An article critique or evaluation should include two main sections; a summary and an evaluation. The evaluation section should be 2-3 pages (750-1000 words) long. Your critique should b

Article critique guidelines

An article critique or evaluation should include two main sections; a summary and an evaluation. The evaluation section should be 2-3 pages (750-1000 words) long. Your critique should be longer than your summary. You should evaluate all aspects of the research paper from the importance of the problem investigated to the review of the literature, hypotheses, participants, instruments, procedure and design, analysis and results and finally the conclusion section. Your task is to comment on both strong and weak elements of the studies. Do not try to fish for imperfections in the study. When you do find a weak element, make an informed comment with an appropriate recommendation to follow. Below are some questions that could help you structure your critique. You do not have to address all questions. However, you should address highlighted questions. The questions listed are there to help you learn what to look for in evaluating a research article. The format of your paper should NOT be like a Q & A list. Instead, you should integrate your answers into an essay format. Introduction

I. Problem

1. Is there a statement of the problem? 2. Is background information on the problem presented? 3. Is the educational/psychological significance of the problem discussed? 4. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relationship

between those variables which are investigated? When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?

II. Review of Related Literature

1. Is the review comprehensive? 2. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation? 3. Have the references been critically analyzed and the results of various studies

compared and contrasted, i.e., is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?

4. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the literature and its implications for the problem investigated?

5. Do the implications discussed form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

III. Hypotheses

1. Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific hypotheses to be tested stated? 2. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or difference? 3. If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined? 4. Is each hypothesis testable?

Method

I. Participants

1. Are the size and major characteristics of the population studied described? 2. If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described? 3. Is the method of sample selection described one that is likely to result in a representative,

unbiased sample? 4. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described? 5. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for minimum sample size appropriate

for the method of research represented?

II. Instruments

1. Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used? 2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and content? 3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables? 4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument is appropriate for the sample

under study? 5. Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if appropriate? 6. Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of reliability coefficients? 7. If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given? 8. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in

its development and validation described? 9. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or

tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?

III. Design and Procedure

1. Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or testing the hypotheses of the study?

2. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit them to be replicated by another researcher?

3. If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described as well as its impact on the subsequent study?

4. Are the control procedures described? 5. Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variables that he or

she was unable to control for? Results

1. Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented? 2. Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of significance were

evaluated, specified in advance of the data analyses?

3. If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the required assumptions for parametric tests?

4. Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the study?

5. Was every hypothesis tested? 6. Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate degrees of freedom? 7. Are the results clearly presented? 8. Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to understand? 9. Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1. Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to which it relates? 2. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or disagreement with previous results

obtained by other researchers in other studies? 3. Are generalizations consistent with the results? 4. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results discussed? 5. Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings discussed? 6. Are recommendations for future action made? 7. Are the suggestions for future action based on practical significance or on statistical

significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing practical and statistical significance?

8. Are recommendations for future research made?

Relationships of gender, family responsibility and ¯exible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction

TERRI A. SCANDURA

Department of Management, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145, U.S.A.

AND

MELENIE J. LANKAU

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A.

Summary Psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1995) suggests that women and those with family responsibilities may negotiate new psychological contracts that include family- responsive bene®ts such as ¯exible work hours. Relationships of gender, family responsibility, and ¯exible work hours to organizational commitment and job satis- faction were examined among 160 matched male and female managers in a cross- organizational study. Results revealed that women who perceived their organizations o�ered ¯exible work hours reported higher levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction than women who did not. Also, ¯exible work hours were related to higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction for those having family responsibilities. Implications of these results for future research and organizational policy are discussed. # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997) No. of Figures: 0 No. of Tables: 3 No. of References: 65

Introduction

Organizational responses to work±family con¯ict is an increasing priority for management (Ornstein and Isabella, 1993). In recent years, organizations have introduced a number of family- responsive policies and bene®ts, in large part, due to the increasing number of women in the workplace (Milliken, Dutton and Beyer, 1991; Rousseau, 1995; Schwartz, 1989). Current data indicate that 52 percent of women with children under age 6 work today as compared with 11 percent in 1960 (Lee, 1991). The increase in dual-career families has also given rise to more favorable attitudes of men toward `family-friendly' policies since both partners must now be

CCC 0894±3796/97/040377±15$17.50 Received 13 June 1995 # 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 14 April 1996

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 18, 377±391 (1997)

Addressee for correspondence: Terri A. Scandura, Associate Professor, Department of Management, 414 Jenkins Building, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-9145, U.S.A., tel: (305) 284-5846 (o�ce), (305) 663-6547 (home o�ce), e-mail: [email protected] (internet).

