Flex-Time: Short-Term Benefits; Long-Term...?

Flex-Time: Short-Term Benefits; Long-Term...?Author(s): Glenn W. Rainey, Jr. and Lawrence WolfSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1981), pp. 52-63Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975724 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 23:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:19:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/975724?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


52 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

and Contract Refuse Collection in Kansas City," Solid Wastes Management, 22 (13): 26-58 (December 1979); "Mix- ed Systems for Solid Waste Collection: A Case Study of Akron, Ohio," Center for Government Studies, Columbia University (June 1979). For a discussion of the system in Minneapolis, see E. S. Savas, "An Empirical Study," op. cit. See Eileen Berenyi, David Moretti and E. S. Savas, "A Case Study of New Orleans' Public/Private Refuse Collection Sys- tem," Center for Government Studies, Columbia University

(December 1979); "Oklahoma City Case Study," Center for Government Studies, Columbia University (April 1980). E. S. Savas and Eileen Berenyi, "A Case Study of Montreal, Canada," Center for Government Studies, Columbia Uni- versity (October 1979).

9. For a review of the evidence that contract collection is generally more efficient than municipal, see the references cited in footnote 3 above.

10. See E. S. Savas, "An Empirical Study," op. cit.

Flex-Time: Short-Term Benefits; Long-Term. . .

Glenn W. Rainey, Jr., Eastern Kentucky University Lawrence Wolf, U.S. Social Security Administration

Flexible work hours are now widely regarded as an innovation of proven, universal worth in personnel management, and the recent legislation permitting their general adoption in federal agencies has already spurred further experimentation. A sizeable body of literature argues that "flex-time" produces improvements in morale, interpersonal relations, productivity, absenteeism, and turnover.' Variable work hours have even been portrayed as an intervention instrument for organization development, in terms which suggest that the benefits are associated with flex-time itself, rather than with conscious efforts by management to increase trust and share influence.' On a more global scale, some analysts point to a growing rejection by workers of unnecessarily rigid managerial controls and suggest that flex-time will produce a major and lasting reduction in worker-manager conflict.3

The supporting research is not, however, as firm as its volume might imply. Much of the enthusiasm for flex-time stems from intuitive evaluations in the popular- press and in non-experimental journals. As others have demonstrated, even research which has aspired to systematic methodology has rarely encompassed rigorous research design, measurement, or psychometric analysis.4 Key variables associated with task structure and organizational design, managerial styles, socio-economic status of subjects, and related work values and attitudes, have been largely ignored. Critical performance variables such as turnover or absenteeism are often not reported, or are reported without specifying how they were measured. Thus the benefits of flex-time (e.g., improved productivity) have usually been measured by a few subjective survey questions.5

This article was written by the above named authors in their own, private capacity. Although the article is concerned in part with certain events at the U.S. Social Security Administration, of- ficial support and endorsement by the Social Security Administra- tion is neither intended nor should it be inferred.

* Much field research now purports to demonstrate that flexible work hours reliably improve organizational performance, employee satisfaction and productivity, and management/employee relations, but this research usually relies on subjective measures and ignores important dimensions or organizational behavior. In an experiment at the U.S. Social Security Ad- ministration, "flex-time" elicited generally favorable subjective evaluations, but objective indicators of performance and employee commitment produced mixed results and there were tentative signs of declining supervisor/employee rapport. Sev- eral observations, including an unexpected rise in leave usage, suggested that employees valued flex-time principally for rewards obtained away from the work site. The analysis suggests several points of caution to guide future research: (1) Flex-time may augment the intrinsic rewards of work already enjoyed by white collar employees while reemphasizing the relative attractiveness of domestic life for blue collar employees; (2) The gains observed in prior research may reflect a "Hawthorne" effect and be short lived, and as enthusiasm for flex-time wanes, the alienating effects of problems not remedied by flex- time might reasonably be expected to reassert themselves with redoubled force; (3) Therefore, future research must be extended to encompass the effects of the entire work setting as well as employees' domestic interests; and (4) managers who rely on poorly conceived field research to test flex-time must be pre- pared to encounter unanticipated problems in the long-term.

Glenn W. Rainey, Jr., is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Eastern Kentucky University. He was employed by the U.S. Social Security Administration under the NASPAA Faculty Fellowship program in August, 1977, and re- mained with SSA until January, 1979.

Lawrence Wolf has been employed for 12 years with the U.S. So- cial Security Administration, serving in a variety of research functions as both personnel psychologist and statistician. His most recent educational achievements have been in the doctoral program in measurement and statistics at the University of Maryland, Col- lege Park.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981



FLEX-TIME 53

Where validated scales and objective measures of performance are lacking, one danger is that the subjectively assessed gains which are achieved may reflect the "Haw- thorne" effect-the desire of subjects to "succeed" under experimental conditions. And indeed, when objective measures have been used, the pay-offs of flex-time for employ- ers have been mixed, and advocates of the form have been reduced to the argument that it has no detectable negative effects.6 On the whole, the long-term effects of flex-time remain uncertain: gains in expressed satisfaction or subjectively assessed productivity have not been proven to en- dure,' and as this analysis will demonstrate, there is reason to temper optimism with concern. Advocates of flex-time have occasionally defended the

existing research base by arguing that there is too much of it to doubt that something good is happening, but bad research cannot prove that which it is not designed to prove, however much of it is done. Even assuming the validity of the existing research findings, there is no reason to assume that the organizations which have adopted flex-time are a representative sample of all organizations. They may, in the jargon of the diffusion of innovations, be "early adopters" whose very acceptance of the innovation marks them as ex- ceptional. As the innovation spreads, the organizations which utilize it may increasingly do so because of external pressure rather than because the innovation is appropriate to their particular circumstances.

Thus it is appropriate to continue research on flex-time, asking whether its effects are always positive, and seeking to discriminate between those circumstances in which the effects are positive and those in which they may be neutral or potentially negative. This article presents a secondary analysis of data generated during the pilot study and subsequent general adoption of flex-time in the headquarters of a large bureau of the U.S. Social Security Administration in Baltimore, Maryland. New empirical findings will provide some checks on the reliability of subjective data, will permit a tentative investigation of the association between socio- economic status of employees and the effects of flex-time, and will support some insights for both the manager and the researcher.

