Repercussions of Work Schedule Congruence ... - Semantic Scholar

Repercussions of Work Schedule Congruence Among FullTime, Part-Time, and Contingent Nurses Stephen J. Havlovic, Dora C. Lau, and Lawrence T. Pinfield Prior studies on alternative work schedules have focused primarily on the main effects of compressed work weeks and shift work on individual outcomes. This study explores the combined effects of alternative and preferred work schedules on nurses’ satisfaction with their work schedules, perceived patient care quality, and interferences with their personal lives.

Alternative work schedules, including rotating shift and compressed work weeks, have become increasingly popular. For example, it has been estimated that one in four workers in the U.S. is involved in shift work.1 Many of these workers are employed in organizations that provide essential services to society, such as medical care. Hospitals often face the problem of operating around-the-clock facilities and scheduling their employees in a fair, considerate, yet efficient manner. As a consequence, they have experimented with various nontraditional, alternative shift systems to balance organizational demands and employee needs. Nursing shortages have become a predominant issue for the medical care industry in North America. Retention of existing nurses and replacement of exiting nurses has become more difficult and costly. Satisfactory scheduling may be a mutually beneficial solution for both employees and organizations. Some employees welcome the introduction of these alternative work schedules.2 For example, working mothers wishing to spend more time with their children may prefer to work on a part-time basis. Alternatively, employees who prefer large blocks of leisure time may prefer to work longer hours per day but fewer days per week on a compressed schedule.3 Organizations may benefit from retaining their employees and keeping their morale high, thus reducing their recruitment and retraining costs. Despite their potential advantages, some alternative work schedules have proven detrimental to organizations as well as to employees. Negative consequences of rotating shifts include worker exhaustion and illness rates4; problems with product quality1,5;

Key words: nurses, schedules, work Stephen J. Havlovic, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Management, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin. Dora C. Lau, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Lawrence T. Pinfield, Ph.D., is Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

Health Care Manage Rev, 2002, 27(4), 30–41 © 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

30

Funding for this research was provided by a Simon Fraser University Presidential Research Grant. This research was possible thanks to the assistance of the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia. The authors also thank Robert Roe and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Repercussions of Work Schedule Congruence

31

high accident rates6; and absenteeism and turnover.7 In particular, many employees report the disrupting effects of rotating shift systems on nonwork activities. These problems include interrupted sleep, and loss of opportunity to share in family life and child care. As researchers, we are interested in fully exploring the impact of alternative work schedules across a variety of employee preferences and organizational settings. Drawing on the person–environment fit literature (e.g., Lewin8) and its adaptation to the concept of person–organization fit,9,10 we suggest that mutually beneficial solutions are possible through work schedule congruence, that is to say, the matching of organizational demands and employees’ needs in work scheduling.2,11 We expect employees who work their preferred shift and preferred work week to perform better, to be more satisfied with their work, to experience less interference with their personal lives, to have better health, and to be less likely to quit.12–14 In this study of registered nurses, we examine the impact of work schedule congruence on personal life interference and service to patients. In addition to exploring the effects of work schedule congruence, we also attempt to fill a current void in the work schedule literature by fully examining the combined effects of the rotating shift and the compressed work week. In the past, these two types of work schedules have been examined individually or assessed as a single organizational change intervention (e.g., switching from a rotating shift schedule to a rotating compressed schedule). Although some hospitals have utilized both types of schedules, their combined effects are unknown. While the compressed work week provides larger blocks of rest time, it is questionable whether rotating these blocks of work and nonwork time will eliminate the potential benefits.

schedule. Typical shift systems divide a 24-hour day into two or three shifts. Employees on rotating shifts are required to work on different shifts according to a set pattern—whereas employees on fixed shifts remain on the same schedule (e.g., permanent nights) for extensive periods of time. There are a large variety of shift systems currently in use. The design of a particular shift system is usually influenced by work demands experienced by the organization and the staffing arrangements required to perform work effectively and efficiently. Shift systems vary, in part, according to: the numbers of shifts per day; the length of each shift; the times at which shifts begin and end; the degree to which a fixed group of employees are rotated through various shifts; the periodicity of the rotation system; the flexibility, openness, and opportunity of employee voice in the procedures used to assign employees to shifts; the procedures used to adapt staffing assignments to personal exigencies (e.g., sick leave); and so on. The consequences of working a particular shift are also related to the nature of the work experience as well as the ‘fit’ between work and nonwork demands for particular individuals and their personal circumstances.