¯exible to meet child-care or dependent-elderly care demands (Lee, 1991). Scharlach and Boyd (1989) reported a sizable percentage of workers were providing assistance to elderly family members and that formal organizational supportive programs were considered extremely helpful in managing caregiving and work responsibility con¯icts. O�ering of such programs may a�ect work attitudes of employees, including organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Such policies may be related to employee loyalty to the organization because the organization is perceived to be a `family friendly' environment to work in.

Reasons cited by organization decision-makers for implementing ¯exible work hours are to improve motivation and morale and to enable employees to better balance work and family (Kush and Stroh, 1994). Ultimately this ¯exibility may relate to improved productivity as well. Osterman (1995) found strong support for the link between the implementation of work±family policies and direct e�orts on the part of employers to improve employee commitment.

Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

Flexible work hours as a family-responsive policy

Higgins, Duxbury and Irving (1992) found that con¯ict between work and family roles diminish employees' perceptions of quality of work life and the quality of family life which, in turn, can impact organizational outcomes such as productivity, absenteeism and turnover. They suggest that organizations could possibly reduce work±family con¯icts by o�ering alternative work arrangements. This research indicated `that the structure of work has a strong in¯uence on family life and suggests that there should be recognition on the part of employers that the family consequences of work environment decisions are real and that they need to be considered' (p. 71).

Organizational policy-makers are beginning to realize the e�ect of the changing demographics of their workers and are responding with the implementation of family-oriented programs (Galen, Palmer, Cuneo and Maremont, 1993). In a 1991 study of 188 of the largest companies in 30 industries, 100 percent of the companies reported that they o�ered maternity leave, 88 percent o�ered part-time work, 77 percent o�ered ¯exible work hours, and 48 percent of the companies reported that they had a job-sharing program (Galinsky, Friedman and Hernandez, 1991). These types of programs are designed to help employees manage their work and family responsibilities. Research has shown family-responsive policies to be associated with the job-related attitudes and personal well-being of employees (Greenberger, Goldberg, Hamill, O'Neil and Payne, 1989; Solomon, 1994). One of these policies is ¯exible work hours (abbreviated to FWH and sometimes referred to as `¯ex-time'). Under ¯exible work hour systems, employees may choose when they come to work and when they leave, as long as they work during certain hours referred to as `core hours'.

Advantages and disadvantages of ¯exible work hours have been discussed (Christensen and Staines, 1990; Glueck, 1979; Golembiewski and Proehl, 1978; Kopelman, 1986; Kush and Stroh, 1994; Narayana and Nath, 1982; Pierce and Newstrom, 1983; Rainey and Wolf, 1982). Major advantages claimed include lowered stress, increased job enrichment and autonomy, reduced tardiness and absenteeism, and improved job satisfaction and productivity. Major disadvantages identi®ed include increased costs, problems with scheduling and work coordination, di�culties with supervising all employees on ¯exible work hours, and changes in the organizational culture. Golembiewski and Proehl's (1978) review of the literature on ¯exible work hours indicated that, in sum, the positive bene®ts of ¯ex-time systems outweigh the costs and that the applications

378 T. A. SCANDURA AND M. J. LANKAU

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997)

generated few negative work behaviors. According to a 1993 survey of 80 top U.S. corporations conducted by Work/Family Directions, ¯exible work hours was the most frequently utilized program (24 percent of employees used ¯ex-time) over telecommuting, job sharing and part-time schedule programs (Solomon, 1994).