The data to be presented are derived from practical field research and therefore reflect some of the same constraints imposed upon previous studies. Validated attitude scales were not used, and strict rules protecting the privacy of research subjects prevented the accumulation of identifying information which would subsequently have permitted merged files on individual respondents. The analysis is therefore necessarily tentative and speculative in some respects. But the research did afford the opportunity to col- lect some hard, before-and-after data on aggregate employee performance, and to explore the significance of col- lective socio-economic status. These are important gains, given the current lack of sophistication in most of the flex- time research. The data can provide evidence to disconfirm prevailing hypotheses, and will support some conjecture about the relationship between flex-time and employee mo- tivation. In them, managers may find reasons to exercise a healthy caution in approaching personnel management innovations, and researchers may find a basis for generating new hypotheses.

The Bureau

The bureau processes claims for health-related emergency assistance from the public, keeps records on its clients, and extensively reviews both the continuing eligibility of clients and the accuracy of operations in both the headquarters unit and the field offices where cases originate. During the study and adoption of flex-time, the bureau headquarters was divided among eight operational divisions and several staff components. One operational division was experimental. It combined all of the functions of the other divisions in relatively small, complete process work groups. The approximate sizes of the divisions are shown in Table 1, in ascending rank by their most common salary grades.

The physical plant and composition of the work force produce some natural strains for the bureau. About 6,000 employees work in one crowded building with inadequate parking and limited public transportation service. Sixty- three percent of the work force is female, and a majority of

TABLE 1 Profile of Divisions in the Bureau

Division (and Functions) Employees Modal Grade(s) Operations services (clerical, mail and files) 1,050 3/4 Payments (preparing, entering, and revising data on clients) 1,500 8 Initial claims (approving some new claims, reviewing others from

field offices) 425 3/10/11 Process groups (experimental-all functions) 550 All Special inquiries (handling emergency cases and public inquiries) 325 9-11 Continuing eligibility (updating cases: changing eligibility or payment

status) 650 7/11/12 Work analysis (staff unit in operations) 25 12 Claims review (reviewing completed claims, adjudicating appeals) 650 10/12/13 Staff components (budget, personnel, systems and procedures,

space and equipment) 600 10-13





these are black, but the distribution by grade level is far from uniform. For example, while females occupy over 80 percent of the positions at or below GS-6, they incumber only about 30 percent of the positions in grades GS- 1 and above. The work itself involves the application of a complex legal and policy code, extensive reliance on electronic data processing and computer facilities, and maintenance of large volumes of individual case files and records. Em- ployees are generally required to be meticulous in dealing with details which are not intrinsically interesting. Two factors have historically compensated to assure performance: (1) a commitment among employees to help clients in legi- timate need, and (2) a tradition of "tight ship" supervision, characterized by heavy emphasis on punctuality and atten- tiveness to work. The demanding working conditions, the difficulty of getting to work, and large numbers of lower- graded employees, including many women with small chil- dren, have produced extensive problems with tardiness and absenteeism in recent years.

Flex-time was approached as a means of reducing the conflict between domestic and work-related demands on the employees' time. Under flex-time, minor domestic problems need not prevent an employee from doing a full day's work and, if reporting times could be dispersed, the transportation and parking problems might be eased. No formal provisions were made for "organization development" or manipulation of the relationship between supervisors and subordinates. The central interest of the management was neither to "infuse" the agency with "humanist values," nor to "keep up with the Joneses,"' but to achieve a mechanical adjustment in the interface of the employees' personal and occupational lives. The work flow being func- tionally subdivided to the level of the individual employee, the focus of the experiment was on individual morale and performance rather than team cooperation.

More general improvements in morale and work-related attitudes were a reasonable expectation, nonetheless. Ex- trinsic satisfactions would certainly be increased to the extent that the new system removed conflicts between job and personal life, but intrinsic satisfactions might also be increased both directly through expanded employee autonomy in planning work schedules, and indirectly to the extent that improved morale in the work place leads to increased achievement.

The Flex-Time Experiment

Flex-time was implemented in stages. A pilot study was initiated with a limited group of employees in December 1974. During the first nine months of the pilot, attitude changes among participating employees and supervisors were measured, and an experimental study of changes in productivity was conducted. The participants in this initial stage included 220 clerical workers in the operational services division, 95 benefits technicians in the payments division, and 45 data technicians in a staff unit. The system was gradually extended after the pilot until, by February 1976, about 2,000 employees were participating. The entire bureau went on flex-time in November 1977.

The flex-time system provided for uniform work days of 8'/2 hours. The core period was fixed between 9:30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M., with flexible bands from 6:30 to 9:30 A.M. and from 3:00 to 6:00 P.M. During the pilot study, time clocks activated by employee identification cards were used to record working hours. When flex-time was adopted bureau-wide, the clocks were replaced by a sign-in sheet at the supervisor's desk.' Supervisors were allowed to "flex" if they arranged to cover all units during the Il1l/2-hour work day.

The combination of the early shift with increased leave usage among lower-graded personnel strongly suggests thatflex-time has enhanced both the availability and attractiveness of off-the-job options for those employees. That flex-time may create incentives to avoid the work place should be apparent to anyone who has worked under such a system.

This approach, it should be noted, denied the employees some of the freedoms available under other systems. The fixed core from 9:30 to 3:00 reflected a feeling on the part of management that the interdependence of functions between individuals was sufficient that the organization's performance would be negatively affected if all the units were not completely staffed during at least the majority of the day. Budgeting and legal constraints prevented the employees from varying the length of the work day, or routinely working into the evening. Compensation regulations provided for a "night shift differential," under which employees working before 6:00 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M. re- ceived a 10 percent increment over normal salary. Under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act which pertained at the time, employees could not be worked more than 81/2 hours unless they were paid overtime. The new system was, nonetheless, more than adequate to the purposes of management, since it allowed employees to take care of minor domestic problems during "regular working hours" and still put in a full day's work for the bureau. The plan was strongly supported by the employee union.

