (Figure 19) are associated with a substantial decline in the amount of interference experienced by those in other jobs (especially women).
  • High levels of two forms of flexibility, ability to take holidays when one wants (Figure 17) and ability to vary one's work hours (Figure 20) are required before one can observe a decline in work-to-family interference for those in other positions.
  • None of these forms of flexibility was associated with work-to-family interference for men and women in managerial and professional positions.

These findings are very similar to what was observed for role overload. Again, we are left wondering why perceived flexibility appears to help those in other positions (especially women) cope with work-life conflict (in this case, work-to-family interference) but is less useful for managers and professionals in general and female managers and professionals in particular. What is it about the managerial and professional work role (or alternatively, the type of people who tend to occupy these positions) that dampens the salutary effects of perceived flexibility -- especially for women? Future studies should seek the answer to this question.

The extent to which taking time off for a course and paid time off for child care affects work-to-family interference depends on gender, job type and dependent care

The relationship between two of the forms of flexibility considered in this study (ability to take time off work to attend a course or conference and to take a paid day off work to care for a sick child) and work-to-family interference is quite complex and varies depending on the employee's gender, job type and whether or not they have dependent care status.

Figure 21: Relationship Between Time Off for Course and Work-to-Family Interference
a. Gender by Job Type

Figure 21: Relationship Between Time Off for Course and Work-to-Family Interference
b. Gender by Dependent Care

Figure 22: Relationship Between Paid Day Off for Child Care and Work-to-Family Interference
a. Gender by Job Type

Figure 22: Relationship Between Paid Day Off for Child Care and Work-to-Family Interference
b. Gender by Dependent Care

Flexibility to attend a course or conference more beneficial to those without dependents

The data linking flexibility with the ability to take time off for a course and work-to-family interference is shown in Figure 21a and 21b. The following observations can be made for this relationship. First, the fact that employees without dependent care experience a greater drop in work-to-family interference (Δ = -.9) than their counterparts with dependent care (Δ = -.7) indicates that non-work factors such as dependent care can reduce the utility of this form of flexibility in reducing work-to-family interference. For example, it may be that employed parents see the need to go to a conference or course for work as an example of how work interferes with family. Nevertheless, it is important to note that even if they have this perception, those who do attend conferences or courses that are employer sponsored report lower work-to-family interference. It may be that it is more difficult for those with dependent care responsibilities to leave their family in the first place, but once away the "holiday" from family demands results in reductions in interference. Second, consistent with many of the other findings from this analysis, the data show that females in management and professional positions receive less benefit from this type of flexibility (Δ = -.4) than their male counterparts (Δ = -.7) and men and women in other positions in the organization (Δ = -.7). This reinforces our call for further research into why women in management and professional positions do not realize the same benefits from schedule flexibility as other employees.

Ability to take a paid day off work to look after a sick child benefits men more than women

The data linking flexibility with the ability to take a paid day off to care for a sick child is shown in Figure 22a and 22b. While this form of flexibility is associated with lower levels of work-to-family interference for all employees in the sample, the data indicate that the relationship between this form of flexibility and interference depends on gender and job type. Figure 22a indicates that the ability to take a paid day off for child care benefits men with dependent care responsibilities more than their female counterparts (reduction in interference of -.9 for men with dependent care compared with -.5 for women with dependent care). Furthermore, the data show that telling female employees that they can have this flexibility some of the time but not others (i.e. moderate flexibility) will do little to reduce the amount of work-life conflict they experience. This would suggest that for women to benefit from this form of flexibility, they need to know that if their child is sick, they can always get a day off with pay.

Figure 22b indicates that within the management and professional group, men benefit more from the introduction of paid time off for child care (Δ = -.5) than their female counterparts (Δ = -.2). No such gender difference was observed for those in the other group, where both men and women experienced the same decline in interference (Δ = -.4) from this form of flexibility. Finally, consistent with many of the other findings from this study, it can be seen that female managers and professionals realize fewer benefits from this form of flexibility than either their male counterparts or females in other positions.

Perceived flexibility has little impact on incidence of family-to-work interference

Only three of the forms of flexibility considered (take holidays when want, vary work schedule, arrange work schedule to meet family commitments) have a significant impact on the extent to which employees experience family-to-work interference. In all three cases, the relationship was relatively weak (i.e. explained only 5% of the variance in this form of work-life conflict and was only able to reduce conflict by a minimal amount (Δ = -.3). Furthermore, the fact that all three significant differences were observed only in the analysis that took dependent care status into account suggests that job type has little to do with the effectiveness of these different coping strategies. Rather, it would appear that it is circumstances at home that affect the extent to which perceived flexibility helps employees cope with family-to-work interference.

Increased flexibility with respect to hours of work is key to the reduction of family-to-work interference

What should employers that wish to reduce family-to-work interference focus on? The findings from this study indicate that giving employees more flexibility with when they can take their holidays will alleviate family-to-work interference to some extent, as will increasing flexibility in work hours.

While flexibility with respect to varying one's work hours is negatively associated with family-to-work interference for both men and women, regardless of dependent care status, the relationship varies depending on the employee's situation status. For those without dependent care status, the relationship is linear -- the greater the ability to vary one's work hours the lower the interference. For those with dependent care, on the other hand, having moderate flexibility in varying one's work hours does not reduce family-to-work interference at all. This type of flexibility has to be available daily for it to be associated with a reduction in work-to-family interference for men and women with dependents.

Figure 23: Relationship Between Ability to Arrange Work Schedule and Family-to-Work Interference
Gender by Dependent Care Status

The findings with respect to the ability to arrange one's work schedule to meet personal commitments show a very different pattern (Figure 23) than the other forms of flexibility discussed earlier. First, this form of flexibility has a more positive impact on women than men (i.e. women report a greater drop in family-to-work interference at higher levels of this form of flexibility than men, regardless of dependent care status). Second, when gender is taken into account this form of flexibility has a more positive impact on people with dependent care status than those without. Finally, women with dependent care responsibilities, in particular, appear to benefit from this form of flexibility (Δ = -.5 in family-to-work interference).

Perceived flexibility has little impact on the incidence of caregiver strain

The findings for caregiver strain were very similar to those noted for family-to-work interference. Only four of the forms of flexibility (arrange work schedule to meet family commitments, interrupt one's work day and then return, be home to have meals with family, and vary work hours) have a significant impact on the extent to which employees experience caregiver strain. Again, in all cases, the relationships were relatively week (Δ = -.3) and could be observed only in the analysis that took dependent care status into account. This type of work-life conflict stems from the home environment (i.e. need to care for an elderly dependent). Work interventions such as increasing an employee's ability to deal with an unexpected crisis at home and facilitating an employee's ability to get home in time, while helpful, do not reduce this form of stress to any appreciable extent. This suggests that employers that wish to support employees who need to care for elderly dependents should look at strategies other than perceived flexibility for solutions.