Organizational commitment and job satisfaction

Organizational commitment and job satisfaction represent possible bene®ts that may be associ- ated with ¯exible work hours. Organizational commitment represents an individual's identi®- cation with the goals of the organization, how much the individual values membership in the organization and the degree to which they intend to work to attain organizational goals (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979). Job satisfaction is the overall summary evaluation a person makes regarding his/her work environment (Weiss, Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1967). A broad range of personal characteristics, job characteristics, group±leader relations, organizational characteristics and role states have been examined in the literature as antecedents to organ- izational commitment (cf. Mathieu and Zajac, 1990, for a meta-analysis of antecedents, corre- lates and consequences of organizational commitment). Job satisfaction has been positively correlated with organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1979) and recent research has indicated a causal relationship between these two constructs (Vandenberg and Lance, 1992). For example, Williams and Hazer (1986) report that job satisfaction is an antecedent to organiza- tional commitment in an investigation employing structural equation methodology.

With respect to individual and organizational outcomes, research has shown that organiza- tional commitment is positively related to performance (Aranya, Kushnir and Valency, 1986) and negatively related to turnover (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Porter, Steers and Mowday, 1974) and turnover intentions (Williams and Hazer, 1986). In addition, organizational commitment has been shown to be positively related to participation, power, teamwork and professionalism (Welsch and LaVan, 1981).

Psychological Contracts

Flexible work hours as a part of the psychological contract

Rousseau (1995) suggests that psychological contracts (both written and unwritten) are pervasive in organizations. She de®nes a `psychological contract' as a set of `. . . individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between indivi- duals and their organization' (p. 9). Rousseau also notes that human resource (HR) practices, such as recruitment, performance appraisal and compensation, play an important role in the psychological contracting process between employees and employers. Although a number of variables have been investigated as possible aspects of psychological contracts in organizations, the relationship between ¯exible work hours and employee responses (organizational commit- ment and job satisfaction) has not been examined. Perceptions of ¯exible work hours in the workplace may increase employee loyalty and satisfaction due to positive feelings associated with working for an organization that visibly cares about the well-being of its employees. Since psychological contracts `. . . refer to beliefs that individuals hold regarding promises made, accepted, and relied upon between themselves and another' (Rousseau andWade-Benzoni, 1994)

FLEXIBLE WORK HOURS 379

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997)

(p. 466), it is the perception of whether the person has ¯exible work hours that drives the psychological contracting process.

Perceptions of ¯exible work hours may result in increased attachment to the organization and overall satisfaction for several reasons. First, the individual may perceive the organization's o�ering of ¯exible work hours as representing the organization's concern for work and family. Employees may see this as an aspect of the psychological contract since their ability to balance multiple responsibilities is congruent with individual values about work and family (i.e. `this organization cares about people'). Second, ¯exible work hours allows individuals to feel increased control over their lives due to the opportunity to work during times more suited to personal needs (e.g. child-care or elderly-care obligations) or personal biological clocks (not everyone is most productive from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). Third, having ¯exible work hours available improves employees' perceptions about their employer and increases employees' overall positive feeling toward the employer which impacts organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Fourth employees often engage in social comparison processes (Adams, 1965) and may compare their situation to peers in other jobs and/or organizations that do not o�er ¯exible work programs. Such comparisons should increase the value of the employees' psychological contract with their organization. Crooker and Grover (1993) noted that providing family bene®ts to employees positively in¯uences their attachment to work through the symbolic action of the employer providing policies that are responsive to employees' needs. In response to the o�ering of ¯exible work hours, employees may reciprocate with greater loyalty to the employer and better morale. Based upon the idea that ¯exible work hours represent an aspect of the contract between employees and employers and the previous literature, we expect the perception of ¯exible work hours to be related to organizational commitment (loyalty to the employer) and job satisfaction (morale). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1: Individuals that perceive ¯exible work hours will report higher levels of (a) organ- izational commitment and (b) job satisfaction than individuals who do not.