The pilot study explored the effects of flex-time on both attitudes and objective performance. Attitudinal effects were measured through a survey questionnaire which was directly administered to 265 of the participating employees and 19 supervisors at the beginning of the experiment, and again at the mid-point (late March 1975) to a group of 289 employees and 19 supervisors. The small number of supervisors made statistically significant variations in their responses very improbable. The responses are interpreted below because they formed a pattern that added meaningful if circumstantial information to the analysis of the employees' responses (the principal focus of the report), and because they can help to generate hypotheses for future research.

Three areas of attitudinal impact were explored: (a) Ex- pectations concerning the effects of flex-time on employee job satisfaction, as well as quantity and quality of produc-




FLEX-TIME 55

tion were measured by matched questions among both employees and supervisors; (b) Satisfaction with job and working conditions were subjectively assessed both before and during the pilot, permitting comparison with expectations and revealing actual changes; (c) Subjective assessments of the effects of flex-time were also explored for both supervisors and employees in areas such as tardiness, work quality, attitudes toward supervision, expectations regarding autonomy on the job, attitudes toward rules and regulations, and opportunities to spend more time with families.

Behavioral data included an analysis of leave usage for all three experimental units, an analysis of requests for transfer, and a quasi-experimental analysis of productivity for the benefits technicians in the payments division. After the entire work force went on flex-time, further data were collected on turnover and leave usage, before and after implementation of the system. The procedures used in gather- ing these data will be described later, immediately prior to the discussion of the findings.

The secondary analysis sought answers for three inter- related questions: (1) What positive or negative expectations were carried into the experiment and to what extent were they reinforced and/or borne out by objective experience with the system? (2) How were relations (mutual expectations and perceptions) between supervisors and subordinates affected-what evidence was there of increased cooperation and/or rapport? (3) What was the nature of satisfactions derived (extrinsic/intrinsic or job related/non-job related), and what implications might be drawn for the long-term effects of flex-time?

Results-Subjective Evaluations

Simply interpreted, the subjective evaluations of flex- time by the participants in the pilot parallel previous favorable research. Potentially negative effects are indicated by contingencies and longitudinal changes in the responses and by some objective behavioral indicators.

Subjective Expectations

Supervisors and employees shared a positive general reaction to flex-time as an institution, and showed some optimism concerning its effects on productivity and job satisfaction. Table 2 shows responses to the relevant survey questions. Flex-time was strongly endorsed as an "improvement" in rules and regulations, before and during the pilot (Table 2, A). Large numbers of supervisors and employees (30 to 40 percent) indicated at the outset that they were uncertain as to the effect of flex-time on qualitative or quantitative productivity. By the mid-point, substantial majorities (58 percent or more) expected no effect on productivity. The minorities who expected improved productivity had increased significantly (Table 2, B and C). Both before and during the pilot, substantial percentages of employees and supervisors indicated that they expected employee job satisfaction to improve (Table 2, D). A first point of caution, however, is that the percentage of employees who expected greater satisfaction dropped significantly during the pilot (to 42 percent) while the percentage of supervisors expecting greater employee satisfaction increased (to 84 percent). This change suggests a

TABLE 2 Expectations for Productivity and Job Satisfaction Before and During the Flex-Time Pilot

Questionnaire items (for employees/for supervisors): A. "What is your overall reaction to the list of Flextime rules and regulations?" B. "What effect do you think having flexible work hours will have on the quantity of work (you turn out?/turned out

by your unit?)" C. "What effect do you think having flexible work hours will have on the accuracy of (your work?/work turned out

by your component?)" D. "What effect do you think flexible hours will have on how well (you/your employees) like (your/their) jobs?"

Percent Expecting "Improvement" A. Rules B. Quantity C. Quality D. Job

Employees Before 89 15 16 50 Mid-point 84 31 25 42

Supervisors Before 89 21 16 63 Mid-point 72 26 11 84

*Changes significant by Chi-square (p < .05), with 3 d.f. in all tests.





TABLE 3 Changes in Assessed Satisfaction with Job and Working Conditions Before and Dwing Flex-Time Pilot

Questionnaire items:

A. "At the present time, how do you rate your job satisfaction?" (Very high, High, Moderate, Low, or Very low)

B. "At the present time, how do you rate the working conditions in your component?" (Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, or Poor)

Percent Rating "High" or "Very High"

A. Job B. Working Satisfaction Conditions

Employees Before 2 1 16 Mid-point 37 22

Supervisors Before 16 37 Mid-point 22 16

*Changes significant by Chi-square (p < .05), with 4 d.f. in both tests.

divergence in perceptions of what would "satisfy" the employees, and the gap widened under flex-time.

Changes in Assessed Satisfaction

Expressed satisfaction with jobs and working conditions, profiled in Table 3, did improve among employees during the pilot study. The changes in each category of the five- point scales used to measure satisfaction were moderate,

but every category revealed an upward shift. Satisfaction with working conditions increased more moderately. The importance of these gains is tempered, however, by a majority of employees rating satisfaction with both their jobs and working conditions less than "high" even after experience with flex-time.

The responses of the supervisors are somewhat perplexing. The supervisors showed little improvement in job satisfaction and a moderate decline in satisfaction with working conditions, despite having flex-time and seeing problems with tardiness eliminated (Table 4, A). The system does create some complications for supervisors since it must be monitored to ensure that important responsibilities (such as incoming phone calls) are covered throughout the day. But the great majority of supervisors indicated that if flex-time had any effect on their jobs, it would only make them more interesting (Table 4, B). In terms of data available from the pilot study, the only sup- portable explanation for increased supervisory concern over working conditions was that the new system violated norms of rigor and discipline in work. Asked about the severity or laxity of rules and regulations, nine of 18 supervisors who responded in the pre-test sample indicated a feeling that there was already too much laxity. Only 3 percent of the employees indicated a similar feeling. An additional seven (39 percent) of the supervisors felt existing rules were "about right," while only two (11 percent) felt rules and regulations were too strict. This question was omitted from the mid-term survey, and the effects of experience with flex-time upon perceptions of organizational laxity are unknown.

