工作场所灵活性的心理体验:心理工作控制和边界控制特征如何与灵活工作者的幸福感相关联

IF 5.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Gabriele Boccoli , Maria Tims , Luca Gastaldi , Mariano Corso
{"title":"工作场所灵活性的心理体验:心理工作控制和边界控制特征如何与灵活工作者的幸福感相关联","authors":"Gabriele Boccoli ,&nbsp;Maria Tims ,&nbsp;Luca Gastaldi ,&nbsp;Mariano Corso","doi":"10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rather than studying workplace flexibility as the availability or usage of flexible work practices, in this study, we theorize workplace flexibility as a subjective psychological experience influenced by employees' perceptions of control over where and when they work (psychological job control) and control over their social boundaries (boundary control). Based on boundary and border theory, using a two-wave study conducted at an Italian bank (<em>N</em> = 1423) and adopting a person-centered approach through latent transition analysis (LTA), we identified four flexibility profiles characterized by different levels of psychological job control and boundary control, with the same structure, dispersion, and sizes over time. The four profiles were: (1) flexible non-dividers (3.46 %), marked by high psychological job control and low boundary control; (2) flexible dividers (34.83 %), characterized by high levels of both psychological job control and boundary control; (3) non-flexible dividers (50.74 %), featuring low psychological job control but high boundary control; and (4) non-flexible non-dividers (10.97 %), with low levels of both types of control. Three of these profiles exhibited high within-person stability across time, while the flexible non-dividers profile was highly unstable, with many members transitioning to profiles with higher boundary control at Time 2. Organizational investments in training and communication programs may have contributed to these transitions from low to high boundary control profiles. Gender and age emerged as significant predictors of profile membership, with gender effects shifting over time: at Time 1, men were more likely to be in non-flexible dividers profile, while at Time 2, they were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile. Age effects also changed: older workers were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile at Time 1 but shifted toward the flexible dividers profile by Time 2. Parental status was not significant, whereas carer status was significant only at Time 1, where being a carer increased the likelihood of employees belonging to the flexible dividers profile compared to the non-flexible dividers. Our findings further revealed that the psychological experience of work flexibility positively impacts wellbeing when employees experience control over both work and social boundaries. Flexible dividers consistently exhibited the highest levels of work engagement, job satisfaction, and work-life balance across both Time 1 and Time 2. In contrast, flexible non-dividers showed a significant decline in these outcomes over time. Profiles with low boundary control, especially flexible non-dividers and non-flexible non-dividers, reported the lowest levels of wellbeing. Despite some improvements in non-flexible non-dividers profile from Time 1 to Time 2, it remained to have the lowest scores on all outcomes, emphasizing the critical role of boundary control in maintaining employee wellbeing over time. These findings provide a possible explanation regarding the “autonomy-control paradox,” where flexibility in work location and timing may reduce autonomy unless social boundaries are effectively managed. Having control over one's social domains allows for the benefits of workplace flexibility and reduces the risk that flexibility in where and when to work undermines the autonomy it is meant to provide.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vocational Behavior","volume":"155 ","pages":"Article 104059"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The psychological experience of flexibility in the workplace: How psychological job control and boundary control profiles relate to the wellbeing of flexible workers\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele Boccoli ,&nbsp;Maria Tims ,&nbsp;Luca Gastaldi ,&nbsp;Mariano Corso\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Rather than studying workplace flexibility as the availability or usage of flexible work practices, in this study, we theorize workplace flexibility as a subjective psychological experience influenced by employees' perceptions of control over where and when they work (psychological job control) and control over their social boundaries (boundary control). Based on boundary and border theory, using a