Gender and the psychological contract

There has been scant research on possible gender di�erences in responses to psychological contracts in organizations (Rousseau, 1995). An examination of research on gender di�erences in organizational commitment is not conclusive, however (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Some studies report that women are more committed than men (Angle and Perry, 1981; Baugh, 1990; Gould, 1975; Grusky, 1966; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972) and others suggest that women are less committed than men (Aranya et al., 1986; Chusmir, 1982; Euchs, 1971; Graddick and Farr, 1983). Still others report no gender di�erences in organizational commitment (Fry and Grenfeld, 1980; Cromie, 1981; Stevens, Beyer and Trice, 1978; Bruning and Snyder, 1983). One of the criticisms of research that has previously examined gender-related di�erences in the study of job attitudes has been the lack of control for the e�ects of demographic variables such as age and level of education (Lefkowitz, 1994). In a study of a heterogeneous group of 832 men and women, Lefkowitz (1994) found that many gender-related di�erences in job reaction and dispositional variables such as job satisfaction disappear when di�erences in perceived job characteristics, age, tenure, education, income, and occupational level were controlled. He con- cludes that studies involving the examination of gender di�erences should control statistically or procedurally for the e�ects of demographic variables. We agree with this noted limitation of research on gender-related di�erences, and follow the suggestion of Sekaran (1990), that matched samples are an e�ective research design for researching such di�erences.

380 T. A. SCANDURA AND M. J. LANKAU

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997)

Mathieu and Zajac (1990) suggest that gender may impact employee's perceptions of the workplace and their attitudinal reactions to the organization. They also suggest that gender may impact whether individuals become more committed to organizations that o�er various kinds of opportunities such as ¯exible work hours. Family-oriented programs may be more salient to women who must balance work and family demands and consequently, face more work±family con¯icts than men (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, Granrose, Rabinowitz and Beutell, 1989). Gender theory suggests that most women are socialized to view their primary role as within the family (Baugh, 1990). Also, women's experiences in the workplace such as discrimination and sex-role stereotyping may reinforce the relative importance of the family role over the work role (Kanter, 1977; Terborg, 1977). Thus, women are expected to have di�erent responses to work than men in terms of organizational commitment and job satisfaction when family-responsive policies are o�ered.

Women may develop di�erent psychological contracts with organizations than men. They may be more committed and satis®ed with work when they perceive that their organization o�ers policies that are consonant with the family role, in comparison to men. Flexible work hours may enable women to better balance the con¯icting demands between work and family roles (Frone, Russell and Cooper, 1992). Research has indicated that women have retained primary respons- ibility for home and family duties, in addition to being employed full-time (Hoschild, 1989; Bielby and Bielby, 1988). Hence, the perception that the organization supports them in their need to manage both their career and their family may increase their feelings of organizational commitment and morale (Rousseau, 1995). As more women have entered the workforce, the nature of bene®ts o�ered to employees have changed. Today, on-site day-care centers, parental leave and ¯exible work hours are often part of the psychological contracts o�ered to employees. In response to such contract `packages' (Rousseau, 1995), employees may be more satis®ed and connected to the organization. Flexible work hour bene®ts may be an important element in an individual's decision to work for a particular organization. Sims (1994) notes that human resource personnel will have to o�er innovative employment options to attract and retain younger employees. Maximizing employees' sense of control over their lives and their changing needs is a goal addressed by ¯exible work hour systems.

Therefore, we expect interaction e�ects for gender and ¯exible work hour policies with respect to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Women should be more likely to report higher levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction than men when they perceive that a family-responsive policy is present in their organization than when it is not. We hope to ®ll a gap in the current research on women in management by examining the di�erential e�ects of a family-responsive policy (i.e. ¯exible work hours) on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of females and males using a matched sample design (Sekaran, 1990). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H2: The relationship between the perception of ¯exible work hours and (a) organizational commitment and (b) job satisfaction will be stronger for women than for men.