Employee assessments of specific effects of flex-time, displayed in Table 5, do indicate a heightened interest in autonomy and suggest expectations of greater personal responsibility: Desire to "have a say" in work hours, already strong before the pilot, became stronger by the mid-point (Table 5, A). Subtantial majorities expected tardiness to decline (Table 5, B), and nearly 40 percent expected sick leave usage to decline as well (Table 5, C), even though most ex-

TABLE 4 Reactions of Supervisors to Flex-Time Before and During Pilot Study

A. "(Under Flex-time,) How much of a problem is tardiness in your component?"

Pre-test (n=19) Mid-point (n=19) Moderate, Serious, or Very Serious .89% 16% No Problem ............ ........................ 11% 84%

B. "What effect (does/will) Flex-time have on the way you do your job?"

Pre-test (n=19) Mid-point (n=18) More Complicated and Difficult ..... ............... 21% 11% Little Effect ........... ........................ 37% 56% More Complicated but More Interesting ..... ......... 26% 28% Easier .......... .............................. 5% 6% Uncertain . ..................................... 11%

*Change significant by Chi-square (p <.05), with 1 d.f.




FLEX-TIME 57

TABLE 5 Employee Reactions to Flex-Time Before and During Pilot Study

A. "How important is it to you to 'have a say' in deciding your work hours?"

Pre-test Mid-point "Very important". 52% 68% "Somewhat" important or unimportant ...... ......... 48% 32%

B. "Under your present work hours, how often do problems arise that make it impossible for you to get to work on time or make it necessary for you to leave during the day?"

Pre-test Mid-point "Often" or "Very Often" . .................. 22% 7% "Sometimes," "Seldom," or "Never" .78% 93%

C. "How do you think your having flexible work hours will affect your use of sick leave?"

Pre-test Mid-point Will use less . ..................................... 38% 39% Will use same, or uncertain .......................... 62% 61%

D. "To what extent will your being on flex-time allow you to spend more time with your family or participate in additional outside activities?"

Pre-test Mid-point "To a very great extent. .25% 31% "To some extent" .44% 45% "To little or no extent" .31% 24%

E. "Presently, how do you feel about the supervision you receive?"

Pre-test Mid-point "Very Good" or "Excellent" .34% 39% "Good" .31% 37% "Fair" or "Poor" .............. 35% 24%

*Changes statistically significant by Chi-square (p < .05) with 3 d.f. for "A" and 4 d.f. for "B."

pected to spend more time with families (Table 5, D). That satisfaction with supervision did not improve significantly (Table 5, E) may be attributed to awareness by the employees of the supervisors' disciplinary orientation, and/or to different perspectives on employee job satisfaction.

The Rewards of Flex-Time

Declining managerial control over employees need not interfere with organizational productivity if rewards intrinsic to the work are provided to employees who value them, or if improved extrinsic rewards are given to employees whose values will sustain the obligation to earn the rewards through improved performance. While the research instruments were not explicitly designed to explore employee values, analysis of contingencies within the responses together with some ad hoc observations of behavior under flex-time strongly suggest that the rewards derived from flex-time were principally extrinsic in character. Specifically:

(1) In fact, the "flexibility" in flex-time was and is rarely used. Both during the pilot and in the bureau at large, over 90 percent of the work force have reported in by 7:00 A.M. and left by 3:30, creating in effect a new general work shift.


In part, this response reflects the difficulty latecomers would have in parking near the building, but informal interviews also elicited such reasons as shopping, recreation, and travel, and conveyed little sense that work and non- work interests were being balanced and integrated.

(2) That so many employees expected to "spend more time" with their families, even though the work day would remain fixed at 8?2 hours, suggests that they anticipated and sought a major qualitative change in their lives away from work. In fact, flex-time could not have produced major gains in personal time for the employees. The "early shift" response had the effect of advancing traffic congestion around the work site to earlier hours. Arrivals and departures were spaced over a period of about a half an hour, but the work shifts assigned to employees prior to adoption of flex-time had also been dispersed to reduce traffic congestion, and the actual gains in travel time afforded to the employees could not, in most cases, have been very great. This would have been particularly true for many of the lower graded employees who depended upon spe- cially scheduled public transit buses that served the site. Nonetheless, the expectation that more time would be




available for family affairs rose during the pilot. A strong inference must be drawn that there was, in fact, not so much additional time available to these employees, but a new and valued range of freedom in the kinds of activities that could be pursued after work hours.

(3) Initially, a majority of employees who "wanted a say" in setting their work hours were also those who indicated serious problems in getting to work, and whose desire for control may well have been spurred by domestic rather than work-site interests.

(4) Satisfaction with working conditions, it will be re- membered, did not increase as much as general job satisfaction, and the percentage expecting improved satisfaction fell during the pilot. Clearly, some of the employees' expectations were not met, and the relative depression in satisfaction with working conditions suggests that the ones who were disillusioned were those who had expected improvements in "the work itself." Expectations of improved satisfaction would therefore have been borne out principally for those who did not expect improvements in the work experience, per se, and given the nature of the work environment probably did not expect improvements at the work site. For these employees, the rewards of flex-time and their improved job satisfaction would have derived from developments entirely apart from the work place. An alternate explanation is that improved satisfaction with the job reflects improved relations with supervisors, since tardiness was eliminated as a source of conflict. As we have noted, however, satisfaction with supervision did not improve significantly.

... general improvements in morale and work-related attitudes were a reasonable expectation.... Extrinsic satisfactions would certainly be increased to the extent that the new system removed conflicts between job and personal life, but intrinsic satisfactions might also be increased both directly through expanded employee autonomy in planning work schedules, and indirectly to the extent that improved morale in the work place leads to increased achievement.