WORK SCHEDULE DEFINITIONS

Shift Work Schedules

Traditional Work Week

Research results show that shift work and night work may be detrimental to employees’ health conditions including stress levels and sleeping patterns.4,5,15,16 Shift rotations are personally disruptive as they interfere with employees’ circadian rhythms.17 Constantly changing shifts makes it difficult for employees to regulate their sleep patterns. The duration of rest time between different types of shifts becomes crucial in restoring the required level of attention and energy when a new shift begins.5 Differences in work stress and supervision across different shift patterns have also been detected.7

A traditional work week is typically an 8-hour day and 5-day week—with employees not working weekends. This is the ‘base case’ or standard model that union representatives and others typically use to assess alternative work schedules.2 Shift Work Employees on shift work encounter patterns of work outside the boundaries of a traditional work

Compressed Work Week A compressed work week allows employees to complete their work week (e.g., 30–40 hours per week) in three or four days instead of the standard five. Compressed work week arrangements lead to longer work days but also more nonwork or rest days per week. Employees who prefer long and consecutive blocks of rest time will find this option attractive. ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE RESEARCH

32

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT REVIEW/FALL 2002

Related to poor health conditions, employees working rotating shifts also report more fatigue,18 lower levels of alertness,19 and lower job satisfaction.7 Tired employees are prone to injuries at work and may lower product or service quality. In addition, organizations employing rotating shifts suffer from higher absenteeism rates.20 The detrimental effects of rotating shifts cannot be ignored even though they enable organizations to operate longer hours per day. Compressed Work Schedules Research has shown mixed results for compressed work schedules. Dunham, Pierce, and Castaneda21 found that when compared to standard work schedules, compressed work weeks reduced interference with personal schedules. However, depending on the nature of work, 12-hour days may lead to undesirable effects such as higher levels of stress, fatigue, more accidents, and reduced product quality.22 Harrick and Vanek23 found that satisfaction with work schedules increased with compressed work schedules, but not satisfaction with other characteristics of work experience such as productivity. A review article by Kopelman24 found no change in productivity or absenteeism for workers on compressed schedules, but found improved attitudes reported in 60 percent of the studies reviewed. Latack and Foster25 also found positive attitudes toward compressed work weeks, as well as reductions in absenteeism and personal time away from work, and no evidence of greater fatigue from longer shifts. One possible explanation of such mixed results is due to Hawthorne effects. Freshly introduced compressed work week arrangements may enhance work attitudes and performance, however, their long-term benefits are more doubtful. A longitudinal study over 2 years demonstrated that work attitude and performance improvements in the first year of introduction were not found in the second year.26 Combination Work Schedules Organizations may change more than one feature of the traditional shift system in dealing with their scheduling problems. That is, compressed work week schedules that increase hours of work per work day, and also some form of shift rotation may be implemented. Not surprisingly, mixed results have been found from studies of such systems. Based on a study of Midwest U.S. Police Officers who were switched

from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts, Pierce and Dunham3 suggest that combining a compressed work week with shift work may offset the negative aspects of increased shift length due to enhanced work attitudes and job satisfaction. However, Iskra-Golec et al.27 found that compressed work schedules among intensive care unit nurses compounded the negative effects of shift work. It is likely that the success of combination work schedules will in part be the result of employee preference or acceptance of working a combined compressed and rotating shift schedule. WORK SCHEDULE CONGRUENCE The person–environment (P–E) fit literature suggests that employees are more satisfied and productive at work when employees are able to provide useful resources (i.e., abilities, values, and time to meet organizational demands) and organizations are capable of satisfying employees’ needs and desires.28 In the case of work schedules, employees may desire good health as well as a balanced work-life interface while organizations need to schedule employees to meet organizational demands. When organizational demands require work schedules that are similar to those wanted by employees, work schedule congruence is achieved. Prior studies show that general congruence needs to be subjectively felt.29 Employees who perceive congruence between their needs and organizational demands tend to be happier at work9 and therefore less likely to leave. The effects of P–E fit are reflexive and pervasive.30 People seek work that suits their needs and abilities, and organizations seek employees who accept and are compatible with organizational requirements. Job applicants prefer organizations that manifest values similar to their own.29 Similarly, goal congruence31 and value congruence32 among colleagues and between employees and their employing organizations lead to more satisfied and committed employees who are less likely to quit. In addition, employees with similar values or goals as their employers are able to work more effectively and contribute more.33 Lack of congruence between employees and their organizations has also been shown to have negative effects on stress levels and job dissatisfaction.13 We argue that the level of congruence between individuals’ preference for a work schedule and their actual schedule worked is likely to be a powerful determinant of personal and work-related outcomes.


Organizations should benefit from employees who are more satisfied and comfortable with their work routines. Tangible outcomes such as lower absenteeism and turnover as well as enhanced performance should also be expected. Hospitals, for example, may benefit from higher retention rates and therefore lower recruitment and retraining costs. Surprisingly, few studies to date have examined the impact of working on one’s preferred shift (e.g., fixed or rotating) or preferred work week schedule (normal or compressed). Some individuals have less tolerance for rotating shifts due to their family responsibilities or social commitments that are relatively fixed. For example, parents may be less tolerant because shift and night work interferes with child rearing and other school activities.34 Also, employees on rotating shifts have difficulties connecting with their friends or relatives who work regular hours.1 In terms of employee choice, Barton4 found that nurses who chose to work nights had fewer cardiovascular problems and less nondomestic disruption compared to those who worked mandatory nights. However, Barton found no significant differences in health, sleep, or life disruption between those who worked rotating shifts as a requirement versus those who did so by choice. Working one’s preferred work week schedule is expected to produce effects similar to that of working one’s preferred shift. Ronen and Primps35 suggested that the effects of the compressed work week are mediated by individual factors such as employees’ marital status, their leisure orientation, and organizational characteristics such as work environment and job demands. That is, unless the compressed work week suits the needs and preferences of employees, we would not anticipate positive impacts from its implementation. Work schedule congruence may be a matter of degree. Having one’s preferred shift but not preferred work week, or vice versa, will not maximize the full

Ronen and Primps suggested that the effects of the compressed work week are mediated by individual factors such as employees’ marital status, their leisure orientation, and organizational characteristics such as work environment and job demands.