two-wave study conducted at an Italian bank (<em>N</em> = 1423) and adopting a person-centered approach through latent transition analysis (LTA), we identified four flexibility profiles characterized by different levels of psychological job control and boundary control, with the same structure, dispersion, and sizes over time. The four profiles were: (1) flexible non-dividers (3.46 %), marked by high psychological job control and low boundary control; (2) flexible dividers (34.83 %), characterized by high levels of both psychological job control and boundary control; (3) non-flexible dividers (50.74 %), featuring low psychological job control but high boundary control; and (4) non-flexible non-dividers (10.97 %), with low levels of both types of control. Three of these profiles exhibited high within-person stability across time, while the flexible non-dividers profile was highly unstable, with many members transitioning to profiles with higher boundary control at Time 2. Organizational investments in training and communication programs may have contributed to these transitions from low to high boundary control profiles. Gender and age emerged as significant predictors of profile membership, with gender effects shifting over time: at Time 1, men were more likely to be in non-flexible dividers profile, while at Time 2, they were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile. Age effects also changed: older workers were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile at Time 1 but shifted toward the flexible dividers profile by Time 2. Parental status was not significant, whereas carer status was significant only at Time 1, where being a carer increased the likelihood of employees belonging to the flexible dividers profile compared to the non-flexible dividers. Our findings further revealed that the psychological experience of work flexibility positively impacts wellbeing when employees experience control over both work and social boundaries. Flexible dividers consistently exhibited the highest levels of work engagement, job satisfaction, and work-life balance across both Time 1 and Time 2. In contrast, flexible non-dividers showed a significant decline in these outcomes over time. Profiles with low boundary control, especially flexible non-dividers and non-flexible non-dividers, reported the lowest levels of wellbeing. Despite some improvements in non-flexible non-dividers profile from Time 1 to Time 2, it remained to have the lowest scores on all outcomes, emphasizing the critical role of boundary control in maintaining employee wellbeing over time. These findings provide a possible explanation regarding the “autonomy-control paradox,” where flexibility in work location and timing may reduce autonomy unless social boundaries are effectively managed. Having control over one's social domains allows for the benefits of workplace flexibility and reduces the risk that flexibility in where and when to work undermines the autonomy it is meant to provide.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vocational Behavior\",\"volume\":\"155 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104059\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vocational Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879124001003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vocational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879124001003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本研究中,我们不是将工作场所灵活性作为灵活工作方式的可用性或使用情况来研究,而是将工作场所灵活性理论化为一种主观心理体验,它受到员工对工作地点和时间的控制感(心理工作控制)以及对社会边界的控制感(边界控制)的影响。基于边界和边界理论,我们在一家意大利银行进行了两波研究(N = 1423),并通过潜伏转换分析(LTA)采用了以人为本的方法,确定了四种灵活性特征,其特点是不同水平的心理工作控制和边界控制,具有相同的结构、分散性和随时间变化的大小。这四种情况是(1) 灵活的非分割者(3.46%),表现为高心理工作控制和低边界控制;(2) 灵活的分割者(34.83%),表现为高心理工作控制和高边界控制;(3) 非灵活的分割者(50.74%),表现为低心理工作控制和高边界控制;(4) 非灵活的非分割者(10.97%),表现为低心理工作控制和低边界控制。其中三种情况在不同时间段内表现出较高的人际稳定性,而灵活的非划分者情况则极不稳定,许多成员在时间 2 过渡到边界控制较高的情况。组织在培训和沟通项目上的投资可能促成了这些从低边界控制类型向高边界控制类型的转变。性别和年龄是预测成员特征的重要因素,性别效应随着时间的推移而变化:在时间 1,男性更有可能属于非灵活分隔者特征,而在时间 2,他们更有可能属于灵活的非分隔者特征。年龄效应也发生了变化:在时间 1 时,年龄较大的工人更有可能属于灵活的非分割者,但到了时间 2 时,他们则更有可能属于灵活的分割者。父母身份不显著,而照顾者身份仅在时间 1 显著,与非灵活分隔者相比,照顾者身份增加了员工属于灵活分隔者的可能性。我们的研究结果进一步表明,当员工体验到对工作和社交界限的控制时,工作灵活性的心理体验会对幸福感产生积极影响。在时间 1 和时间 2 中,灵活分隔者始终表现出最高的工作投入度、工作满意度和工作生活平衡度。相比之下,灵活的非分隔者在这些方面的表现随着时间的推移明显下降。边界控制能力较低的员工,尤其是灵活非分割员工和非灵活非分割员工,其福利水平最低。尽管从时间 1 到时间 2,非灵活非分割人员的情况有所改善,但其在所有结果上的得分仍然最低,这强调了边界控制在长期保持员工幸福感方面的关键作用。这些发现为 "自主-控制悖论 "提供了一种可能的解释,即除非有效管理社交边界,否则工作地点和时间的灵活性可能会降低自主性。控制好自己的社交领域,就能享受工作场所灵活性带来的好处,并降低工作地点和时间灵活性破坏其本应提供的自主性的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The psychological experience of flexibility in the workplace: How psychological job control and boundary control profiles relate to the wellbeing of flexible workers