(5) During the pilot, the flex-time machinery was activated when employees inserted plastic identification cards into slots in the machines and left them there. A series of notches in the end of the card identified the employee and controlled the clock. Supervisors were equipped with pass keys, which had a distinctive pattern cut into the end of the card, and employees observed the pass keys in use. When the machinery was removed at the end of the pilot, supervisors collected from desk tops and other open spaces small bundles of counterfeit pass keys cut from pieces of plastic available in the work areas. An undetermined but appar- ently substantial number of employees had presumably used these pass keys to check each other in and out, and to be able to leave the building during a period when the cards were required for readmission.'"

The background against which these observations were made must be borne constantly in mind: the nature of the work performed by these employees, the physical environment in which it was performed, and the nature of the relationship between the employees and their supervisors re- mained fundamentally unchanged. The work-repetitive and exacting for a majority of employees-would be expected to encourage escape, and recent revelations of extensive drug use in some of the units of SSA in Baltimore have been associated with occupational boredom and frustration by the popular press." While no one of our observations, in and of itself, is sufficient to prove the externality of employee interests, they do form a striking pattern when taken together in the overall context.

Results-Objective Performance

Objective measures of job performance and job commitment included leave usage, experimentally controlled productivity, and separations. The existing literature common- ly expreses the expectation that flex-time will reduce absenteeism and turnover, and increase productivity."

During the pilot, a full-range experiment measuring both productivity and leave usage was conducted in an experimental and a control unit. The participants were all benefits technicians performing routinized and meticulous paper processing, preparing the forms to enter a claim to a computerized system for initiation of, or adjustment to bene- ficiary payments. The work is principally computational and clerical with some elements of judgment about the application of policy. The output is measurable: quantity was defined as the number of cases (folders) completed, divided by total number of hours worked (including overtime), multiplied by eight to indicate an average daily figure for an entire section. (Ideally, productivity would have been measured on an individual basis, but the prevailing union agree- ment precluded collection of individual production data, even for research purposes.) Quality may be defined as the ratio of chargeable errors found on review to the total number of cases reviewed in a section during a given month, expressed in percentage terms.

The two sections ("A" being the experimental group and "C" being the control group) differed from each other in certain respects which related to the experiment. Section C included two components working on complex and legally sensitive cases, assumed to take longer to process than regular cases. Section A included one unit working on simpler cases requiring substantially less processing time than regular cases. To ensure that all subjects were doing com- parable work, the production ratios of components doing anything other than a standard case load were excluded from the production statistics for the two sections. The output of these two sections was then compared between a base period from June 1974 through September 1974, and an experimental period from March 1975 through Septem- ber 1975. The intervening period of five months was set aside as a transitional period.

In December 1974, the bureau adopted a new processing form which consolidated the functions of two other forms




IFLEX-TIME 59

previously used in handling the bulk of the payments function, eliminated large amounts of hand calculation, and instead allowed technicians to manually adjust computations in interaction with the computerized system. The new system reflected a shift in management's priorities from quantity to quality of output, but the adoption of the new processing component was exclusively a mechanical innovation. No changes were made in basic task structures, or in the prescribed responsibilities of either supervisors or employees. The new form simply transferred to the computer the function of carrying out certain calculations which had previously been performed by the technicians. Management expected the new form to increase the quality (accuracy under review) of cases processed, but to reduce average processing speed (since some of the simpler cases would be screened out and worked automatically by the computer). The experiment therefore had to incorporate the expectation that sections A and C would both show uniform in- creases in quality of production and uniform decreases in quantity, unless the introduction of flex-time offset the effects oi the new form.

Following adoption of flex-time by the bureau, additional data were collected on separations and leave usage, before and after the changeover. Analysis of changes in bureau-wide productivity was obviated by technical diffi- culties. To illustrate: the bureau processes a variety of case actions, characterized by differing ranges of difficulty, paths of progression through the operating divisions, and variations in case loads. Consolidation of production figures for the various actions into a reliable overall indicator, adjusted for hours worked, would have required another major research project. Controlled experimentation was

therefore the only practicable means of reliably measuring productivity.

Leave Usage-Results

Leave usage is not a completely elastic variable: Under federal regulations, an employee can carry over 240 hours of annual leave from one year to the next, and many older employees will have accumulated this amount. Lower graded employees and young employees who have exhausted their annual leave for a given year tend to treat sick leave as a second allocation of annual leave. Leave-without-pay and absence-without-leave are other, more desperate and infre- quently used means by which the unhappy employee may seek to escape the work setting.

In the experimental unit, annual leave usage increased from an average of 21 ?4 hours per employee in March 1974 to nearly 25 hours in March 1975. Duration per occurrence also increased from an average of four hours to an average of 43/4 hours over the same period. Despite employee expectations to the contrary, average sick leave usage also increased from 19 hours in March 1974 to 24 hours in March 1975. In the control unit, annual leave usage increased approximately four hours per employee over the experimental period, and increased in duration per occurrence from 4.2 to 5 hours. Sick leave usage rose by 6 hours per employee.

While the experiment was being conducted, leave usage was also being tracked for the same time periods for other employees participating in the initial trial of flex-time. For the data technicians in a quality assurance unit, average annual leave usage rose from 23 to 32 hours, and average sick leave usage increased from 17 to 30 hours. For the clerical workers in the operational services division, average annual

TABLE 6 Winter and Spring Leave Usage as Percentage of Total Hours Worked,

Before and After Adoption of Flex-Tume

Sick Leave, AWOL, Total Hours (000's) Annual Leave as Percentage LWOP as Percentage

Divisions Before After Before After Change Before After Change

I. Winter: 20 weeks, mid-October to late February, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978

Operations Services ...... ...... 929 1,080 6.2 7.0 + .8 7.8 10.3 +2.5 Payments .......... ......... 1,225 1,295 6.0 7.3 +1.3 6.7 7.9 +1.2 Initial Claims, Process Groups,

and Special Inquiries ..... .... 1,044 1,111 7.2 8.1 + .9 6.8 7.1 + .3 Continuing Eligibility, Work

Analysis, Claims Review and Administration .............. 1,609 1,622 7.2 8.1 + .9 7.0 7.3 + .3

Bureau Totals ........ ........ 4,827 5,136 6.7 7.6 + .9 7.1 8.1 +1.0

II. Spring: 14 weeks, late February to early June, 1977 and 1978

Operations Services ...... ...... 684 734 5.6 5.9 + .3 7.6 10.0 +2.4 Payments .......... ......... 925 908 5.8 5.9 + .1 7.2 7.3 + .1 Initial Claims, Process Groups,

and Special Inquiries ..... .... 733 786 6.4 6.1 - .3 6.6 7.6 +1.1 Continuing Eligibility, Work

Analysis, Claims Review and Administration ...... ....... 1,113 1,109 6.4 6.2 - .2 7.4 7.7 + .3

Bureau Totals ........ ........ 3,496 3,547 6.0 6.1 + .1 7.3 8.0 + .7





leave usage rose from 22 to 27 hours, and average sick leave usage rose from 20 to 23 hours.