33

benefits of P–E fit as personal life interferences and sleep problems are likely to remain an issue. We suggest that the congruence dynamics have their largest impact when there is a full match between the employees’ shift and work week preferences and organizations’ demands. CONTEXT VARIABLES Employment Status The growing popularity of hiring part-time employees in the past several decades (i.e., growth of 2.5% per annum 1972–199536[p.531]) denotes its importance as an alternative work form. Part-time and temporary employment statuses are usually implemented to add flexibility in scheduling. In addition, these schedules provide work opportunities to people who cannot work during normal work times due to other responsibilities and also permit employees to deal with nonwork matters.1,3,34,35,37 Part-time employment refers to work arrangement that requires employees to work less than a full week (e.g., 20 hours) whereas casual or contingent employment refers to those who temporarily fill in for full-time or part-time employees who are absent from the workplace (e.g., vacation, maternity leave, sick days). Part-time employees work fewer hours in total and therefore are likely to experience less pressure in coordinating work, family, and social activities. As a result, they may enjoy better health conditions and less interference in their nonwork lives. While contingent employees often work fewer hours per week, their work schedules are often arranged on short notice. These less predictable schedules have the potential to interfere more with nonwork activities than those of part-time employees but not necessarily more so than those of their full-time counterparts. Variables for employment status (i.e., part-time and contingent employees) are therefore included in this study. Organization and Individual Differences Hospital size is used in this study to control for organizational differences. Fewer employees and patients (i.e., less volume) should in general make scheduling a simpler process in smaller hospitals. Less bureaucracy and complexity (e.g., fewer specialized units) in smaller hospitals should also make it easier to survey and match work schedule preferences.

34


Hospital tenure is included as an individual control variable. In line with the reflexive adaptations noted earlier, employees are more likely to stay with organizational situations that fit their needs and move elsewhere if they do not. In the health sector investigated here, increased tenure is associated with increased seniority, leading to increased opportunity for individual voice in obtaining preferred schedules. Thus, we expect increased tenure to be associated with increased satisfaction with work schedules. Differences in family dynamics were controlled with variables for the number of “Children Under the Age of 13” and being a “Single Parent.” In general, we expect increased interference of work schedules with the nonwork activities of individuals characterized by these family attributes. RESEARCH METHODS Sample A random sample of 1,000 nurses was selected by the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia (RNABC) for participation in the study. A cover letter and six-page survey was mailed by the RNABC to the home address of each nurse selected to participate in the study. Despite not being permitted to utilize a reminder letter, the initial yield was good with 520 completed surveys returned for a 52 percent response rate. (The high response rate was likely related to the saliency of this issue for the nurses. According to the RNABC, many nurses had scheduling concerns and probably thought that a neutral third party survey would shed light on these concerns. A response rate of 52 percent was not unusual for an RNABCendorsed mail survey sent to the nurses’ home address.) This sample is somewhat unique in that it reflects a wide diversity of work schedules and employment statuses within a single occupational group in a single service sector covered by the same collective bargaining agreement. All possible combinations of work schedules, hospital sizes ranging from small to large, organizational tenure ranging from a year or less to more than 30 years, and a variety of parenting situations were found among the nurse respondents. All nurses in the study were covered by a master collective agreement between the British Columbia Nurses’ Union (BCNU) and the Health Labour Relations Association of British Columbia (HLRABC). The collective agreement allows for either regular (5-day–7.5-hour shifts) or compressed (3- and 4-