Family responsibility and the psychological contract

Attitudes have changed regarding employees' willingness to sacri®ce family for work (Rodgers, 1992). Today's employees often look for signals that the organization provides for balance between work and family (Osterman, 1995). Guzzo and Noonan (1994) suggest that human resource practices, such as ¯exible work hours communicate that the organization is concerned about employee well-being. Such practices have been considered part of the psychological

FLEXIBLE WORK HOURS 381

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997)

contract o�ered to employees. Flexible work hours may be o�ered as part of the human resource bene®t `package' o�ered to employees or negotiated one-on-one with one's supervisor. In either event, the employee may reciprocate with increased loyalty and work performance. Also, the perception of having ¯exible work hours may enhance the employer±employee `bond' and increase job satisfaction. Rousseau (1995) suggests that a recent trend in psychological con- tracting is increased negotiation regarding work and family issues for both women and men. As more women have entered the U.S. workforce creating an increase in dual-career families, the expectations that employers will assist or be ¯exible regarding work±family con¯icts has also increased. Thus, ¯exible work hours may be viewed as part of the psychological contract for employees that have family responsibilities.

Employees who stand to bene®t from family responsive programs may hold more positive attitudes toward the organization (Crooker and Grover, 1993). Therefore, employees who have children and are confronted with work and family demands may prefer having a choice of work hours associated with ¯exible work hour programs and may feel more attached to the organization for o�ering these policies. This attachment should be re¯ected in feelings of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Beauvais and Kowalski (1993) found that `. . . the more salient one's family role, the more likely one would engage in family-supportive behaviors' (p. 10). Thus, having children at home represents a level of family responsibility and the following hypothesis is proposed.

H3: The relationship between perceptions of ¯exible work hours and (a) organizational commitment and (b) job satisfaction will be stronger for individuals with family respons- ibilities than those without.

Method

Sample and procedure

Despite investigations of antecedents of organizational commitment using a variety of ®eld samples (Hrebiniak, 1974; Lee, 1971; Steers, 1977; Koch and Steers, 1976; Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1979; Graddick and Farr, 1983; Welsch and LaVan, 1981), research has yet to examine organizational commitment using matched samples of male and female managers. Yet, the development of psychological contracts of managers is important because of their ability to in¯uence key decisions in the overall human resource strategy of the organization and processes of recruitment, hiring and promotions (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni, 1994). In addition, Milliken et al. (1991) note that the attitudes of the `top management team' (p. 101) regarding work±family issues could be crucial in determining implementation of family-responsive policies.

To obtain a sample of women in management positions, potential participants were obtained from mailing lists, provided by the American List Council, of women with job titles of general manager, vice president or president/CEO. A random sample of 1200 potential participants were screened for their willingness to take part in the survey and ability to identify a male peer at their level. Four hundred and forty-three women indicated their willingness to participate in the study and were mailed two copies of the survey and postage-paid return envelopes. A total of 275 (176 from women and 99 from men) usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 39.7 percent for the women, and the matching strategy resulted in a ®nal sample of N � 160,

382 T. A. SCANDURA AND M. J. LANKAU

# 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 18: 377±391 (1997)

constituted by N � 80 matched pairs1. Ninety-three di�erent organizations were represented in the sample (67 women identi®ed peers in the same organization and 13 identi®ed peers in di�erent organizations).

While the initial female executive sample was randomly drawn, it is still possible that some di�erences existed between respondents and non-respondents. To address the issue of possible non-response bias, a preliminary step in the data collection process included a postage-paid business reply postcard which asked the female respondents to designate whether or not they wanted to participate in the study. Information regarding the number of levels between the female respondent's job and the top level of the organization, the number of persons they supervise, and the type of organization (government, service, manufacturing, small business or other) was collected via the postcard. Non-response bias was evaluated by comparing the postcard responses of those who completed the survey (N � 176) with those who indicated they did not wish to participate (N � 534). No statistically signi®cant di�erences were found between these two groups for the number of levels between their position and the top level in the organization (t value � 1:64; p � 0:102), the number of persons they supervised (t value � 1:12; p � 0:228), or type of organization (�2� 7:17; p � 0:127). In addition, the geographic location of the employing organization (South, Northeast, Midwest and West) was examined for respondents and non- respondents and no signi®cant di�erences were

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.