Adoption of flex-time by the entire bureau afforded an additional opportunity to track changes in leave usage, with the results shown in Table 6. Annual leave usage increased moderately but on a broad front following adoption of flex-time, particularly during the winter months. During the spring, some divisions did show a reduction in annual leave usage compared to the identical period in the preced- ing year, but the bureau as a whole registered a slight increase. Absenteeism other than annual leave was con- sistently and substantially higher during both the winter and spring following adoption of flex-time. In several divisions the use of sick leave, leave-without-pay, and AWOL jumped to levels over 15 percent higher than the year before. The increase was strongest in the services division, which has the lowest salary grades.

These results are striking in two respects: First, the fact that leave usage rose both in the pilot study and again after the bureau adopted flex-time strongly implies that the in- creases are related to flex-time. Other factors which might bridge the gap between the prq- and post-experimental periods or recur in the pilot and at the time of general adoption -e.g., weather, epidemics, and work-load or labor force trends-could not readily be identified. Moreover, any form of increased absenteeism under flexible work hours must be regarded as highly perplexing, especially when it occurs among the lower graded employees, who would include disproportionate numbers of single parents likely to be kept briefly away from work by minor domestic problems. Flex-time by definition reduces the necessity of such absenteeism. Yet the intended effect on leave usage did not occur in this instance.

Increased leave usage among the members of the control group may have reflected an effort by the control group to enjoy the same new freedom as the experimental group. No conclusive data were collected on this point, but it is a viable hypothesis which should certainly be subjected to additional research.

Productivity-Results

The results of the productivity experiment, shown in Table 7, indicate a substantial and approximately equal increase in accuracy of output for both experimental and control sections, which may be attributed to the new processing procedure. Quantity of output, however, fell significantly (p < .01) in the control unit and not in the experimental unit. Although many other factors in the field environment might have contributed to these results, at least part of Sec- tion E's ability to maintain its case output level at a time when quantity for both sections was expected to drop significantly can reasonably be attributed to beneficial effects from flex-time. Moreover, since we are dealing with an hourly productivity rate, there is some reason to believe that the improvement reflects improved attitudinal factors -i.e., commitment, enthusiasm, or sense of responsibility -rather than mechanical factors such as reduced tardiness.

Separations-Results

Separations were not compared during the pilot study because record keeping systems made collection of the needed data difficult, but applications for reassignment did decline in the experimental units, from 7 percent to 2 percent. By the time flexible work hours were adopted bureau-wide, modifications in record keeping systems facilitated a before/after comparison of personnel losses to the bureau.'3 During the late fall and winter following the adoption of flex-time, neither the bureau nor any of its divisions experienced a significant drop in rates of separation, in comparison to the previous year.'4 During the spring, significant (p < .05) declines in separation rates were observed in the services division (from 8.4 percent to 4.5 percent of staff on duty) and in the payments division (from 4.6 to 3.1 percent). Principally reflecting the changes in these two divisions, the bureau experienced a significant drop from 4.3 to 3.4 percent. These figures suggest some relationship between flex-time and separations, particularly in the lower-

TABLE 7 Effects of Flex-Time on Quantity and Quality of Production

Experimental Unit Control Unit

Cases Total Average Cases Total Average Quantity Processed Hours per 8 Hours Processed Hours per 8 Hours

Base period 34,173 20,611 13.3 15,118 8,315 14.6 Experimental period 82,788 50,577 13.1 34,358 25,359 10.8 Difference - .2 -3.8*

Cases Total % Cases Total % Quality Reviewed Errors Accuracy Reviewed Errors Accuracy

Base period 4,097 438 89.3 3,013 223 92.6 Experimental period 7,314 609 91.7 6,613 339 94.9 Difference +2.4* +2.3*

*Change is statistically significant by Chi-square (p < .01)




FLEX-TIME 61

graded divisions, but the joint association with these divisions and with the spring period remains obscure. One possibility is that flex-time affects separations after some delay, but only additional research will provide a definitive picture of the relationship.

Summary and Discussion

The bureau achieved some fundamental and important short-term gains through flex-time. Expressed satisfaction with jobs and working conditions was up, moderately but significantly, and in a controlled field experiment quantity of production appeared to be stimulated. Tardiness was largely eliminated as a point of contention between supervisors and employees.

Important cautionary signs appeared as well, particularly for the long term. In the first place, several objective indicators of commitment and performance were not improved: The use of sick leave and related absenteeism increased despite employee expectations to the contrary; no decisive improvement was found in separation rates; and quality of production rose as much in the control group as in the experimental group during the pilot. Moreover, the elimination of tardiness as a point of issue did not decisively improve management-employee relations: Expressed satisfaction with supervision did not improve significantly during the pilot, and an apparent difference in perceptions of what would satisfy the employees was exacerbated (although we should note again in this context that our sample of managers was very small).