day–11-hour shifts) work weeks that are determined locally. According to Section 25.02 of the master collective agreement, “Work schedules, whenever possible, shall be determined by mutual agreement between the employer and employees at the local hospital or ward unit areas.” The dynamics of hospitals generally require some employees to work rotating shifts and others to work fixed shifts. In order to cover weekends, as well as scheduled and unscheduled absences, part-time and contingent employees are utilized in conjunction with full-time staff members. Questionnaire The mail survey adapted previously established summation scales and included customized questions developed to assess work schedules, schedule preferences, and demographic items. Several assessment scales from the Comprehensive Work-Schedule Survey (CWSS) developed by Pierce et al.1 were modified slightly for use with nurses working in a hospital environment (e.g., “the current method of scheduling helps the department meet the needs of our patients”). The scales used included: Current Schedule Interference with Activities with Family & Friends; General Affect Toward Current Schedule; and Service to External Constituents (i.e., hospital patients). Nurses were asked to report the extent to which their work schedules interfered with activities (9 items) involving family and friends. The General Affect Toward Current Schedule included six items and measured nurses’ attitude toward their present work schedules. The Service to Hospital Patients scale (3 items) measured nurses’ perceptions of how their work schedules affect their service quality. Two questions were also added to assess Work Schedule Interference with Rest and Sleep (e.g., “my job does not allow me to get enough sleep”). Nurses were asked to report their employment status (i.e., full-time, part-time, or contingent), hospital tenure (years), and the size of their hospital (1 ⫽ ⬍ 50 beds; 2 ⫽ 50–99 beds; 3 ⫽ 100–149 beds; 4 ⫽ 150–199 beds; 5 ⫽ 200–249 beds; 6 ⫽ ⬎ 249 beds). They were also asked if they were a single parent (dummy coded) and how many children they had who were under the age of 13. The nurses were asked to indicate the type of shift and schedule that they were currently working (i.e., fixed vs. rotating shift and regular vs. compressed work week). In addition, they were asked to state


which shift and schedule they preferred. Dummy variables were subsequently created for working “Preferred Shift Only,” working “Preferred Work Week Only,” and working “Preferred Shift & Preferred Work Week.” In addition, dummy variables were created for various combinations of schedules, including “Rotating Shift & Compressed Work Week,” “Rotating Shift & Regular Work Week,” and “Fixed Shift & Compressed Work Week.” The effects of these schedule combination variables were compared with the “Fixed Shift & Regular Work Week” variable. Analysis Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression procedures were used to test the relationship of work schedule congruence (i.e., Shift Congruence, Work Week Congruence, and Full Congruence) with personal and work-related outcomes. The dependent variables for these regression equations were Work Schedule Interference with Family and Friends, General Affect Toward Current Work Schedule, Work Schedule Interference with Rest and Sleep, and Service to Hospital Patients under the Current Work Schedule.

35

RESULTS Descriptive Statistics The descriptive statistics for the study variables are shown in Table 1. A full range of responses was obtained on the summation scales and the standard deviations also indicated considerable variance among the study participants. Over 40 percent of the nurses (41%) stated that they were working a rotating compressed work week schedule. Approximately half of the nurses (47%) reported they worked both their preferred shift and work week. More than one third of the nurses were on either their preferred shift only or their preferred work week only (37%). A much smaller percentage of the nurses (11%) were completely incongruent with their work schedule choices, that is to say, neither working their preferred shift nor their preferred work week. Approximately one third (n ⫽ 156) of the respondents worked part-time and about a sixth (n ⫽ 73) of the nurses were contingent employees. Many nurses had children under the age of thirteen (69%) and more than 10 percent were single parents (11%). The average hospital size was approximately 200 beds and, on

TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR REGISTERED NURSES SAMPLED (N ⫽ 520)

Work Schedule Interference with Family and Friends General Affect Toward Current Work Schedule Work Schedule Interference with Rest & Sleep Service to Hospital Patients under the Current Work Schedule Neither Preferred Shift Nor Preferred Work Week Preferred Shift Only Preferred Work Week Only Preferred Shift & Preferred Work Week Fixed Shift & Regular Work Week Fixed Shift & Compressed Work Week Rotating Shift & Regular Work Week Rotating Shift & Compressed Work Week Hospital Size Hospital Tenure (Years) Number of Children Less than Age 13 Single Parent Part-Time Work Schedule Contingent Work Schedule

Mean

Std. Dev.

Minimum

Maximum

3.12 3.25 3.27 3.39 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.47 0.22 0.08 0.26 0.41 4.71 7.81 0.69 0.11 0.30 0.14

0.75 0.92 1.51 0.87 0.31 0.37 0.40 0.50 0.42 0.27 0.44 0.49 1.75 6.24 1.02 0.31 0.46 0.35

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

4.89 5.00 6.00 5.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 31 5 1 1 1

36


average, the nurses had worked at their current facility for about 8 years. Scale Reliabilities and Correlations The internal consistency reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for the summation scales were all acceptable— ranging from ␣ ⫽ .75 to .90 (see Appendix A). While the Pearson product–moment correlations among the dependent variables were sizable, the correlations among the independent variables were relatively low. (It is statistically acceptable and appropriate to use Pearson product–moment correlations with dichotomous [i.e., dummy-coded] data.38) This reflects the broad diversity in demographics, organizations, and work schedules among the respondents and suggests that multicollinearity was not a problem in the regression equations. A further check using the method of regressing the independent variables on each other39 confirmed that there were no multicollinearity problems.

Regression Analysis Table 2 presents the regression results for work schedule congruence with personal and work-related outcomes among nurses working on a full-time, parttime, and contingent basis. The context variables were included in each of the regression equations. The variance explained by these regression models ranged from 13 percent to 19 percent (p ⬍ .01). The benefits of shift congruence (nurses who work their preferred shift but not their preferred work week) were supported with the exception of perceived Service to Hospital Patients. Shift congruence was related to lower Interference with Family and Friends, as well as a positive General Affect Toward Schedule, and less Interference with Rest and Sleep. Contrary to the expectations of the researchers, work week congruence (working on one’s preferred work week only, regular or compressed) made absolutely no difference on any of the dependent variables investigated.