Rather than studying workplace flexibility as the availability or usage of flexible work practices, in this study, we theorize workplace flexibility as a subjective psychological experience influenced by employees' perceptions of control over where and when they work (psychological job control) and control over their social boundaries (boundary control). Based on boundary and border theory, using a two-wave study conducted at an Italian bank (N = 1423) and adopting a person-centered approach through latent transition analysis (LTA), we identified four flexibility profiles characterized by different levels of psychological job control and boundary control, with the same structure, dispersion, and sizes over time. The four profiles were: (1) flexible non-dividers (3.46 %), marked by high psychological job control and low boundary control; (2) flexible dividers (34.83 %), characterized by high levels of both psychological job control and boundary control; (3) non-flexible dividers (50.74 %), featuring low psychological job control but high boundary control; and (4) non-flexible non-dividers (10.97 %), with low levels of both types of control. Three of these profiles exhibited high within-person stability across time, while the flexible non-dividers profile was highly unstable, with many members transitioning to profiles with higher boundary control at Time 2. Organizational investments in training and communication programs may have contributed to these transitions from low to high boundary control profiles. Gender and age emerged as significant predictors of profile membership, with gender effects shifting over time: at Time 1, men were more likely to be in non-flexible dividers profile, while at Time 2, they were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile. Age effects also changed: older workers were more likely to be in the flexible non-dividers profile at Time 1 but shifted toward the flexible dividers profile by Time 2. Parental status was not significant, whereas carer status was significant only at Time 1, where being a carer increased the likelihood of employees belonging to the flexible dividers profile compared to the non-flexible dividers. Our findings further revealed that the psychological experience of work flexibility positively impacts wellbeing when employees experience control over both work and social boundaries. Flexible dividers consistently exhibited the highest levels of work engagement, job satisfaction, and work-life balance across both Time 1 and Time 2. In contrast, flexible non-dividers showed a significant decline in these outcomes over time. Profiles with low boundary control, especially flexible non-dividers and non-flexible non-dividers, reported the lowest levels of wellbeing. Despite some improvements in non-flexible non-dividers profile from Time 1 to Time 2, it remained to have the lowest scores on all outcomes, emphasizing the critical role of boundary control in maintaining employee wellbeing over time. These findings provide a possible explanation regarding the “autonomy-control paradox,” where flexibility in work location and timing may reduce autonomy unless social boundaries are effectively managed. Having control over one's social domains allows for the benefits of workplace flexibility and reduces the risk that flexibility in where and when to work undermines the autonomy it is meant to provide.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vocational Behavior
Journal of Vocational Behavior PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
5.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vocational Behavior publishes original empirical and theoretical articles offering unique insights into the realms of career choice, career development, and work adjustment across the lifespan. These contributions are not only valuable for academic exploration but also find applications in counseling and career development programs across diverse sectors such as colleges, universities, business, industry, government, and the military. The primary focus of the journal centers on individual decision-making regarding work and careers, prioritizing investigations into personal career choices rather than organizational or employer-level variables. Example topics encompass a broad range, from initial career choices (e.g., choice of major, initial work or organization selection, organizational attraction) to the development of a career, work transitions, work-family management, and attitudes within the workplace (such as work commitment, multiple role management, and turnover).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信