The overall results suggest four areas of concern which merit greater attention:

1. Employee Interests vs. the Job Experience

Our findings add to a growing body of research which suggests that flex-time enhances intrinsic rewards principally for white collar employees, whose work already tends to confer autonomy in work scheduling. For blue collar and clerical personnel, flex-time may re-emphasie the relative unattractiveness of the job experience. Rather than confer- ring a natural O.D. or enrichment effect, flex-time appears to amplify the effects of existing reward structures. To illustrate the point, varied reporting times have been a char- acteristic primarily of professionals in previous research. The "early shift" pattern observed among Social Security employees performing highly routinized tasks has been seen before principally among government workers and business employees of the lower or middle echelons.'5 The combination of the early shift with increased leave usage among lower-graded personnel strongly suggests that flex-time has enhanced both the availability and attractiveness of off-the-job options for those employees. That flex-time may create incentives to avoid the work place should be apparent to anyone who has worked under such a system. A long week-end lasting from noon on Friday to noon on Monday would have required a full eight hours of leave time prior to flex-time, but can now be arranged for 51/2 hours at Social Security, and an entire morning or after- noon can be freed for two or three hours of leave instead of


four or five. Small increments of leave thus free the employee for a greatly enhanced personal life, and the work site may become all the more unattractive by comparison.

2. Short-Term Rewards vs. Long-Term Alienation

Therefore, where flex-time is used to improve extrinsic rewards for intrinsically frustrating work, the gains experienced may be short-lived, reflecting the desire of experimental subjects to succeed under experimental conditions, or the temporary effects of emotional enthusiasm stemming from better extrinsic rewards. The long-term consequence may be to increase rather than reduce the alienation and cynicism of employees who value intrinsically rewarding work. For example, the increased value which large numbers of employees attached to autonomy in work scheduling during the pilot study at the bureau might stimulate a desire for autonomy in other work-related areas-a desire which management might not be able and/or willing to in- dulge. Moreover, if our speculation that off-the-job rewards were enhanced relative to rewards at the work site is correct, the gradual evaporation of enthusiasm over the gift of flexible hours would leave as its residual a work force all the more intensely involved in the pursuit of domestic goals and satisfactions, and would create the opportunity for an even more disadvantageous comparison of experiences at the work site with those in the home or community.

The point may be illustrated more specifically through the issue of personal freedom. As we indicated earlier, the enthusiasts for flex-time have interpreted it as a source of generalized freedom for the individual. But the foregoing discussion should make clear that flex-time does not necessarily confer freedom from any aspect of employee frustration other than rules about when to report for work. The attributes of the adopting organizations or units-e.g., task designs, extrinsic reward systems, managerial styles, and organizational "cultures" -are crucial variables, which have been largely ignored in flex-time research. In an organization characterized by unpleasant work and heave discipline, even the poorest employees may reasonably be expected to enjoy more personal autonomy in their private pursuits than they will at the work site. Thus, in both management/employee relations at the work site, and in com- parisons which employees will draw between the rewards of their work experiences and the rewards of their private lives, flexible work hours may ultimately reinforce the feeling of employees that they are exploited. Such an effect may, of course, be sufficiently delayed that it will not be thought of as a consequence of flex-time, and indeed the mere adoption of flex-time itself would probably not be enough to ensure such consequences. Where flex-time is adopted specifically as a stop-gap measure or a conveni- ence, and in a form deliberately chosen to ensure that work routines and interpersonal relationships remain as little changed as possible, our anticipation of possible future dif- ficulties does not seem very remarkable or prescient.

From this perspective, the relatively limited or con- strained model of flex-time adopted by the bureau at SSA may have contributed to employee escapism. The rules of the system were specifically intended to preserve as much as possible of existing task structures, work environments,




and expectations regarding supervisor/employee relations. The employees could not help but realize that their work experiences had in fact changed little. In the absence of other changes (and SSA is, in fact, adopting other innovations), employees might sooner or later conclude, correctly or incorrectly, that maintenance of the status quo was the true interest of the management.

Specific predictions concerning long-term developments at Social Security cannot be made because the research design did not encompass personal orientations to work or work-related values among employees, or allow for systematic comparison of the bureau to other adopting organizations in terms of measurable attributes. Future research must now take the responsibility for dealing with such variables, or for ignoring them.

3. Domestic vs. Work Life

The scope of future research therefore offers a third area of concern. The advocates of flex-time see it as a remedy for employee alienation and disappointment with work, and attribute its benefits to the alleviation of these problems; but alienation might reasonably be distinguished from indifference. In this regard, our finding that flex-time was associated with increased leave usage among some lower-echelon employees in a particular organization bears an intriguing relationship with Dubin's extensive research on Central Life Interest."6 Dubin has found that workers of lower socio-economic status tend to be characterized by a non-work central life interest, and that such a central life interest is, in turn, negatively associated with organizational commitment. A dual issue is raised: for employees who have some degree of interest, or potential for develop- ing interest in the work they do, flex-time may become part

of a general managerial effort to improve cooperation and / or involvement in work. If employees are firmly committed to non-work interests, however, and regard work totally as an instrument for gaining other ends, it is difficult to see how flex-time can have any effect but to serve and / or inten- sify their domestic interests in the manner we have described.

Cultural values may, of course, intervene in this linkage. Strong work ethic, for example, may induce employees to invest as much or more of their energy in their work when they are given flex-time, on the grounds that they must earn the benefits of freedom to choose their work hours. None- theless, research which focuses only upon the occupational and organizational orientations of employees, to the exclu- sion of their domestic goals and related values or attitudes, may inadvertently overlook key factors determining the response of a group of employees to flexible work hours.

4. Seductive Simplicity vs. Managerial Virtue

Finally, given the range of questions which remain to be answered, managers might appropriately be cautioned against the seductiveness of flex-time. It can be implemented more easily than many other personnel reforms, without raising major policy issues, and it confers a sense of control over events. It has not been unusual for state and federal managers to implement the system without even seeing systematic research or to feel reassured when short-term research indicates subjective gains or an absence of objective losses.'7 Assured avoidance of unacceptable long-term costs will require much more rigorous, longitudinal, non- reactive research than we now have concerning the long- term interplay between flex-time and personal values in the work setting.

Notes

1. For recent favorable reviews, see: William F. Glueck, "Changing Hours of Work: A Review and Analysis of the Research," The Personnel Administrator, March 1979, pp. 44-47, 62-66; and two articles by Robert T. Golembiewski and Carl W. Proehl, Jr., "A Survey of the Empirical Liter- ature on Flexible Workhours: Characteristics and Conse- quences of a Major Innovation," Academy of Management Review, 3 (October 1978), pp. 837-853, and "Public Sector Applications of Flexible Workhours: A Review of Available Experience," Public Administration Review, 40 (January/ February 1980), pp. 72-85.