TABLE 2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WORK SCHEDULE CONGRUENCE AMONG FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND CONTINGENT REGISTERED NURSES

Preferred Shift Only Preferred Work Week Only Preferred Shift & Preferred Work Week Fixed Shift & Compressed Work Week Rotating Shift & Regular Work Week Rotating Shift & Compressed Work Week Hospital Size Hospital Tenure (Years) Number of Children Less than Age 13 Single Parent Part-Time Work Schedule Contingent Work Schedule R-Square Adjusted R-Square F-Value *p ⬍ .05 **p ⬍ .01 (Standardize Solution n ⫽ 520)

Interference with Family & Friends

General Affect Toward Schedule

Interference with Rest & Sleep

Service to Hospital Patients

⫺.15** .01 ⫺.15* .01 .00 .21** .04 ⫺.12** .03 .12** ⫺.22** ⫺.18**

.16** .08 .34** .02 ⫺.17** ⫺.22** ⫺.07 .11** .00 ⫺.10* .14** .08

⫺.11* ⫺.06 ⫺.21** .00 .04 .21** .15** ⫺.13** .07 .11** ⫺.12** ⫺.06

.08 .08 .21** ⫺.02 ⫺.06 ⫺.16** ⫺.08 .07 .00 ⫺.06 .12** ⫺.14**

.18 .16 9.43**

.19 .17 10.16**

.17 .15 8.37**

.13 .11 6.45**


Consistent with the P–E fit literature, nurses with full congruence (working one’s preferred shift and preferred work week), experienced positive outcomes on all the exogenous variables. They reported fewer rest and sleep-related problems, less interference with their family and social activities, greater satisfaction towards their current work schedules, and better quality of service to their patients. Comparisons of the regression beta coefficients indicate that the full congruence effects were stronger and more beneficial to employees and hospital patients than the shift congruence effects. Similar to previous studies, the compressed work week (rotating and fixed shifts) had mixed effects. The fixed compressed work week had no impact where as a rotating compressed work week schedule was associated with sizable negative outcomes. The regression analyses show that nurses working a rotating compressed work week schedule experienced more interference with their personal lives including rest patterns as well as family and social activities. Furthermore, they were most dissatisfied with their present schedules and reported providing lower quality service to their patients. This study also confirms some of the detrimental effects of rotating shifts found previously (e.g., Barton & Folkard17). Nurses working on rotating shifts (i.e., regular and compressed work week) reported lower general affect toward their work schedule. As previously stated, the regression results revealed that those working rotating compressed work week schedules experienced greater work schedule interference with family and friends, increased interference with sleep and rest, and reported giving lower-quality patient care. In this study, beneficial outcomes were associated with those nurses who worked part-time. The regression results show that nurses who worked part-time reported providing higher quality service to patients, liked their present work schedules more, and experienced less interference between their work and nonwork activities. However, these very favorable results were not duplicated by those who worked on a contingent basis. In contrast to those who worked full-time, those employed on a contingent basis (i.e., temporary assignments) perceived more problems with patient care even though their work schedules led to less work schedule interference with family and friends. Some context variables also appeared to be associated with the dependent variables. Nurses who worked in larger hospitals experienced greater interference of their work schedules with rest and sleep. Hospital tenure was generally beneficial for the nurses

37

but was unrelated to provision of patient care. In general, the longer a nurse has worked at a particular hospital, the less likely that person was to report negative consequences of his/her work schedule. However, it should be noted that given the positive correlation between hospital tenure and age (r ⫽ .40, p ⬍ .05), it is possible that this finding is partially related to age instead of hospital tenure. Being a single parent was associated with interference with family and friends, interference with rest and sleep, and less satisfaction with their work schedules. Surprisingly, the presence of young children was not associated with any of the outcome variables. This latter finding could be the result of nurses using part-time employment to avoid work schedule interferences. We also performed a series of post hoc hierarchical regression analyses to examine for interaction effects between the context and work status variables (i.e., Hospital Tenure, Children ⬍ 13 years, Single Parent, Part-Time, Contingent) with work schedule congruence (i.e., Shift Congruence, Work Week Congruence, Full Congruence) on the personal and work outcome variables. Only one of the hierarchical regression equations was significant (F ⫽ 2.85, p ⬍ .05). As can be seen in Table 3, there was a two-way interaction for Hospital Tenure and work schedule congruence. Nurses with less tenure (0–5 years) who were working incongruent or partially congruent schedules reported lower quality of service to their hospital patients. No tenure effects were present for those working a full congruent schedule. This interaction effect may reflect differences in age as well as hospital tenure. Table 3 also shows the main effect of work congruence with the Service to Hospital Patients variable. The means for perceived Service to Hospital Patients were higher for those with partial congruence (i.e., Shift Congruence and Work Week Congruence) than those working an incongruent schedule but less than those working a fully congruent schedule. DISCUSSION Consistent with P–E fit theory, the results obtained in this study revealed substantial support for the notion of work schedule congruence. In general, registered nurses who worked simultaneously on both their preferred shifts and their preferred work weeks (i.e., Full Congruence) reported more positive work outcomes and less interference with their nonwork activities. Full congruence had stronger effects than partial congruence in work schedule arrangements. Shift

38


TABLE 3 INTERACTION BETWEEN HOSPITAL TENURE AND WORK SCHEDULE CONGRUENCE WITH PERCEIVED SERVICE TO HOSPITAL PATIENTS* Service to Hospital Patients

Neither Preferred Shift Nor Preferred Work Week Hospital Tenure 0–5 years 6–10 years 10⫹ years Preferred Shift Only Hospital Tenure 0–5 years 6–10 years 10⫹ years Preferred Work Week Only Hospital Tenure 0–5 years 6–10 years 10⫹ years Preferred Shift & Preferred Work Week Hospital Tenure 0–5 years 6–10 years 10⫹ years

Mean

Std. Dev.

2.92

.811

2.67 3.33 3.12 3.33

.762 .816 .803 .902

2.97 3.63 3.62 3.26

.882 .889 .809 .876

3.10 3.33 3.47 3.55

.807 1.217 .752 .817

3.52 3.67 3.54

.794 .892 .816

*F ⫽ 2.85, p ⬍ .05, n ⫽ 520

congruence yielded less interference with sleep and social activities and higher satisfaction with work arrangement while no benefits were observed for those with only work week congruence. The regression results also suggest that congruence with work schedule preferences has as much of an effect as the actual shift worked. This finding enhances our understanding about P–E fit and implies that accommodating employee work schedule preferences might contribute to improving both personal and work outcomes beyond the primary schedule effects. This study demonstrates the intertwining dynamics of shift and work week arrangements. Consistent with Iskra-Golec et al.27 but contrary to the findings of

In general, registered nurses who worked simultaneously on both their preferred shifts and their preferred work weeks (i.e., Full Congruence) reported more positive work outcomes and less interference with their nonwork activities.

Pierce and Dunham,3 the compressed work week aggravated the negative effects of rotating shifts. This study as with Iskra-Golec et al.27 involved nurses where patient care requires constant alertness. The impact of rotating longer shifts under this type of work intensity appears to be negative and inappropriate. The compressed work week itself was only associated with negative effects when it was combined with rotating shifts. This implies that employees benefit from stability (i.e., fixed shifts) in their work schedules and that larger blocks of work and nonwork time periods are not essential. Researchers on family issues support this insight by clarifying that people who work variable days have less time for child care39 and have more problems in interacting with their family members.40 Employment status is a pivotal factor in work schedule arrangements. Working less than full-time is one way to deal with the increasing demands from both work and family while staying in the industry.41 In this study, part-time nurses experienced better personal and work-related outcomes. In contrast, nurses with contingent work schedules reported lower quality patient care and only experienced the benefits of less interference with their family and social lives. This is likely a function of the short notice and the varied nature of the nursing assignments given to nurses working on a contingent basis. This will not be an easy dynamic for hospitals to overcome given the ongoing necessity of providing nursing coverage for vacations and sick days. However, keeping contingent nurses assigned to the same units or wards whenever possible should help them to be more familiar with the patients and routines. This should help to flatten the learning curve upon arrival at work. Clearly, parttime and contingent nurses will remain an important component of hospital staffs.


The complexity and conflicts with work schedules and nurse preferences suggest that hospitals should endeavor to develop customized schedules with the objective of integrating organizational work demands and individual needs. Surveying employees’ work schedule preferences before implementing alternative work schedules would be beneficial, local customs, practices and policies permitting. Institutional constraints (e.g., corporate policies, collective bargaining rules) that restrict the diversity of work schedules also frequently work against the attainment of both organizational and employee interests. Overall, investments in time and energy to customize work schedules to fit both organizational demands and individual preferences of employees would appear to be worthwhile. This approach should assist hospitals in tight labor markets retain a competent work force while reducing the expenses associated with work schedule dissatisfaction (i.e., employee turnover). This study illustrates the stress and difficulties associated with being a single parent. Hospitals may want to explore whether offering flexible child care services on a fee basis or as an employee benefit would assist their employees who are single parents trying to balance their work and personal lives. Confidence in the robustness of the results of this study may be increased as a consequence of several features of its research design. First, the examination of the various work shift and work week combinations was possible because of the relatively even distribution of work schedules. Second, the inclusion of individual and organizational contextual variables to control for alternative explanations. Third, Hawthorne effects were avoided because of the long history of compressed work weeks in the work places studied. Nevertheless, the study has its limitations. The generalizability of this study is undoubtedly restricted by self-report data. Items such as Service to Hospital Patients are perceptions of respondents rather than objective measures. We look forward to future studies that utilize multimethod approaches that combine employee survey data with archival data on organizational performance. Future studies should continue to explore the affects of work schedule congruence on work performance, family and social activities, and personal outcomes. In particular, employment status congruence (e.g., preference for and actually working fulltime) should be added to further test the full congruence hypothesis. It would also be useful to determine how nurses and other types of employees

39

determine their work schedule preferences. Future studies should replicate and further examine the impact of various work schedule combinations on organizational and individual outcomes. While prior research has tended to focus on one type of work schedule at a time (e.g., compressed work week), there are clear benefits of field research that examines multiple work schedule alternatives and personal preferences simultaneously.