2. For example: Robert T. Golembiewski, Samuel Yeager, and Rick Hilles, "Factor Analysis of Some Flexitime Effects: At- titudinal and Behavioral Consequences of a Structural Inter- vention," Academy of Management Review, 18 (1975), pp. 500-509; Robert T. Golembiewski, Rick Hilles, and Munro S. Kagno, "A Longitudinal Study of Flexi-Time Effects: Some Consequences of an OD Structural Intervention," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10 (1974), pp. 503-532; and Allan R. Cohen and Harman Gadon, Alternative Work Schedules: Integrating Individual and Organizational Needs (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978), esp. pp. 107-122.

3. E.g., Frank T. Morgan, "Your (Flex) Time May Come," Personnel Journal, February 1977, pp. 82-85, 96-97.

4. Golembiewski and Proehl, 1978.

5. For example: William H. Holley, Jr., Achilles A. Armenakis, and Hubert S. Feild, Jr., "Employee Reactions to a Flexitime Program: A Longitudinal Study," Human Resource Man agement, Winter 1976, pp. 21-23; James Walker, Clive Flet- cher, and Donald McLeod, "Flexible Working Hours in Two British Government Offices," Public Personnel Manage- ment, July-August 1975, pp. 216-222; and also Golembiew- ski, Hilles, and Kagno.

6. See Virginia E. Schein, Elizabeth H. Maurer, and Jan F. Novak, "Impact of Flexible Working Hours on Productiv- ity," Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (1977), pp. 463-465.

7. In an exceptionally rigorous effort, Golembiewski, Hilles, and Kagno accumulated results over a period of a year, but their subjects were research scientists in R&D laboratories

and, as subsequent analysis will demonstrate, this raises some questions about the generalizability of their findings.

8. The terminology is from Golembiewski and Proehl, 1978. 9. Several reasons account for removal of the clocks: (1) un-

necessary expense; (2) the employees found ways to circum- vent them (to be described later); and (3) the clocks were initially viewed by at least some managers as a means of con- trolling employee movements and increasing security- guards were to prevent anyone from entering or leaving the building without their identification cards, which had to be left in the clocks if they were to record working time. The re-




FLEX-TIME 63

quirement was vacated in court action. 10. See note 9, above. 11. "Drug Abuse Probed at Social Security," Denver Post (AP),

December 8, 1979. 12. E.g., Glueck. 13. "Losses" to the bureau encompass both separations from

government service and transfers, including "promotions out," to other agencies. "Other agencies" may, and often does, include other agencies within the Social Security Ad- ministration. These figures are analyzed on the assumption that the long time periods covered in the analysis will even out variations in promotion or transfers and allow the impact of flex-time upon separations to be accurately detected. The possibility of contamination by other factors remains, to some extent, and the findings should be considered prelimi- nary and suggestive, rather than conclusive.

14. The time periods used to define "winter" and "spring" are the same as those used in Table 6.

15. Generally earlier starting times were noted among female employees of an airline accounting department by Holley, Armenakis, and Feild; among government employees in

Great Britain by Walker, Fletcher, and McLeod; and among government employees in New York State by Robert T. Donahue, "Flex Time Systems in New York," Public Per- sonnel Management, July-August 1975, pp. 212-215. Dis- persed reporting times were observed among research scientists by Golembiewski, Hilles, and Kagno.

16. For a particularly pertinent piece, including additional bib- liography, see Robert Dubin, Joseph E. Champoux, and Ly- man W. Porter, "Central Life Interests and Organizational Commitment of Blue Collar and Clerical Workers," Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 20 (September 1975), pp. 411-421.

17. Confidential interviews with staff analysts indicate that on at least some occasions managers under pressure from unions or elected officials to adopt flex-time have expunged from evaluation instruments those items which have the best potential for revealing negative consequences-e.g., measures of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, turnover, leave usage, and personal attitudes toward work. The dangers of this approach should be obvious.

Ideology and Performance: Service Delivery in a Community Mental Health Center Sherri N. Sheinfeld and Thomas W. Weirich,* Hahnemann Medical College

and Hospital

Human service organizations are fundamentally ideological. The administration of human service organization is a political challenge, demanding inspirational ideological leadership and the skillful orchestration of power relations. Planning and decision making are more political action than technical wizardry.

The purposes of this paper are to describe the various ideological paradigms that were discovered within a single community mental health center, and to explore the asso- ciations of these ideologies with other organizational factors. Implications of these findings for organizational change, policy, and implementation are discussed, focusing especially upon administrative planning and decision making. The intent is to contribute to the growing body of knowledge about agency management, organizational poli- tics, and planned change.

The Framework

Human service organizations are political entities; ideology is a basic fact of their existence.' There are three aspects which are especially important; mission, service paradigm,

*The authors contributed equally to the research, and are listed in alphabetical order.


* This study examines the relationships between ideology and service delivery performance in an established community mental health center which is beginning major structural changes. Ideological pluralism among several separate and internally- cohesive units within one organization led to diversity in staff productivity. The implications of ideological pluralism for planned organizational change, policy implementation and administration are explored.

and structure. First, human service organizations are mission oriented, in that they are committed to broad social purposes, and specific goals remain ambiguous.2 ". . . The

Sherri N. Sheinfeld, M.S.W., is the coordinator of the Research and Evaluation Team and an assistant professor, Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. Her major research interests include: organizational decision making and strategic planning, the ethics of social research, and measures of cost-effectiveness in the human services.

Thomas W. Weirich, Ph.D., is senior researcher at the John F. Kennedy Community Mental Health Center and assistant professor, Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital. He has worked in and researched income maintenance, social services, and mental health programs. His present research concerns the political economy of public organizations, institutional change, and performance assessment.



Documents

Flex-Time: Short-Term Benefits; Long-Term...?