REFERENCES 1. Pierce, J.L., Newstrom, J.W., Dunham, R.B., and Barber, A.E. Alternative Work Schedules. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. 2. Nollen, S.D. New Work Schedules in Practice: Managing Time in a Changing Society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982. 3. Pierce, J.L., and Dunham, R.B. “The 12-Hour Work Day: A 48-Hour, Eight-Day Week.” Academy of Management Journal 35 (1992): 1086–98. 4. Barton, J. “Choosing To Work At Night: A Moderating Influence On Individual Tolerance To Shift Work.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994): 449–54. 5. Totterdell, P., Spelten, E., Smith, L., Barton, J., and Folkard, S. “On-Shift and Daily Variations In Self-Report and Performance Measures In Rotating-Shift and Permanent Night Nurses.” Work & Stress 9 (1995): 187–97. 6. Shellenbarger, S. “Some Employers Find Way To Ease Burden Of Changing Shifts.” The Wall Street Journal (March 25, 1998): B1. 7. Jamal, M., and Baba, V.V. (1992). “Shiftwork and Department-Type Related To Job Stress, Work Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions: A Study Of Nurses.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (1992): 449–64. 8. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935. 9. Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., and Emmons, R.A. (1984). “Person ⫻ Situation Interactions: Choice of Situations and Congruence Response Models.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (1984): 580–92. 10. O’Reilly, C.A., and Chatman, J.A. “People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach To Assessing Person-Organization Fit.” Academy of Management Journal 34 (1991): 487–516. 11. Cohen, A.R., and Gadon, H. Alternative Work Schedules: Integrating Individual and Organizational Needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978. 12. Dawis, R.V., and Lofquist, L.H. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. 13. Edwards, J.R. (1992). “A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping and Well-Being In Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 17 (1992): 238-74.

40


14. Rice, R.W., McFarlin, D.B., Hunt, R.G., and Near, J.P. (1985). “Organizational Work and the Perceived Quality of Life: Towards a Conceptual Model.” Academy of Management Review 10 (1985): 296–310. 15. Büssing, A. “Social Tolerance of Working Time Scheduling In Nursing.” Work & Stress 10 (1996): 238–50. 16. Schmeider, R.A., and Smith, C.S. “Moderating Effects of Social Support In Shiftworking and Non-shiftworking Nurses.” Work & Stress 10 (1996): 128–40. 17. Barton, J., and Folkard, S. “The Response of Day and Night Nurses To Their Work Schedules.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 64 (1991): 207–18. 18. Smith, M.J., Colligan, M.J., and Tasto, D.L. “Health and Safety Consequences of Shift Work In Food Processing Industry.” Ergonomics 25 (1982): 133– 44. 19. Tilley, A.J., Wilkinson, R.T., Warren, P.S.G., Watson, B., and Drud, M. “The Sleep and Performance of Shift Workers.” Human Factors 24 (1982): 629– 41. 20. Jamal, M. “Shift Work Related To Job Attitudes, Social Participation and Withdrawal Behavior: A Study of Nurses and Industrial Workers.” Personnel Psychology 34 (1981): 535– 47. 21. Dunham, R.B., Pierce, J.L., and Castaneda, M.B. “Alternative Work Schedules: Two Field Quasi-Experiments.” Personnel Psychology 40 (1987): 215–42. 22. Wallace, M., and Greenwood, K.M. “Twelve-Hour Shifts [editorial].” Work & Stress 9 (1995): 105–08. Berry, W. D. & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple Regression in Practice. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-050. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 23. Harrick, E.J., and Vanek, G.R. “Alternate Work Schedules, Productivity, Leave Usage, and Employee Attitudes: A Field Study.” Public Personnel Management 15 (1986): 159–69. 24. Kopelman, R.E. “Alternative Work Schedules and Productivity: A Review of the Evidence. National Productivity Review 5 (1986): 150–65. 25. Latack, J.C.. and Foster, L.W. “Implementation of Compressed Work Schedules: Participation and Job Redesign As Critical Factors For Employee Acceptance.” Personnel Psychology 38 (1985): 75–92. 26. Ivancevich, J.M., and Lyon, H.L. “The Shortened Workweek: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977): 34–37. 27. Iskra-Golec, I., Folkard, S., Marek, T., and Noworol, C. “Health, Well Being and Burnout of ICU Nurses on 12and 8-h Shifts.” Work & Stress 10 (1996): 251–56. 28. Kristof, A.L. “Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications.” Personnel Psychology 49 (1996): 1–49. 29. Cable, D.M., and Judge, T.A. “Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry.” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 67 (1996): 294–311.

30. Edwards, J.R. “An Examination of Competing Versions of the Person-Environment Fit Approach To Stress.” Academy of Management Journal 39 (1996): 292–339. 31. Vancouver, J.B., and Schmitt, N.W. “An Exploratory Examination of Person–Organization Fit: Organizational Goal Congruence.” Personnel Psychology 44 (1991): 333–52. 32. Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., and Adkins, C.L. “A Work Values Approach To Corporate Culture: A Field Test of the Value Congruence Process and Its Relationship To Individual Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1989): 424–32. 33. Chatman, J.A., and Barsade, S.G. “Personality, Organizational Culture, and Cooperation: Evidence From a Business Simulation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995): 423–43. 34. Johnson, K., Duxbury, L., and Higgins, C. “Parents Who Work Shift: A Work and Family Perspective On Shift Work In the 90’s.” Paper presented at the CLAMS Conference at Vancouver, University of British Columbia, Canada, 1996. 35. Ronen, S., and Primps, S.B. “The Compressed Work Week As Organizational Change: Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes.” Academy of Management Review 6 (1981): 61–74. 36. Segal, L.M. “Flexible Employment: Composition and Trends.” Journal of Labor Research 17 (1996) 525–42. 37. Dalton, D.R., and Mesch, D.J. “The Impact of Flexible Scheduling On Employee Attendance and Turnover.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1990): 370–87. 38. Reynolds, H.T. Analysis of Nominal Data (second edition). Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-007. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984. 39. Staines, G.L., and Pleck, J.H. “Nonstandard work schedules and family life.” Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (1984): 515–23. 40. Grambling, R., and Forsyth, C. (1987). “Work Scheduling and Family Interaction.” Journal of Family Issues 8 (1987): 163–75. 41. Wetzel, K., Soloshy, D.E., and Gallagher, D.G. “The Work Attitudes of Full-Time and Part-Time Registered Nurses.” Health Care Management Review 15 (1990): 79–85.

*p ⬍ .05.

1. Work Schedule Interference with Family and Friends 2. General Affect Toward Current Work Schedule 3. Service to Hospital Patients Under Current Work Schedule 4. Work Schedule Interference with Rest & Sleep 5. Fixed Shift & Regular Work Week 6. Fixed Shift & Compressed Work Week 7. Rotating Shift & Regular Work Week 8. Rotating Shift & Compressed Work Week 9. Neither Preferred Shift Nor Preferred Work Week 10. Preferred Shift Only 11. Preferred Work Week Only 12. Preferred Shift & Preferred Work Week 13. Hospital Size 14. Hospital Tenure (Years) 15. Number of Children Less than Age 13 16. Single Parent 17. Part-Time Work Schedule 18. Contingent Work Schedule ⫺.37*

.01 ⫺.19* ⫺.20* ⫺.03 ⫺.06 .20* ⫺.12* .11* ⫺.02 ⫺.07 .19* ⫺.20*

⫺.56* .27* .08 ⫺.04 ⫺.23* ⫺.23* .00 ⫺.16* .29* ⫺.13* .13* .02 ⫺.12* .16* ⫺.03

.56*

⫺.17*

⫺.02

⫺.14*

.27*

.13*

⫺.07 .10* ⫺.13*

.09 ⫺.13* ⫺.03

.15* ⫺.22* ⫺.10*

.03

.19*

(.75)

.58*

⫺.37*

3

(.88)

2

⫺.56*

(.90)

1

.12* ⫺.13* .01

.20* ⫺.15* .04

.02 .07 ⫺.20*

.16*

.27*

⫺.08

⫺.04

⫺.23*

(.77)

4

.04 .08 ⫺.18*

⫺.20* .19* ⫺.08

⫺.12* ⫺.18* .37*

⫺.16*

⫺.45*

⫺.32*

⫺.16*

—

5

.03 ⫺.04 ⫺.08

.01 ⫺.05 ⫺.03

.19* ⫺.10* ⫺.07

⫺.01

⫺.25*

⫺.17*

—

6

⫺.04 .05 ⫺.22*

⫺.01 ⫺.04 .06

⫺.12* .31* ⫺.01

⫺.16*

⫺.49*

—

7

.00 ⫺.06 ⫺.07

.18* ⫺.08 ⫺.01

.13* ⫺.04 ⫺.21*

.30*

—

8

.06 ⫺.03 .07

.04 .02 .02

⫺.16* ⫺.18* ⫺.33*

—

9

.00 .09* ⫺.05

.09 .00 .00

— ⫺.23* ⫺.43*

10

⫺.04 .00 .04

.02 ⫺.03 .00

— ⫺.48*

11

⫺.02 .00 ⫺.11*

⫺.07 ⫺.04 ⫺.06

—

12

.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.03

— .07 ⫺.08

13

.09* .05 ⫺.12*

— ⫺.04

14

⫺.02 .15* .21*

—

15

— ⫺.10* ⫺.03

16

— .27*

17

—

18

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS AMONG THE VARIABLES WITH COEFFICIENT ALPHA VALUES LISTED ON THE DIAGONAL (N ⫽ 520)*

APPENDIX A